[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 21, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8506-S8516]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     UNITED STATES-MOROCCO FREE-TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 2677, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2677) to implement the United States-Morocco 
     Free-Trade Agreement.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, time until 11:30 
p.m. is equally divided for debate on or between the chairman and 
ranking member.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, what is the pending matter?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Morocco-United 
States free-trade agreement, FTA, and the impact this bilateral free 
trade agreement will have on agricultural producers in my State of 
South Dakota. While I retain concerns on a number of agreements 
negotiated under Trade Promotion Authority, TPA, as part of fast track 
trade negotiations navigated by the current administration, I see a 
potential positive impact on the South Dakota economy from a number of 
provisions in this agreement. I am pleased that the needs of many 
sectors in our agricultural community were accounted for while 
hammering out the terms included in this FTA.
  I am disappointed at the recent passage of the Australian free-trade 
agreement, AFTA, which seriously weakens our ability to foster growth 
in the agricultural sector. It is concerning that the adoption of the 
AFTA will hinder the retention of our agriculture producers, exacerbate 
supply, and consequently undermine our Federal price support programs. 
When dealing with sensitively priced commodities and a delicate supply 
and demand balance, I believe we must prudently evaluate the economic 
ramifications from any proposed trade agreement. I am concerned for the 
rural communities in my home state of South Dakota, and I will continue 
to evaluate trade agreements on a case by case basis to ascertain the 
potential benefits and negative impacts.
  Despite these concerns, I am pleased to see that the Moroccan free-
trade agreement holds promise and provides a number of potentially 
rewarding terms for United States producers and ranchers. The agreement 
encompasses a wide variety of commodities that are important to the 
health of the rural economy in South Dakota, including beef, soybeans, 
wheat, corn and sorghum. As in the case of beef, for example, 
increasing market access under this agreement is imperative for 
ensuring our producers and ranchers maintain ample opportunity for 
promoting quality American beef. This opportunity will be facilitated 
by a low in-tariff quota that will promptly be zeroed out.
  As in the case of soybeans, duties on soybeans used for processing 
will cease immediately. Duties on soybeans for processed soy products 
and other uses will be reduced by half in the first year, and 
eliminated entirely within a 5-year timeframe. Additionally, wheat will 
benefit from this bilateral FTA. Fluctuating weather conditions present 
problematic conditions for Moroccan farmers, and as a significant

[[Page S8507]]

wheat importer, a beneficial trading relationship can be established 
from increased market access to the Kingdom of Morocco.
  While I retain reservations about the direction the administration's 
free trade agenda has taken, I am pleased that a free trade agreement 
has been proposed that has garnered the support of many American 
agriculture producers, and will facilitate increased market access and 
positive economic impact for our rural communities.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the pending 
measure before the Senate, the U.S.-Morocco free-trade agreement. Soon 
this body will likely pass the implementing legislation and send it to 
the President for signature and subsequent enactment. Before that takes 
place, I believe it is important to outline to the people of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia my position on this matter and why I will vote 
in favor of its passage though it is not a perfect agreement.
  The enactment of free trade agreements have the potential to increase 
the profitability of U.S. companies, increase U.S. jobs, open new 
markets for U.S. products and services and engender stronger 
relationships with other nations. However, the central tenet of such 
agreements must be fairness, clear benefit to all parties and a 
relatively equitable number and degree of concessions. Understanding 
that in any negotiation there must be some give and take, it is 
counterproductive and damaging for the U.S. to agree to provisions 
within these agreements that leave U.S. industries susceptible to 
loopholes that allow a non-party country duty free access to our 
market.
  In the case of the Morocco free-trade agreement I am speaking of the 
textile provisions. This agreement, while in many ways better than 
previous free trade agreements, would still allow for non-party 
countries to export yarn or fabric to Morocco and upon production into 
apparel, be imported into the United States duty-free. If our 
government is going to negotiate an agreement with another country and 
make concessions to secure an equally beneficial arrangement, I cannot 
comprehend why loopholes would be included to permit a third party to 
benefit from the agreement without having to meet the requirements or 
make the concessions of those party to the trade pact.
