Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) as well for his leadership on the U.S.- Morocco Free Trade Agreement. I am a free trader and believe that free trade helps our Nation and the nations of the world. However, I am deeply concerned about the issue of Western Sahara, and I have had concerns that the U.S. needed to make clear that this free trade agreement covers only the internationally- and the U.S.-recognized borders of Morocco and does not include the disputed territory of Western Sahara. It is my understanding that the language in the conference report makes clear that the free trade agreement does not cover resources, goods, services, or any other entity related to trade that originates in Western Sahara.

I would ask the gentleman, does the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement cover trade with the disputed territory of Western Sahara?

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I thank the chairman for that clarification.

The following is a letter from USTR making clear that we do not support Morocco's claim over the Western Sahara and the FTA does not recognize or include the Western Sahara.

Executive Office of the President, the United States

Trade Representative,

Washington, DC, July 20, 2004.

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Pitts: Thank you for your letter of July

19, 2004, concerning our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with

Morocco and the status of Western Sahara.

The Administration's position on Western Sahara is clear:

sovereignty of Western Sahara is in dispute, and the United

States fully supports the United Nations' effort to resolve

this issue. The United States and many other countries do not

recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara and have

consistently urged the parties to work with the United

Nations to resolve the conflict by peaceful means.

The FTA will cover trade and investment in the territory of

Morocco as recognized internationally, and will not include

Western Sahara. As our Harmonized Tariff Schedule makes

clear, for U.S. Customs purposes, the United States treats

imports from Western Sahara and Morocco differently. Nothing

in the FTA will require us to change this practice. The

Administration will draft the proclamation authorized in the

legislation implementing the FTA (H.R. 4842) to provide

preferential tariff treatment for goods from the territory of

Morocco. Preferential tariff treatment will not be provided

to goods from Western Sahara.

I hope this letter addresses your question regarding the

FTA and the status of Western Sahara. I encourage you to

support the FTA. It will create economic opportunities for

U.S. manufacturing and service firms, workers, and farmers,

and will support economic reforms and foreign investment in

Morocco.

Thank you again for your letter. Please feel free to

contact me should you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Zoellick.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your leadership.

While trade is a vital component to strengthening with the greater Middle East, promoting the spread of democracy is even more so. The Sahrawi are a peaceful pro-Western, pro-democracy people. They want the international community, including the U.N. Security Council and the United States, to uphold its commitment to a free and transparent referendum for self-determination, and it is unacceptable that Morocco has been allowed to prevent that vote from taking place.

During his tenure the former Secretary of State Baker proposed a plan that both parties accepted at first, and the Moroccans accepted the plan, but as soon as the people of Western Sahara accepted they withdrew their support, and I am deeply concerned that the Moroccan government, as patterned, will use this agreement with help from friends in France and others to attempt to increase its exploitation of the resources.

I just want to clarify the statement about the people of Western Sahara. Earlier today someone said that the Sahrawis are terrorists. I take exception to this remark, as the people of Western Sahara, and like many others in North Africa and the Middle East, have actually tried to peacefully solve the conflict. The State Department does not consider the people of Western Sahara to be terrorists. It is a misstatement. It is wrong. It is unproductive in our fight against terrorism to suggest that they are, and our own State Department does not believe the people of Western Sahara are terrorists.

Secondly, I visited there. I visited the refugee camps. I know the people. They are not terrorists. Members of this House should go to the refugee camps. They should see the terrible malnutrition of the people, the lack of health care, the refugee camps. If they would visit the refugee camps they would know that the information fed to them by supporters is inaccurate.

Mr. Chairman, I am voting for the FTA because there is protection for the people and resources of Western Sahara and because I believe the free trade will help the people of Morocco and those of surrounding countries.

The following is a series of items that would make clear that this agreement should not be abused by Morocco to profit off of land that it has no legitimate claim to.

Western Sahara--Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975

International Court of Justice

In its Advisory Opinion which the General Assembly of the

United Nations had requested on two questions concerning

Western Sahara, the Court,

With regard to Question I, ``Was Western Sahara (Rio de Oro

and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain a

territory belonging to no one (terra nullius)?'',

--decided by 13 votes to 3 to comply with the request for

an advisory opinion;

--was unanimously of opinion that Western Sahara (Rio de

Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain

was not a territory belonging to no one (terra nullius).

With regard to Question II, ``What were the legal ties

between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the

Mauritanian entity?'', the Court

--decided by 14 votes to 2 to comply with the request for

an advisory opinion;

--was of opinion, by 14 votes to 2, that there were legal

ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco of the

kinds indicated in the penultimate paragraph of the Advisory

Opinion;

--was of opinion, by 15 votes to 1, that there were legal

ties between this territory

and the Mauritanian entity of the kinds indicated in the

penultimate paragraph of the Advisory Opinion.

The penultimate paragraph of the Advisory Opinion was to

the effect that:

The materials and information presented to the Court show

the existence, at the time of Spanish colonization, of legal

ties of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and some of

the tribes living in the territory of Western Sahara. They

equally show the existence of rights, including some rights

relating to the land, which constituted legal ties between

the Mauritanian entity, as understood by the Court, and the

territory of Western Sahara. On the other hand, the Court's

conclusion is that the materials and information presented to

it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty

between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of

Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus the Court has not

found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the

application of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in the

decolonization of Western Sahara and, in particular, of the

principle of self-determination through the free and genuine

expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory.

For these proceedings the Court was composed as follows:

President Lachs; Vice-President Ammoun; Judges Forster, Gros,

Bengzon, Petren, Onyeama, Dillard, Ignacio-Pinto, de Castro,

Morozov, Jimenez de Arechaga, Sir Humphrey Waldock, Nagendra

Singh and Ruda; Judge ad hoc Boni.

Judges Gros, Ignacio-Pinto and Nagendra Singh appended

declarations to the Advisory Opinion; Vice-President Ammoun

and Judges Forster, Petren, Dillard, de Castro and Boni

appended separate opinions, and Judge Ruda a dissenting

opinion.

In these declarations and opinions the judges concerned

make clear and explain their positions.

Course of the Proceedings

(paras. 1-13 of Advisory Opinion)

The Court first recalls that the General Assembly of the

United Nations decided to submit two questions for the

Court's advisory opinion by resolution 3292 (XXIX) adopted on

13 December 1974 and received in the Registry on 21 December.

It retraces the subsequent steps in the proceedings,

including the transmission of a dossier of documents by the

Secretary-General of the United Nations (Statute, Art. 65,

para. 2) and the presentation of written statements or

letters and/or oral statements by 14 States, including

Algeria, Mauritania, Morocco, Spain and Zaire (Statute, Art.

66).

Mauritania and Morocco each asked to be authorized to

choose a judge ad hoc to sit in the proceedings. By an Order

of 22 May 1975 (1.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 6), the Court found

that Morocco was entitled under Articles 31 and 68 of the

Statute and Article 89 of the Rules of Court to choose a

person to sit as judge ad hoc, but that, in the case of

Mauritania, the conditions for the application of those

Articles had not been satisfied. At the same time the Court

stated that those conclusions in no way prejudged its views

with regard to the questions referred to it or any other

question which might fall to be decided, including those of

its competence to give an advisory opinion and the propriety

of exercising that competence.

Competence of the Court

(paras. 14-22 of Advisory Opinion)

Under Article 65, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the Court

may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the

request of any duly authorized body. The Court notes that the

General Assembly of the United Nations is suitably authorized

by Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter and that the two

questions submitted are framed in terms of law and raise

problems of international law. They are in principle

questions of a legal character, even if they also embody

questions of fact, and even if they do not call upon the

Court to pronounce on existing rights and obligations. The

Court is accordingly competent to entertain the request.

Propriety of Giving an Advisory Opinion

(paras. 23-74 of Advisory Opinion)

Spain put forward objections which in its view would render

the giving of an opinion incompatible with the Court's

judicial character. It referred in the first place to the

fact that it had not given its consent to the Court's

adjudicating upon the questions submitted. It maintained (a)

that the subject of the questions was substantially identical

to that of a dispute concerning Western Sahara which Morocco,

in September 1974, had invited it to submit jointly to the

Court, a proposal which it had refused: the advisory

jurisdiction was therefore being used to circumvent the

principle that the Court has no jurisdiction to settle a

dispute without the consent of the parties; (b) that the case

involved a dispute concerning the attribution of territorial

sovereignty over Western Sahara and that the consent of

States was always necessary for the adjudication of such

disputes; (c) that in the circumstances of the case the Court

could not fulfill the requirements of good administration of

justice with regard to the determination of the facts. The

Court considers (a) that the General Assembly, while noting

that a legal controversy over the status of Western Sahara

had arisen during its discussions, did not have the object of

bringing before the Court a dispute or legal controversy with

a view to its subsequent peaceful settlement, but sought an

advisory opinion which would be of assistance in the exercise

of its functions concerning the decolonization of the

territory, hence the legal position of Spain could not be

compromised by the Court's answers to the questions

submitted; (b) that those questions do not call upon the

Court to adjudicate on existing territorial rights; (c) that

it has been placed in possession of sufficient information

and evidence.

Spain suggested in the second place that the questions

submitted to the Court were academic and devoid of purpose or

practical effect, in that the United Nations had already

settled the method to be followed for the decolonization of

Western Sahara, namely a consultation of the indigenous

population by means of a referendum to be conducted by Spain

under United Nations auspices. The Court examines the

resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on the subject,

from resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, the

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial

Countries and Peoples, to resolution 3292 (XXIX) on Western

Sahara, embodying the request for advisory opinion. It

concludes that the decolonization process envisaged by the

General Assembly is one which will respect the right of the

population of Western Sahara to determine their future

political status by their own freely expressed will. This

right to self-determination, which is not affected by the

request for advisory opinion and constitutes a basic

assumption of the questions put to the Court, leaves the

General Assembly a measure of discretion with respect to the

forms and procedures by which it is to be realized. The

Advisory Opinion will thus furnish the Assembly with elements

of a legal character relevant to that further discussion of

the problem to which resolution 3292 (XXIX) alludes.

Consequently the Court finds no compelling reason for

refusing to give a reply to the two questions submitted to it

in the request for advisory opinion.

Question I: ``Was Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El

Hamra) at the Time of Colonization by Spain a Territory

Belonging to No One (terra nullius)?''

(paras. 75-83 of Advisory Opinion)

For the purposes of the Advisory Opinion, the ``time of

colonization by Spain'' may be considered as the period

beginning in 1884, when Spain proclaimed its protectorate

over the Rio de Oro. It is therefore by reference to the law

in force at that period that the legal concept of terra

nullius must be interpreted. In law, ``occupation'' was a

means of peaceably acquiring sovereignty over territory

otherwise than by cession or succession; it was a cardinal

condition of a valid ``occupation'' that the territory should

be terra nullius. According to the State practice of that

period, territories inhabited by tribes or peoples having a

social and political organization were not regarded as terrae

nullius: in their case sovereignty was not generally

considered as effected through occupation, but through

agreements concluded with local rulers. The information

furnished to the Court shows (a) that at the time of

colonization Western Sahara was inhabited by peoples which,

if nomadic, were socially and politically organized in tribes

and under chiefs competent to represent them; (b) that Spain

did not proceed upon the basis that it was establishing its

sovereignty over terrae nullius: thus in his Order of 26

December 1884 the King of Spain proclaimed that he was

taking the Rio de Oro under his protection on the basis of

agreements entered into with the chiefs of local tribes.

The Court therefore gives a negative answer to Question I.

In accordance with the terms of the request for advisory

opinion, ``if the answer to the first question is in the

negative'', the Court is to reply to Question II.

Question II: ``What Were the Legal Ties of This Territory

with the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian Entity?''

(paras. 84-161 of Advisory Opinion)

The meaning of the words ``legal ties'' has to be sought in

the object and purpose of resolution 3292 (XXIX) of the

United Nations General Assembly. It appears to the Court that

they must be understood as referring to such legal ties as

may affect the policy to be followed in the decolonization of

Western Sahara. The Court cannot accept the view that the

ties in question could be limited to ties established

directly with the territory and without reference to the

people who may be found in it. At the time of its

colonization the territory had a sparse population that for

the most part consisted of nomadic tribes the members of

which traversed the desert on more or less regular routes,

sometimes reaching as far as southern Morocco or regions of

present-day Mauritania Algeria or other States. These tribes

were of the Islamic faith.

Morocco (paragraphs 90-129 of the Advisory Opinion)

presented its claim to legal ties with Western Sahara as a

claim to ties of sovereignty on the ground of an alleged

immemorial possession of the territory and an uninterrupted

exercise of authority. In the view of the Court, however,

what must be of decisive importance in determining its answer

to Question II must be evidence directly relating to

effective display of authority in Western Sahara at the time

of its colonization by Spain and in the period immediately

preceding. Morocco requests that the Court should take

account of the special structure of the Moroccan State. That

State was founded on the common religious bond of Islam and

on the allegiance of various tribes to the Sultan, through

their caids or sheiks, rather than on the notion of

territory. It consisted partly of what was called the Bled

Makhzen, areas actually subject to the Sultan, and partly of

what was called the Bled

Siba, areas in which the tribes were not submissive to him;

at the relevant period, the areas immediately to the north of

Western Sahara lay within the Bled Siba.

As evidence of its display of sovereignty in Western

Sahara, Morocco invoked alleged acts of internal display of

Moroccan authority, consisting principally of evidence said

to show the allegiance of Saharan caids to the Sultan,

including dahirs and other documents concerning the

appointment of caids, the alleged imposition of Koranic and

other taxes, and acts of military resistance to foreign

penetration of the territory. Morocco also relied on certain

international acts said to constitute recognition by other

States of its sovereignty over the whole or part of Western

Sahara, including (a) certain treaties concluded with Spain,

the United States and Great Britain and Spain between 1767

and 1861, provisions of which dealt inter alia with the

safety of persons shipwrecked on the coast of Wad Noun or its

vicinity, (b) certain bilateral treaties of the late

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries whereby Great

Britain, Spain, France and Germany were said to have

recognized that Moroccan sovereignty extended as far south as

Cape Bojador or the boundary of the Rio de Oro.