  Under a tariff preference level, the Morocco agreement will allow the 
use of fabric and yarn from a non-party of up to thirty million square 
meters equivalent. It is difficult to understand why such an exception 
is necessary, given that the total Moroccan trade in fabric and yarn 
with the U.S. in 2003 was 16.477 million square meters equivalent. I 
have been in contact with many in the domestic textile industry and 
have to sincerely agree with them that such a provision appears to be a 
substantial loophole that will ultimately allow a country other than 
the U.S. or Morocco to benefit from the U.S.-Morocco free-trade 
agreement.
  The U.S. government has an obligation to the American worker to do 
away with the practice of providing exceptions like tariff preference 
levels. A third-party country that would provide yarn and fabric under 
these loopholes will have conceded nothing nor offered greater access 
to its market as it benefits from the agreement negotiated between the 
U.S. and Morocco. Make no mistake, concessions like this can adversely 
affect American jobs. Domestic textile production has provided 
Americans stable, well-paying jobs for generations; however the 
enactment of free trade agreements that allow a party to go outside of 
the agreement but enjoy duty-free access has contributed to the growing 
number of unemployed textile workers in this country.
  Going forward, I would strongly recommend to those negotiating trade 
agreements on behalf of the American people to visit Southside Virginia 
and gain a first-hand perspective on how the concessions made in trade 
pacts can impact not only a few families, but entire communities. We 
must make sure that when we are opening our markets to other countries 
through trade agreements that we do not allow a third party to benefit 
without being party to the requirements and concessions of that trade 
agreement.
  Even with the grave concerns I have with the textile provisions of 
this agreement, I believe that on balance, it provides a net-plus for 
the working people of the United States. The reduction in tariffs and 
protection of intellectual property and trademarks will provide great 
benefit to hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs and further the global 
market share of their enterprises. Additionally, the relatively 
balanced nature of the U.S.-Morocco free-trade agreement sets a 
valuable example with the other developing countries around the world.
  The removal of tariffs on 95 percent of bilateral trade on the day of 
enactment should greatly benefit the majority of U.S. industries and 
their employees. Given that Morocco currently places a 20 percent duty 
on U.S. exports while the U.S. only assigns a four percent tariff on 
Moroccan exports this agreement makes a strong initial push for free 
and open trade. With strong U.S. industries like information 
technology, machinery and construction equipment poised to gain 
immediate duty-free access to Morocco; the U.S. should see positive 
gains in exports to Morocco in the near future.
  The domestic farming community will see tariffs on a large number of 
agriculture products cut significantly or eliminated immediately. The 
reduction of tariffs and the implementation of new tariff-rate quotas 
on products like beef, poultry and wheat will likely result in a 
tremendous growth in the amount of U.S. agriculture products exported 
to Morocco.
  The U.S. has had a difficult time convincing its trading partners to 
actively protect intellectual property and fully prosecute those found 
to be pirating or counterfeiting U.S. software, movies and music. I am 
pleased the Morocco agreement establishes new protections for 
intellectual property rights and increases penalties for those found to 
engage in the piracy and counterfeiting of U.S. products.
  Finally, the enactment of the U.S.-Morocco free-trade agreement sends 
a powerful message to developing nations around the world. It is a 
clear indication that the U.S. is interested in developing mutually 
beneficial economic and trade relationships that can result in greater 
access to the U.S. market and hopefully closer ties with the U.S. 
Agreements like the Morocco trade pact provide a clear example for 
those countries in Africa and the Middle East willing to make political 
and economic reforms.