Having considered this evidence and the observations of the

other States which took part in the proceedings, the Court

finds that neither the internal nor the international acts

relied upon by Morocco indicate the existence at the relevant

period of either the existence or the international

recognition of legal ties of territorial sovereignty between

Western Sahara and the Moroccan State. Even taking account of

the specific structure of that State, they do not show that

Morocco displayed any effective and exclusive State activity

in Western Sahara. They do, however, provide indications that

a legal tie of allegiance existed at the relevant period

between the Sultan and some, but only some, of the nomadic

peoples of the territory, through Tekna caids of the Noun

region, and they show that the Sultan displayed, and was

recognized by other States to possess, some authority or

influence with respect to those tribes.

The term ``Mauritanian entity'' (paragraphs 139-152 of the

Advisory Opinion) was first employed during the session of

the General Assembly in 1974 at which resolution 3292 (XXIX),

requesting an advisory opinion of the Court, was adopted. It

denotes the cultural, geographical and social entity within

which the Islamic Republic of Mauritania was to be created.

According to Mauritania, that entity, at the relevant period,

was the Bilad Shinguitti or Shinguitti country, a distinct

human unit, characterized by a common language, way of life,

religion and system of laws, featuring two types of political

authority: emirates and tribal groups.

Expressly recognizing that these emirates and tribes did

not constitute a State, Mauritania suggested that the

concepts of ``nation'' and of ``people'' would be the most

appropriate to explain the position of the Shinguitti people

at the time of colonization. At that period, according to

Mauritania, the Mauritanian entity extended from the Senegal

river to the Wad Sakiet El Hamra. The territory at present

under Spanish administration and the present territory of the

Islamic Republic of Mauritania thus together constituted

indissociable parts of a single entity and had legal ties

with one another.

The information before the Court discloses that, while

there existed among them many ties of a racial, linguistic,

religious, cultural and economic nature, the emirates and

many of the tribes in the entity were independent in relation

to one another; they had no common institutions or organs.

The Mauritanian entity therefore did not have the character

of a personality or corporate entity distinct from the

several emirates or tribes which comprised it. The Court

concludes that at the time of colonization by Spain there did

not exist between the territory of Western Sahara and the

Mauritanian entity any tie of sovereignty, or of allegiance

of tribes, or of simple inclusion in the same legal entity.

Nevertheless, the General Assembly does not appear to have so

framed Question II as to confine the question exclusively to

those legal ties which imply territorial sovereignty, which

would be to disregard the possible relevance of other legal

ties to the decolonization process. The Court considers that,

in the relevant period, the nomadic peoples of the Shinguitti

country possessed rights, including some rights relating to

the lands through which they migrated. These rights

constituted legal ties between Western Sahara and the

Mauritanian entity. They were ties which knew no frontier

between the territories and were vital to the very

maintenance of life in the region.

Morocco and Mauritania both laid stress on the overlapping

character of the respective legal ties which they claimed

Western Sahara to have had with them at the time of

colonization (paragraphs 153-160 of the Advisory Opinion).

Although their views appeared to have evolved considerably in

that respect, the two States both stated at the end of the

proceedings that there was a north appertaining to Morocco

and a south appertaining to Mauritania without any

geographical void in between, but with some overlapping as a

result of the intersection of nomadic routes. The Court

confines itself to noting that this geographical overlapping

indicates the difficulty of disentangling the various

relationships existing in the Western Sahara region at the

time of colonization.

For these reasons, the Court (paragraphs 162 and 163 of the

Advisory Opinion) gives the replies indicated on pages 1 and

2 above.

[From Reuters News Service, Jan. 13, 2004]

Sardines and Sovereignty in Western Sahara

(By Eileen Byrne)

Laayoune, Western Sahara.--On trawlers at the quayside near

Laayoune, the main city in Moroccan-controlled Western

Sahara, the crew unload sardines in wicker baskets thrown

from hand to hand.

The traditional baskets are misleading, because the yield

of sardines, octopus and squid from the Western Saharan ports

of Laayoune, Boujdour and Dakhla has come to represent more

than 60 percent of Morocco's total annual fisheries yield of

almost one million tons. With sovereignty over the Western

Sahara still in dispute, this is a politically significant

catch.

The uncertainty about the future of this vast, mainly

desert territory in the northwest corner of Africa puts a

dampener, for now, on investment in tourism for winter sun-

seekers, officials in Laayoune admit.

But against the backdrop of diplomatic stalemate, as the

United Nations strives for a solution to the dispute between

Morocco and the Polisario separatist movement, Morocco is

keen to show that the regional economy is developing apace.

The fishing sector is one area where the authorities can

point to significant growth, always under the firm guiding

hand of the central government.

southern-most subjects

Claiming Western Sahara as its historic ``southern

provinces,'' Morocco controls most of the territory.

The Polisario movement, based across the border in Algeria,

sees the future of the area as an independent state, governed

by its Saharan Arab inhabitants, known as Sahrawis.

Since a 1991 cease-fire, successive U.N. initiatives aimed

at ending a dispute which dates from 1975, and asserting the

Sahrawis' right to ``self-determination,'' have failed.

Advocates of independence for Western Sahara stress the

territory's mineral wealth, with the phosphate mine at Boukra

near Laayoune, and possible offshore oil reserves.

But the Boukra mine is loss-making and subsidized by the

Office Cherifien des Phosphates' more important phosphate

production near Khouribga, according to officials. It is

fishing that generates new jobs and export earnings. Western

Sahara fish products now account for up to seven percent of

Morocco's total export earnings of 85.6 billion dirhams

($9.80 billion).

Morocco declined to renew a fishing accord with the

European Union which until the late 1990s had allowed foreign

boats into Moroccan waters. It has instead spent heavily

since then on port infrastructure in Western Sahara, as

though consolidating its hold on the territory.

Like all other businesses in Western Sahara, the sardine

canning businesses, and plants processing octopus for

Japanese dinner tables, pay no taxes except for payroll

contributions.

They also benefit from the subsidies in the prices of fuel,

power and water with which Morocco woos its southern-most

subjects, who account for less than two percent of the

kingdom's 29.6 million population.

Local investors are often Sahrawi notables who see the

territory's future with Rabat rather than the Polisario and

who play a prominent role in the local economy. A little over

a generation ago, the Sahrawis' lifestyle revolved around

camel and goat rearing. Fish did not figure at all in the

Sahrawi diet and even today few Sahrawis work directly with

fish.

But among new investors, the favorable conditions for

businesses can sometimes encourage over-hasty decisions.

octopus for the japanese

Lining the walls of the conference room in the Laayoune

governor's headquarters, photos showed a visit to Western

Sahara by Morocco's King Mohammed.

Some 40 men, and one woman wrapped in the colored veil worn

in Western Sahara, listened to Morocco's Fisheries Minister

Taieb Rhafes. He had flown down from Rabat to explain why he

was extending a ban on octopus fishing.

With him were representatives of Moroccan banks whose loans

to local investors had encouraged a proliferation of octopus-

freezing plants around Dakhla, from a handful in 1997 to 90

in 2003. The octopuses have been almost wiped out by over-

fishing, the minister explained. It takes only three months

to have an octopus-freezing plant up and running, said an

official.

At Laayoune port, the fishermen are not Sahrawis, but come

from Moroccan ports further north--Agadir, Essaouira and

Safi. A spontaneous movement of sardines southwards, traced

by Morocco's fisheries research institute, the INRH,

coincided with the development of infrastructure in the

Western Sahara. The fishermen followed the fish southwards,

bringing their expertise with them.

Moroccan officials have no separate figures for employment

among Sahrawis and non-Sahrawis. ``There are no two

communities here,'' only Moroccan citizens, Laayoune Governor

Mohamed Rharrabi told Reuters.

With the sea-faring culture far-removed from the

traditional Sahrawi lifestyle, it seems fishing will provide

only some of the jobs needed in the Laayoune region, where

unemployment at the last census was 40 percent among 20 to 24

year-olds.

Denmark Does Not Recognise Moroccan Sovereignty on Western Sahara

[From Sahara Press Service (SPS), June 22, 2004]

COPENHAGEN--Danish Government, does not ``recognise

Moroccan sovereignty on Western Sahara'', declared Danish

Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Per Stig Mfller, in

response to a question he answered before of his Parliament,

according to close sources to the Saharawi representation to

Denmark.

Answering a question asked by Danish Member of the

Parliamentary group Enhedslisten (Union list, in English),

Mr. Soern Soendergaard, the Minister for Foreign Affairs

asserted that his Government ``does not recognise Moroccan

sovereignty on Western Sahara'', considering Moroccan

presence on the territory as illegal and unacceptable.

Regarding the peace plan, elaborated by UN Secretary

General's former Personal Envoy, James Baker, Mr. Mfller

affirmed that this plan remains applicable, recalling that it

``is accepted by Polisario Front and the neighbouring

countries and is unanimously adopted by Security Council in

its resolution 1495''.

Finally, the Head of Danish diplomacy reiterated ``the

support of Denmark of the efforts paid by UN's Secretary

General and his former Personal Envoy aimed at reaching a

just and lasting solution to the conflict'', in Western

Sahara conforming to international legality and by

implementing UN's resolutions.

[From Sahara Press Service (SPS), June 24, 2004]

German PDC/CSU Calls to Immediate Settlement of Western Sahara Conflict

Berlin.--The parliamentary group of German Christian

Democrat Party (PDC/CSU) in Bundestag (Parliament), called on

Thursday to an immediate settlement of Western Sahara's

conflict, exhorting international community to pay more

efforts in defending Saharawi people's ``right to self-

determination''.

In a communique publicised on Thursday, of which SPS

received a copy, PDC/CSU parliamentary Group's spokesperson,

Dr. Christian Ruck, asserted that ``Western Sahara conflict's

settlement tolerates no more delays'', calling international

community to pay more efforts in defending Saharawi people's

``right to self-determination''.

UN Secretary General's former Personal Envoy, James Baker's

resignation ``may push to failure'' the peace plan for self-

determination of Saharawi people, though this plan

constitutes ``a reasonable compromise to realise peace in

this region'', deplored the spokesperson.

Thus, the international community is called to ``prove to

the people of this region, who is still suffering this old

aging conflict, that its right to self-determination remains

a priority for the international community'', which should

also defend UN's principles and international law, so as to

reach a peaceful settlement to this problem, concluded the

communique.

[From Upstream Online & Hardcopy, July 2, 2004]

Svitzer Feels Heat in Western Sahara

(By Barry Morgan)

Fugro affiliate Svitzer has just completed a marine survey

on Kerr-McGee's Boujdour acreage off the disputed territory

of Western Sahara.

Based in Norfolk in the UK, Svitzer is the latest company

to attract brickbats from activists determined to persuade

industry players not to sign deals with Morocco, which

occupies the territory and claims its resources.

Following a one-year extension, KMG's reconnaissance permit

will expire on 29 October. However, its tenure is contested

by the Sahrawi independence militia, which has long fought

for sovereign control, stirring international controversy

over the licencing regime imposed by Rabat.

Fellow UK consultancy Robertson Research International

(RRI) is also poised to complete survey work in Western

Sahara, despite question marks over the legitimacy of UK

corporate involvement in what the UK government calls a

``non-self governing territory'' where it says sovereignty

remains to be determined under UN auspices. For its part, RRI

said it is not directly contracted to Rabat.

Confirmation of RRI's involvement comes hard on the heels

of a campaign launched by Western Sahara support groups

across Europe against exploration and production companies

doing business at the behest of Rabat.

Kerr-McGee, Total and TGS-Nopec were blasted for jumping

the gun on a fragile peace process in which the UN has sought

diplomatic consensus ahead of a referendum on self-

determination for the Sahrawi people.

Activists' primary target of late has been UK-registered

Wessex Exploration, which was recently invited to Rabat to

finalise a preliminary but open-ended deal to analyse onshore

data ahead of an exploration push outlined by Moroccan state

oil company managing director Amina Benkhadra.

Wessex has been warned that ``its reputation would suffer''

if it did not back off or negotiate with the Sahrawi

authorities.

In the meantime, several UK parliamentarians have moved to

seek clarification of the UK government's position on British

companies doing business in Western Sahara. Concerned MPs led

by the Labour Party's David Drew, want to pin down Whitehall

on its attitude.

Drew will shortly table a parliamentary question seeking

greater clarity. Drew now speaks for the Western Sahara

Support Group and two Conservative MPs are expected to join

existing members before they resurface as a parliamentary

force.

The UK Foreign Office insists sovereignty in Western Sahara

remains undetermined as long as UN calls to resolve the

crisis via the so-called Baker Peace Plan remain unheeded.

``We want to push the UK to promote the Plan so that Morocco

withdraws. It should also tell British companies that they

should not get involved in Western Sahara at this time while

the UN mandate remains unimplemented,'' said Drew.

The Foreign Office currently has no problem with companies

winning reconnaissance or E&P licences from Rabat, so long as

the practical effect complies with constraints laid down by

the UN Legal Office on ``disregarding the rights'' of the

Sahrawi people.

This means Kerr-McGee and Total can use TGS-Nopec and Fugro

to shoot seismic as long as rigs are not deployed to confirm

or produce oil finds.

Meanwhile, the acquisition of strategically important

seismic data for Rabat as the licensor remains legal under

the ``look but don't touch'' interpretation of both UK and US

governments. However, a UK official said that ``we'd have to

revisit this opinion if activity got this far. There is no

official endorsement''.

``Right now, our view is that UK companies going into

Western Sahara are on their own and we cannot link them to

the Department of Trade & Industry or offer the support of

any other government mechanisms,'' the source added.