  In closing, I will vote in favor of the U.S.-Morocco free-trade 
agreement because comprehensively, it is beneficial to the U.S. 
business community. The reduction of tariffs and increased access to 
markets will improve the profitability of many U.S. companies and 
provide an example for future agreements with tolerant, reform-minded, 
developing nations. This could have been an outstanding, purely 
positive agreement, rather than a good agreement on balance.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the United States has enjoyed a close 
relationship with Morocco since 1777, when Morocco became the first 
nation to recognize the sovereignty of our fledgling Government. Since 
then we have stood together through thick and thin, and Morocco today 
remains one of America's dear friends. This free-trade agreement, FTA, 
will further strengthen the bond between our two nations, and 
illustrates the benefits of greater economic ties with countries in the 
greater Middle East.
  Initially, the decision to begin negotiations with Morocco was 
controversial. But Morocco's economic liberalization and political 
reform efforts, combined with its role as a stabilizing force in the 
region, made the decision a simple one.
  The trade negotiations produced an agreement that will render more 
than 95 percent of bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products 
duty-free immediately. U.S. investors in Morocco will be increasingly 
able to rely on a secure, predictable legal framework mandated by the 
FTA. U.S. banks, insurance companies, telecommunications companies and 
others will get new access to markets within Morocco.
  In addition, U.S. firms are guaranteed a fair and transparent process 
for selling goods and services to a wide range of Moroccan Government 
entities, via the FTA's government contracting anti-corruption 
provisions. These kinds of measures are what we expect from a free-
trade agreement. Unfortunately, this agreement also

[[Page S8508]]

contains protectionist language antithetical to the tenets of free 
trade.
  As with the Australian FTA approved by the Senate last week, and the 
Singapore agreement that went into effect in January, the United States 
Trade Representative included language that could impair Congress's 
ability to pass and implement drug importation legislation. Such 
legislation is not only something Congress has worked on for the past 
several years, but has also enacted.
  The provisions USTR slipped into the Singapore, Australia and Morocco 
FTAs have significant implications for drug importation. Let us be 
clear about this language--it is antifree trade, serves only to block 
American consumers from accessing lower cost goods and services, and 
contravenes clear congressional intent.
  Congress has repeatedly voted, with bipartisan majorities, to allow 
drug importation. States and local governments are doing the same. An 
overwhelming majority of Americans believe that they have a right to 
import more affordable medicines. So a simple question comes to mind: 
what is our Trade Representative, who is charged with representing the 
interests of the American people, doing? Why deliberately include 
language in bilateral trade agreements that could thwart importation 
efforts? Why flagrantly disregard the intent of Americans and their 
elected representatives? It seems to me that the special interests have 
again found friendly territory.

  When Americans wonder how this continues to happen, they should take 
a glance at the list of intellectual property ``advisors'' that worked 
with the negotiators. These advisors include representatives from drug 
companies, the pharmaceutical industry as a whole, and other lobbyists 
with a direct interest in blocking drug importation. How many public 
health and consumer advocacy groups were included on this committee? 
Zero.
  The Singapore FTA was the first free-trade agreement to include 
language that could impact drug importation. The Morocco FTA must be 
the last.
  Our trade negotiators must be less mindful of special interests and 
more responsive to the express intent of the Congress. We granted the 
President trade promotion authority, TPA, in 2002 to demonstrate our 
Nation's re-energized commitment to negotiating strong free-trade 
agreements. TPA was designed to lead to free trade, not more 
protection.
  This agreement is not the first in which the administration has made 
use of TPA to promote its politically expedient policy priorities. Last 
year, immigration provisions were included in the Singapore and Chile 
FTAs. If the Administration is to continue to enjoy the privilege of 
TPA, trade agreements must no longer be vehicles that include items 
rightfully addressed by Congress under the Constitution.
  The United States has been and should be the leading promoter of an 
open global marketplace. Steel tariffs, agricultural subsidies in the 
farm bill, and other forms of protection, however, have damaged 
America's free-trade credentials. If special interest carve-outs, like 
the one for the pharmaceutical industry in this FTA, continue to 
pollute our trade agreements, we will all be worse off. Our economy 
will suffer and our leadership role on trade will further decline.