Two UK-registered companies presently stand on both sides

of the fence. Sterling Resources has inherited an exclusive

offshore PSC from AIM-listed Fusion Oil & Gas following a

recent take-over, while Wessex is under increasing pressure

after retaining its exclusive study licence from Rabat.

After expending $600 million on peace-keeping efforts, the

UN system is tiring of the Western Sahara crisis, with UN

Special Envoy James Baker resigning in frustration last

month.

The UN's new representative, Alvaro de Soto, said this week

that he would pursue the same policy as Baker, suggesting no

new ideas to break the deadlock were on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, while the Jordan Free Trade Agreement passed in the last year of the Clinton administration represented a step forward in free trade policy, recent free trade agreements provide a template to purposely and purposefully circumvent labor and environmental laws.

To make matters worse, USTR and its pharmaceutical allies are now including language in each trade agreement in front of this body to ban reimportation in all agreements they negotiate. The Morocco Free Trade Agreement is the latest example of this trade, we call it, devolution.

Last week we voted on the U.S.-Australia FTA. While Australian workers, to be sure, enjoy the benefits of good labor laws and the enforcement of those laws, the precedent was the same. Labor and environmental protections were given short shrift in the core text of the agreement, while USTR focused on ensuring the gold standard for the pharmaceutical industry.

It is almost as if the U.S. Government dispatched the USTR again to protect the big drug companies in this country. It is no surprise, with the rest of the record in this body and in this administration in protecting the drug companies on every single issue possible.

But Morocco is not Australia, and I have significant concerns about labor and working conditions there. Like Singapore and Chile, the labor provisions in the Morocco FTA are intentionally unenforceable. Violations of core labor standards cannot be taken to dispute resolution. The commitment to enforce domestic labor laws is subject to remedies weaker than those available for commercial disputes. Again, the commercial part of the agreement is always better, if you will, than the labor part of the agreement, because of this body's and this administration's low regard for worker rights.

This violates the negotiating objective of Fast Track that equivalent remedies should exist for all parts of the agreement.

Further, the ``enforce your own laws'' standard allows countries the opportunity to rewrite and weaken their labor laws to attract investment and seems to be a magnet for corporate interests all over the world to lobby those legislatures and those congresses and parliaments to weaken their own labor law, because they are not international labor organization standards.

Today we will vote on the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement containing the same flawed policies on labor and on the environment and on reimportation. The same provisions in Morocco are in the Central America Free Trade Agreement. This agreement does not look much different from CAFTA. So for those of you, and I think it is pretty clear a majority of the Bush administration would have brought that agreement up this summer, those of you voting ``no'' on CAFTA, you are really voting for a pretty similar agreement on Morocco.

Every free trade template brought before this House is, as Yogi Berra used to say, like deja vu all over again.

First, the Medicare bill passed this year specifically prohibited the U.S. Government from negotiating lower drug prices for America's seniors and consumers. That was one this Congress and this Bush administration gave to the drug industry. Then the pharmaceutical industry punished American consumers by restricting the volume of drug inventories in Canada to prevent importation to the U.S. Then the U.S. Trade Representative and the administration included language in the Australia Free Trade Agreement that enables pharmaceutical companies to prevent prescription drug reimportation to the detriment of American consumers. Again, another bouquet from this Congress and the Bush administration to the drug industry.

I do not think the connection is anything but obvious when you look at the amount of money the drug industry has given to the Republican Party, given to Republican leadership, and given to President Bush.

Now similar provisions contained in last year's Singapore FTA and in the upcoming CAFTA are in the Morocco FTA bill that will be voted on. Though Morocco is not on the list of countries today covered by pending drug legislation, the importation provisions in this FTA prove this is a precedent, it was in Australia, now it is in this, that the USTR plans to extends this to all future trade agreements.

There is broad support in this House, there is even broader support among seniors and among consumers, because they are not getting campaign contributions from the drug industry, for lowering drug prices and for allowing Americans to purchase safe, affordable drugs from other developed nations.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the administration's back-door effort again to close drug reimportation through trade negotiations. It is important to overcome attempts by free trade proponents to reduce this debate to a choice between free trade and no trade, and frame the discussion around priorities affected by irresponsible trade policy, labor protections, the environment, and affordable pharmaceutical access for all nations.

This is not a debate on whether one supports trade; this is a debate on whether one supports responsible trade. I urge my colleagues to oppose this irresponsible trade agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am a little puzzled by this debate. I heard my friend from Texas talk about all the great promises of free trade and how these trade agreements are going to mean so much to our farmers and to our workers and to our businesses. I have heard the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) say some of the same kinds of things, but I guess I am puzzled because I have heard that throughout my entire 12 years in Congress.

I have heard every trade agreement that comes to the floor, so many speakers say over and over and over again that if we pass these trade agreements, we are going to have more jobs, we are going to do more exports, we are going to have our balance in trade; and look what has happened in the last 12 years.

Our trade deficit when I came to this Congress was about one-fourth of what it is today. We import $1.5 billion more every day than we export. George Bush, Senior, said for every $1 billion of trade, either export or import, it was equivalent to somewhere in the vicinity of 14 or 15 or 16,000 jobs. Well, we have almost a $500 billion trade deficit. Do the math. That is an awful lot of lost jobs.

When we pass these trade agreements, we continue to hemorrhage jobs. We continue to have job loss. We continue to lose manufacturing jobs. One out of six manufacturing jobs in my State has been lost since George Bush took office. We have lost 165 jobs every day of the Bush administration.

So the answer to that is let us do more of what we have already been doing, let us do more tax cuts for the wealthiest people in society, hoping that maybe some of it will trickle down to more jobs, and let us do more trade agreements which ship jobs overseas? People in our communities say these trade agreements are not working.

China, entry of China in WTO; NAFTA; Singapore, Chile, Australia, Morocco, these trade agreements are not translating into more jobs, and people at home know that. In spite of what people in this institution say, in spite of how people in this institution vote, the fact is we continue to lose manufacturing jobs in this country. We have lost millions of jobs in this Bush administration, and then we turn around and do the same thing over and over and over. We make the same promises over and over and over and the results are the same. When we will ever learn?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have noticed in these debates on these trade issues is there is one common thread. There are many, but there is one really thick common thread that is woven through all these trade agreements, in not just these trade agreements but that is perhaps woven through much of what this Congress has done in the last 3 years, during the Bush years, and that is whatever the drug industry wants, whatever the pharmaceutical companies want.

We know the drug industry is the most profitable industry in America by a factor of three or four times in profitability over other Fortune 500 industries. We also know the drug industry has 600-plus lobbyists, more than one per Member. We also know the drug industry has given more money to President Bush, tens of millions of dollars, and to Republican leadership than any other industry. And we know they have gotten their way.

They wrote the Medicare bill, we know that, with the insurance industry. We know they have begun to try to dry up drug supplies in Canada, prescription drugs, so that Americans have more difficulty going to Canada to get drugs. We know that the FDA, once one of the best agencies in the Federal Government, has been co-opted by the drug industry so that on issue after issue they take the drug industry's side rather than the public safety or the consumers' side. And most importantly, I do not know that Members on the other side of the aisle are quite aware of this, but certainly the public is aware at how high drug prices, how much they have skyrocketed in the 3 years since President Bush has, I was going to say turned a blind eye to drug industry abuses but really actually fronted for and assisted in drug industry abuses.

One more example of that is all of these trade agreements, what happened with the Australia Free Trade Agreement, how it would for all intents and purposes block reimportation, that is, our ability, American consumers' ability to buy prescription drugs from another country, to get drugs at half or a third or a fourth of their price. We are now seeing the same in the Morocco bill.

But let us kind of scratch the surface a little and what you will find, Mr. Speaker, is in April, United States Trade Rep, Ambassador Zoellick, gave Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Southeast Asian public affairs, Ralph Ives, additional responsibilities as the Assistant U.S. Trade Rep for pharmaceutical policy. He was the chief negotiator in the Australia FTA, which included these provisions we talked about which, of course, benefit the pharmaceutical industry.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we hear that this same Mr. Ives, who I said was the chief Australia FTA negotiator on pharmaceutical interests on behalf of the Bush administration, we find out next month he will leave USTR to become vice president of AdvaMed, a medical supply company. We have also learned that Claude Burke, another negotiator for U.S. taxpayers, paid by our government, a Bush appointee for intellectual property rights, has already left and now is working for another drug company, working for Abbott Labs.

So this revolving door of the drug industry where the drug industry gives money to President Bush, President Bush then helps the drug industry, then these people who are working for taxpayers negotiate a good deal for the drug company, then leave and come back and work for the drug industry. Is there no shame with this crowd, with my Republican friends who have fronted for this drug industry that is fleecing the American public and with the administration? That is one issue.

The other, Mr. Speaker, is why do we pass a trade agreement when we see the same story repeated over and over and over? We just turn the calendar back, rewind the clock, and we see it over and over again. We see speaker after speaker come to this floor and make all kinds of promises. We have a trade surplus in Morocco, so we ought to pass a trade agreement. Just like we had a trade surplus with Mexico, we passed NAFTA; and now we have a $25 billion a year, plus-plus-plus, trade deficit.

They promise more agricultural exports. They promise more American jobs. They promise more business for American companies. They promise more exports of American products. But look what happens. In my State in the last 3 years, we have lost one out of

six manufacturing jobs. Does that mean these trade agreements with Mexico, with WTO in China, with Morocco, with Australia, with Chile, with Singapore, does that mean these trade agreements are working? There is no evidence that they are working. We continue to hemorrhage jobs. We now have a $450 billion trade deficit, $1.5 billion trade deficit every day. So our answer is, boy, let's do more of the same because that must be working.

It is clearly not working. We have lost jobs during the Bush administration, the first President since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss of jobs. So what are we going to do? We are going to keep pursuing the same economic policy we have had the last 3 years, more tax cuts for the most privileged people in society, maybe some of it will trickle down into economic growth. Clearly that has not worked. More trade agreements, like Morocco, like Australia, like NAFTA, like China, more trade agreements. That has not worked because we continue to hemorrhage jobs. We continue to ship jobs overseas.

Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Speaker, since none of that seems to have worked, maybe we ought to try something different. Maybe we ought to have a trade agreement that does not sell out to the drug industry. Maybe we ought to have a trade agreement with enforceable labor and environmental standards, international labor organization standards. Maybe we ought to have a trade agreement that puts American workers first, that puts the environment first, that puts food safety first, that puts American consumers of prescription drugs first. Maybe, just maybe, we ought to put a hold on these trade agreements that continue to ship jobs overseas and, instead, pass something that works for American consumers, that works for American workers, that works for our communities, and that works for the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased that the United States and the Kingdom of Morocco have reached agreement on a bilateral free trade agreement. Morocco has long been a key ally in the Middle East. As many have noted, Morocco was the first country to recognize our sovereignty; and in 1786 we signed the U.S.-Morocco treaty of peace and friendship, which remains the longest unbroken treaty in our Nation's history.

Once implemented, this treaty agreement will be the second of its kind between the U.S. and a moderate Muslim ally, following our trade agreement with the Kingdom of Jordan.

This is an important strategic agreement. While we have had a long- standing diplomatic relationship with Morocco, the U.S.-Morocco FTA cements the economic relationship between our countries. Two-way trade between the U.S. and Morocco is significant, at nearly $1 billion per year. The United States exported over $465 million to Morocco last year, with a trade surplus of over $79 million.

This FTA will eliminate trade barriers, lower tariffs, and provide increased market access for U.S. companies. By knocking down trade barriers in Morocco and in the rest of the world, we can help support even more American jobs. In fact, the International Trade Commission estimates that trade between our countries should double once this agreement is implemented.

This is a strong agreement for all sectors of the U.S. economy. Under its terms, over 95 percent of U.S. exports of consumer and industrial goods to Morocco will become duty free immediately. This follows the high standards set by recently passed trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, and Australia. This is important for U.S. manufacturers.

This is also a strong agreement for the services sector of our economy, whether it be telecommunications, e-commerce for digital commerce, or new opportunities for U.S. financial institutions. The agreement also contains state-of-the-art intellectual property provisions, including commitments in trademarks, copyrights and patents, as well as tough penalties for piracy and counterfeiting. Taken together, these provisions continue a trade policy that best helps U.S. business compete in a global marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, the Farm Bureau strongly supports this agreement, which covers all agricultural products, because for every $1 in increased imports from Morocco, U.S. farmers can expect $10 in increased exports to Morocco. In 2003, the United States had a trade surplus in agricultural products with Morocco of about $82 million, with exports of over $152 million. The Farm Bureau estimates that this agreement could increase U.S. agricultural exports to over $450 million by 2015, tripling our current exports. Furthermore, because Morocco's agreement with the European Union does not include agriculture, this FTA should give American farmers a competitive advantage over our EU counterparts.

Some have questioned whether labor laws in Morocco are adequate. To that end, I would like to point out that the U.S.-Morocco FTA, like all of our trade agreements, requires Morocco to enforce domestic labor laws in accordance with the bipartisan guidance provided by the Congress in Trade Promotion Authority.

Furthermore, in anticipation of a U.S.-Morocco FTA, the Moroccan government, business community, and labor force, working together in a tripartite manner, found consensus in passing a comprehensive new labor law earlier this year that is consistent with ILO standards. Accordingly, the agreement language creating an obligation to effectively enforce one's laws is, in essence, the same as an enforceable ILO standard in this agreement. I, for one, applaud Morocco for its efforts in overhauling its labor laws in anticipation of completing this important trade agreement.

Some on the other side, including the Subcommittee on Trade ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), and the Committee on Ways and Means ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), have raised thoughtful questions with regard to various provisions contained in this agreement. I think we have worked well together to address these concerns, and I am pleased that we have their support. While we may continue to disagree on certain issues, there is a lot of common ground from which to work, and I look forward to continuing to work with them to pass important trade agreements.