  I will vote yes, but let me reiterate what I said last week with 
respect to the Australia agreement: Should another FTA being negotiated 
now or in the future come before the Senate with similar protections 
for special interests, I will find it even more difficult to vote in 
favor of it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am disappointed to see that the U.S.-
Morocco Free-Trade Agreement contains patent protection language 
similar to that contained in the U.S.-Australia Free-Trade Agreement. 
Although I will not oppose this agreement on this one basis, I will 
oppose the use of this language as a precedent for any future free-
trade agreement.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I opposed the Morocco free-trade 
agreement. Unfortunately, it is one more in what has become an 
increasing number of deeply flawed trade agreements. These agreements 
continue to jeopardize U.S. jobs and businesses. They undermine 
environmental, health, and safety protections. They hinder our ability 
to loosen restrictions on reimportation of FDA-approved prescription 
drugs. They limit our ability to use our tax dollars to help our own 
businesses and workers through buy American policies, and to discourage 
corporations from reincorporating overseas, and they limit the ability 
of our democratic institutions to regulate essential services.
  But though I opposed this trade agreement, I want to underscore my 
firm belief that our bilateral relationship with Morocco is extremely 
important. We need our Moroccan partners if we are to succeed in 
pursuing our first foreign policy priority: the fight against al-Qaida 
and associated global terrorist organizations. The United States cannot 
afford to ignore this critical North African ally which has suffered, 
as we have, brutal terrorist attacks. We cannot fight terrorists 
without a strong international coalition sharing crucial intelligence, 
drying up sources of financial and political support for terrorism, and 
tracking down terrorist leaders. In order to have a strong partner to 
count on, the U.S. must support the Moroccan people in their fight for 
basic human rights, their efforts to combat corruption, and their work 
to create the kinds of economic opportunities that the country's large 
population of youth need. Without these efforts, this population will 
stagnate and resentment will grow. The U.S. should be cultivating 
future partners in Morocco, not future antagonists.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this Free Trade Agreement should have 
been easy for me to support.
  It is an agreement with a moderate Arab nation, an FTA that will 
integrate Morocco's economy with that of America. This FTA will aid 
Morocco's economy, strengthen our ties with the Kingdom, and help to 
bolster the contention that market economics can lead to a peaceful and 
prosperous moderate Islam.
  What troubles me is the Bush administration's ongoing inattention to 
the labor and environmental protections in trade agreements, which is 
inexcusable. This administration has refused to live up to the gold 
standard on labor and environmental protections, a standard set by the 
Clinton administration when it negotiated the United States-Jordan Free 
Trade Agreement.
  Instead, President Bush and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick 
have backtracked, endorsing less stringent protections in agreements 
with Chile and Singapore. The administration ignored the disapproval of 
many in Congress of those provisions. Stunningly, the administration 
did not include Jordan-style provisions in the Morocco agreement, even 
though Moroccan officials announced they would be willing to accept 
them.
  In short, President Bush settled for weaker protections than he could 
have gotten, and he did it for what would seem to be no reason other 
than to antagonize labor groups, environmental groups and some in 
Congress. I find that deplorable.
  Despite the shortcomings of this agreement, however, and because 
Morocco is making progress on its labor and environmental laws, I will 
support this FTA to strengthen our ties with a moderate Arab nation 
that has been a good global citizen.
  Mr. BURNS. I have always said that I support free trade, as long as 
it is fair trade. The Morocco free-trade agreement before us today is 
an excellent example of that principle. Once this agreement goes into 
effect, 95 percent of the tariffs on consumer and industrial goods are 
eliminated, with the remaining tariffs eliminated in 9 years. This deal 
represents the best access to a developing country yet. I applaud 
Ambassador Zoellick for his hard work in achieving a balanced free 
trade agreement that provides significant benefits to both trade 
partners.
  Morocco imports more than $11 billion in goods each year, with $475 
million coming from the United States. We have an opportunity to 
increase the United States presence in this emerging market. Current 
circumstances are certainly less than ideal for American goods: imports 
from the United States face a stiff tariff, over 20 percent. In 
Montana, we have not yet benefited from trade with Morocco, and I can 
only hope that passage of this agreement today will allow us to begin 
exploring the advantages that it can offer

[[Page S8509]]

Montanans and Moroccans alike, without unreasonable tariff barriers for 
our products.
  I am especially pleased at the agriculture provisions in this FTA. 
Too often, free trade agreements represent a losing deal for Montana's 
farmers and ranchers, but I believe this agreement shows a commitment 
to fair trade for agriculture. In 2003, the United States exported over 
$152 million in agricultural products to Morocco. Under this agreement, 
that number could more than double, and I expect that some of that 
increase will be Montana beef and grains. According to an analysis by 
the American Farm Bureau Federation, ``the agreement is expected to 
result in a 10-to-1 gain for the U.S. agriculture sector, which already 
enjoys a positive trade balance with Morocco.''
  I commend the Trade Representative for the wheat provisions in this 
FTA. I know that Morocco expressed some serious concerns about 
negotiating access for U.S. wheat, and Ambassador Zoellick worked hard 
to keep wheat on the table. Under this agreement, U.S. wheat exports 
could experience a five-fold increase. At the same time, the Agreement 
is sensitive to Moroccan domestic wheat producers. While we would 
always prefer tariffs to be completely eliminated, the expansion of 
tariff rate quotas, TRQs, in this agreement will allow Montana wheat 
producers vastly expanded access to Moroccan markets. Currently, wheat 
tariffs on U.S. exports to Morocco run as high as 135 percent. The 
commitments to reduce tariffs and expand TRQs are positive changes for 
our wheat producers.
  In addition, the agreement includes an important provision that 
ensures long-term fair access. If Morocco provides other trading 
partners preferential access that is better than what we have here 
today, Morocco has agreed to immediately extend that treatment to the 
same U.S. product. This guarantees a level playing field for our 
agriculture producers. Finally, Morocco has also agreed to work with us 
at the WTO negotiations to limit the trade-distorting power of state 
trading enterprises. This is the same agreement that we secured in the 
Australia Free Trade Agreement approved last week. I am pleased to see 
a growing international consensus that state trading enterprises, like 
the Canadian Wheat Board, must be addressed to provide for real free 
and fair trade. I urge Ambassador Zoellick to continue focusing on this 
important issue.
  Montana cattle producers also stand to benefit from this deal. Access 
to Moroccan markets for high quality beef--the kind of beef American 
cattle producers are known for is greatly increased. Tariffs on U.S. 
beef are often as high as 275 percent. The commitment to reduce these 
tariffs and to expand TRQs will allow domestic cattle producers to send 
prime and choice beef into Morocco hotels and restaurants, providing 
Morocco substantial tourism industry with the quality it demands. In 
addition, Morocco has agreed to accept U.S. inspection standards for 
beef, which will allow our products immediate access to Moroccan 
markets. This is a fair deal for our cattle producers.
  In addition to the benefits to agriculture, service providers, such 
as telecommunications and construction, will have enhanced access to 
Moroccan markets. Telecommunications will be provided with non 
discriminatory access to the network. Intellectual property protection 
is provided, as are agreements on labor and environmental standards. 
The Morocco free-trade agreement represents an important step toward 
the President's goal of establishing a Middle East Free Trade Area, and 
I am pleased to offer my support.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I spoke yesterday about the Morocco free-
trade agreement and its benefits for both the United States and 
Morocco.
  I hope and expect that when we vote on the Morocco implementing bill, 
the bill will pass by an overwhelming margin.
  That is a fitting way to cap a busy month on trade and head into the 
summer recess.