Unfortunately, I am sure that a small group on the other side who do oppose free trade may come to the House floor today and argue that this agreement is inadequate in certain respects.

I would ask my colleagues to not be fooled by this rhetoric, which we hear every time when we contemplate trade agreements. We heard it last week during debate on our Australian Free Trade Agreement, a country with which we have a $9 billion trade surplus; we heard it during debate 1 year ago regarding Chile and Singapore; and I am sure we will hear it today with regard to Morocco, a country with which we have a trade surplus.

Please do not be fooled. This discomfort has less to do with the provisions of this agreement than it does their dislike of free trade generally.

Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Members on both sides of the aisle think differently. The American people know that millions of American jobs are dependent upon free trade. U.S. products exported to Morocco currently face an average tariff of more than 20 percent. This FTA will give American businesses exporting to Morocco a leg up to compete as they compete with the European Union. That means better, higher-paying jobs here at home. Perhaps that is why the U.S.-Morocco FTA passed the Committee on Ways and Means by a 26 to 0 vote on Tuesday and passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 85 to 13 yesterday. I look forward to another strong, bipartisan vote today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize my strong support for this agreement and my appreciation to the administration and Members on both sides of the aisle for their efforts in completing it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, concerns about the consistency of any future drug reimportation provisions with this free trade agreement are hypothetical. The agreement has no force under U.S. law except to the extent that Congress passes an implementing bill to change U.S. law.

Thus, even if Congress changes U.S. law and the new law were somehow inconsistent with the agreement, that new law would trump the agreement. The agreement cannot prevent Congress from allowing drug reimportation.

The drug reimportation debate in Congress has focused on changes to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act that would be necessary to allow drug reimportation, such as changing its provision that only the original manufacturer may reimport a drug. There is nothing in the Morocco FTA or the implementing bill that addresses the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for this requirement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who is cochair of the Morocco Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The new Morocco labor law is a significant improvement over existing labor laws and regulations. The law raises the minimum employment age from 12 to 15 to combat child labor, reduces the work week from 48 to 44 hours with overtime rates payable for additional hours, and calls for a periodic review of the Moroccan minimum wage.

Effective July 1, 2004, the minimum wage in Morocco will increase by 10 percent. Morocco did this to make itself a more attractive FTA partner.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the former speaker for his presentation and what he had to say.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).

(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The Committee on Ways and Means' report states the clear coverage of the free trade agreement. ``The committee notes that the FTA will cover trade with and investment in the territory of Morocco as recognized by the United States, which does not include the Western Sahara.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, but we are discussing the U.S.-Morocco FTA, which passed the Committee on Ways and Means by a vote of 26 to nothing. In addition, we have a trade surplus with Morocco. Trade with Morocco creates jobs. The projections are right now that over the next decade our exports will triple in the agricultural sector alone, and the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program already provides benefits to anyone adversely effected by trade, and there is no need for a new program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Speaker, can the Chair tell me how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think it is important for everyone to understand that we have a trade surplus at the current time with Morocco. The projections are, though, that with

this free trade agreement we will have a very dramatic increase in our exports, especially our exports in the agricultural community with that dramatic drop in tariff barriers that have struck our access there, but we are making progress, dramatic progress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), our distinguished colleague on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his outstanding commitment in this effort to advance our free trade relations and to advance the civilized values that free trade causes. He has done outstanding work in that effort, and I commend him. I thank his colleagues on his side of the aisle for their strong bipartisan support on this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, the administration strongly supports H.R. 4842, which will approve and implement the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, as signed by the United States and Morocco on June 15, 2004.

The U.S.-Morocco FTA advances U.S. economic interests and meets the negotiating principles and objectives set out by the Congress in the Trade Act of 2002. The FTA will benefit the people of the United States and Morocco and illustrate to other developing countries the advantages of more open markets for trade and investment.

The FTA provides for increased access for American farmers, workers and businesses to Morocco's markets. Pursuant to the agreement, Morocco will provide strong protection for intellectual property, ensure that rules on electronic commerce are nondiscriminatory, and provide U.S. firms access to covered government procurement opportunities on the same basis that Moroccan firms enjoy.

The U.S.-Morocco FTA provides a significant opportunity to encourage economic reform and development in a moderate Muslim nation and is an important step in implementing the President's plan for a broader U.S.- Middle East Free Trade Area. It also sets a strong example of the benefits of open trade and democracy. Opening markets is part of the President's six-point plan for continuing to strengthen America's economy and to create more opportunities for American farmers, workers and businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to first commend our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the Committee on Ways and Means for guaranteeing unanimous commitment to passage of our Free Trade Agreement with Morocco and look forward to working with them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas).

(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, time sure flies when you're having fun. Just last week I expressed serious misgivings about the U.S.-Australian Free Trade Agreement (FTA), noting, among other problems, that it set a bad precedent for future trade bills. Those concerns are confirmed today by this bill. The U.S.-Morocco FTA is a bad agreement that protects U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers while ignoring labor standards and the healthcare needs of Moroccan citizens.

I warned you last week that a vote for the Australian FTA was a vote against prescription drug reimportation, and it's true again today. We cannot continue to allow USTR to include intellectual property provisions in FTAs that undermine Congress's ability to provide affordable prescription drugs through reimportation. True, we aren't going to be importing drugs from Morocco any time soon, but what happens in the next FTA, and the one after that? It should be clear by now that the USTR is merely a shill for the pharmaceutical industry, engaged in nothing more than closing the door to drug reimportation at the request of the Administration.

Unfortunately, the Morocco agreement doesn't stop at undermining the debate over reimportation. In fact, it goes much further by limiting access to potentially life saving drugs in Morocco. Because the agreement limits parallel importation, if a pubic health emergency breaks out, Morocco cannot import affordable drugs from neighboring countries if a U.S. country manufacturers the drug.

Once again, the pharmaceutical industry has used the administration and a free trade agreement to protect its profits, without any concern for global health. If Morocco has a public health crisis, it would be forced to purchase drugs from U.S. manufacturers instead of getting immediate access to the same drugs from nearby countries. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry has been gouging prices here in America for years; just think what they can do to prices when a developing country is in crisis.

You would think one provision limiting access to drugs in Morocco would be victory enough for the pharmaceutical manufacturers, but this industry just does not stop. Also included in the FTA are limits on the use of test data and market exclusivity provisions that could raise the price of drugs in Morocco and further limit access.

Because the FTA limits test data usage and creates 5 years of market exclusivity, the introduction of generic drugs in the Moroccan market will be substantially delayed. When generics are not available, prices increase--along with manufacturers' profits--and poorer citizens have less purchasing power to obtain life saving drugs.

There is also the strong possibility that these data and exclusivity provisions will further tie the hands of the Moroccan government during a public health emergency. The FTA and side letter are amazingly vague on whether Morocco can engage in compulsory licensing of otherwise patented drugs during a

health crisis. Here again, the pharmaceutical manufacturers will do anything to make sure they are the monopoly power, even when lives are at stake.

Today we vote on nothing less than the future course of domestic and international pharmaceutical policies. USTR will continue to use trade agreements to limit our ability to import affordable pharmaceuticals from other countries. It is also clear that future negotiations are going to limit drug access in other countries so that U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers can make even more money abroad. These are bad policies, and we should not let the Administration continue to implement them by slipping them into free trade agreements.

I am also concerned that USTR has once again failed to include core labor standard requirements in a free trade agreement. USTR should not continue to use the ``enforce your own laws'' standard in FTAs without developing countries. I understand Morocco is moving in the right direction in terms of labor rights, but there is no reason this FTA should not have held them to the core labor standards developed by the International Labour Organization (ILO). The ILO standards ensure workers' human rights and their right to organize and strike. We cannot have acceptable free trade without a level playing field, and these standards are the key to ensuring trade between the U.S. and other countries is both free and fair.

This is a bad free trade agreement that sets a bad precedent for all future trade negotiations. We cannot continue to let the administration make health policy without Congressional input, and we surely would not let the pharmaceutical industry have their way just because of their large campaign donor status. We also cannot ignore workers' rights by allowing trade partners to enforce their own laws when those laws do not meet international labor standards.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Morocco Free Trade Agreement and believe it will promote domestic growth in manufacturing and exports. I look forward to seeing this agreement enacted into law. I also support, thank and congratulate the United States Trade Representative and staff in negotiating the inclusion of full duty drawback and duty deferral rights for U.S. manufacturers, exporters and workers in this FTA. Free trade agreements should include no language that eliminates or otherwise restricts the application of duty drawback and duty deferral programs to U.S. manufacturers and exporters. The language in the Singapore, Australia, Israel and Jordan FTAs and in the CAFTA, for example, have no such restrictive language and we should continue to model future agreements after these FTAs. This issue is of significant importance to many U.S. manufacturers and exporters, including those in my home State of Louisiana.

Duty drawback and duty deferral programs reduce production and operating costs by allowing our manufacturers and exporters to recover duties that were paid on imported materials when the same or similar materials are exported either whole or as a component part of a finished product. Duty drawback positively affects nearly $16 billion of U.S. exports each year. Additionally, nearly 300,000 U.S. jobs are directly related to exported goods that benefit from drawback, and these high quality jobs could be adversely affected by eliminating or restricting drawback. In my own home State of Louisiana, drawback and duty deferral programs provide substantial benefits to local industries, allowing them to compete on a level playing field in the global market. Drawback and deferral prevents outsourcing and saves U.S. manufacturing and jobs. As long as the programs provide a competitive advantage in production and sales for U.S. manufacturers and exporters, they will assist in preventing U.S. jobs from moving offshore.

Drawback makes a significant difference to U.S. companies at the margin when exporting to our FTA partners where they compete against foreign producers that either have substantially lower costs of production or enjoy low or zero import duty rates. This export promotion program is one of the last WTO-sanctioned programs that provide a substantial advantage to U.S. companies participating in the export market. The application of these programs to U.S. manufacturers and exporters should not be restricted in future free trade agreements that we negotiate with our trading partners.

We need to work hard to complete free trade agreements that provide as many competitive advantages as we can to U.S. manufacturers competing in the global market, encourage growth in U.S. exports, and create U.S. jobs.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 738, I call up the bill (H.R. 4842) to implement the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4842, which will implement the United States- Moroccan Free Trade Agreement. This Free Trade Agreement is comprehensive, it is solid, and it will benefit American workers across the spectrum, including farmers, consumers, businesses, and therefore the United States economy.

Morocco has been since the inception of this country and is today an important strategic partner of the United States. This agreement will enhance and in fact solidify our economic relationship. Not only will this agreement advance our relationship with Morocco, but it serves as a cornerstone to assist the President's broader initiative to create a Middle East free trade area by the year 2013.

The United States has entered into additional agreements, Morocco, Bahrain. We have entered into trade and investment framework agreements with Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. Many of these countries have expressed interest in moving forward and negotiating a free trade agreement similar to the Moroccan agreement.

Mr. Speaker, this is a long overdue day, but it has arrived, and I am pleased to say that the Senate has already acted on this legislation, and when the House concludes its business on this bill it will be sent to the President for his signature, and this is a marvelous way to end this portion of the 108th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and ask unanimous consent that he control the time.

Mr. Speaker, my assumption is that the closing remarks on the part of the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee was an endorsement. It sounded as though we began with an extremely flawed product and, through their efforts, they were successful in righting the ship so that we could actually have a minimally decent document. I wonder where they were when President Clinton wanted fast track, their President, and three quarters of them voted against providing the President.

So when we listen to the remarks, we really have to put it, one, in context and then appreciate that intensity or outlandishness does not equal votes. And when I close shortly, take a look at the votes in terms of who is for and who is against.

But I do want to spend just 1 minute analyzing the level of the content and the direction of the debate. The ranking member from New York began this discussion by indicating that I stole the election in Florida. That certainly was an appropriate beginning on a debate on a Free Trade Agreement with Morocco. I would probably classify it as silly, but that is the level of debate that we often engage in. And it is just a pleasure to allow the rest of the country to understand the level at which exchanges are made not only in committee but on the floor when we try to engage in a serious discussion.

I heard an indication that people were interested in jobs, and, of course, I will talk about the gentleman from Ohio and his diatribe in a minute.

You missed the boat on the jobs issue. That was the jobs growth tax bill. It has had a major positive effect on jobs. You were ``no'' on that one as well. We have got 46 of the 50 States expanding. Unemployment is down in all regions of the country. This is the fastest growth in the last 20 years. And based upon your debating style, at that point I would pause and parenthetically say even including the Clinton years so that we can understand that the mention of Bush in every other sentence and in a negative way was clearly focused on the Free Trade Agreement and had nothing to do with attempting to influence an election. We have got 1.5 million jobs, continuing to grow, and they will continue to grow right through the election.

But I want to especially focus on the other gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) because at some point we cannot allow statements made on the floor of the House to stand when they are so outrageously false. The statement referred to legislation that we were considering earlier, and the statement was that what we did denied what the Constitution provides. I would urge everyone at some time, and especially certain Members, to look at the Constitution and turn to Article III, the judicial article, and look at Section 2. And I will just read it briefly, referring to the judicial branch: ``In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers

and consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.''

The Congress was exercising its constitutional function in indicating that areas of appellate jurisdiction were not to be examined by the court, and it absolutely floors me, well, I guess it does not based upon the other statements made by those on the other side of the aisle, that not only apparently they do not know the Constitution, but they actually invoke it in a totally false way on the floor of the House of Representatives.

So what I would really urge Members to do is not pay any attention to what was said necessarily on the other side of the aisle but take a look at the vote for this particular measure. H.R. 4842 certainly deserves the overwhelming majority support of this House. I believe it will be bipartisan. And, please, we will take away from this particular bill on the floor the fact that the vote was bipartisan even if the rhetoric is not and at times not just silly but downright, flat-out wrong.