  As I look back at the accomplishments on trade since the beginning of 
the year, I am pleased at how much we have done. It would be considered 
a full plate in any year, but in an election year, it is especially 
gratifying to have achieved so much.
  We passed the JOBS Bill, a complex tax measure that will help create 
jobs in America and bring the United States into compliance with the 
WTO. That bill passed the Senate overwhelmingly with 92 votes.
  We extended and enhanced an important trade and development program 
for Africa--the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act through a unanimous 
vote.
  We created a different trade and development program for Haiti, also 
through a unanimous vote.
  And of course, just last week, we passed the Australia free-trade 
agreement implementing bill with 80 votes.
  It has been a busy year.
  I am heartened by the strong votes all these measures attracted. No 
victory is ever easy. They are hard fought by people working every day 
to do the right thing.
  I want to congratulate Senator Grassley and his staff for their 
leadership, and Ambassador Zoellick and his excellent negotiating team 
for all their hard work.
  As I look ahead, there will be some difficult issues to confront. I 
believe we have more work to do to rebuild a strong consensus on trade. 
We could do better on both the substance of trade agreements and on the 
process of considering them.
  I also believe we should be devoting more of our resources toward 
enforcing trade agreements we already have.
  But today, I would like to focus on our successes on all we have 
already accomplished, and on what we are about to do.
  When we vote to approve the Morocco legislation, we will be 
solidifying our oldest diplomatic relationship in the world.
  We will be giving reform-minded governments in developing countries 
around the world incentive to redouble their efforts to modernize their 
economies.
  We will also be setting a new standard for agreements with developing 
countries in a variety of important areas. These include intellectual 
property, market access, and even agriculture.
  The Morocco agreement is a good agreement. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for it.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, just over 2 months ago I expressed my 
interest in seeing both the U.S.-Australia and the U.S.-Morocco free-
trade agreements pass the Congress by the August recess. A lot of 
people resisted this effort, arguing that it would be impossible for 
both the House and Senate to hold hearings, prepare the legislation, 
conduct mock mark-ups, report the bills, and pass implementing 
legislation for two free trade agreements in just two months. While the 
task was indeed difficult, I am very pleased to say that we are on the 
verge of achieving my goal today.
  In just a few moments the U.S. Senate will have an historic 
opportunity to strengthen our relations with Morocco with the passage 
of the United States-Morocco Free-Trade Agreement Implementation Act. 
While nothing is certain, I expect this legislation to pass with strong 
bipartisan support. Passage of this legislation follows on the heels of 
a strong Senate vote in favor of the United States-Australia Free-Trade 
Agreement last week. The Australia bill itself was preceded by renewal 
and extension of the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, which passed 
the Senate by unanimous consent on June 24 of this year. Prior to that, 
the Senate was able to work out its differences and pass the JOBS Act 
by a vote of 92 to 5. I will note that each of these bills passed in an 
election year, a year in which many pundits argued that nothing would 
get done. I also want to point out the broad bipartisan support which 
each of these bills received. In my mind, it is that element--
bipartisanship--that is the key to our success.
  I want to thank my ranking member, Senator Baucus, and the members of 
the Finance Committee for working with me to bring these bills to 
fruition. There are a lot of demands placed upon Finance Committee 
members and their staffs, and I appreciate their hard work and 
dedication in helping us produce legislation that will receive broad 
bipartisan support in the Senate.
  Turning to the bill at hand, passage of the United States-Morocco 
Free-

[[Page S8510]]

Trade Agreement Implementation Act will help strengthen our 
relationship with a long-standing friend and ally of the United States. 
For over two hundred years, our two nations have enjoyed a strong and 
mutually beneficial relationship. Today, Morocco is a country in 
transition. It is a country that recognizes that its long-term economic 
prosperity lies not in shutting itself off to the world, but in opening 
up to the world. It is in large part Morocco's willingness to embrace 
free market and democratic principles that led President Bush to select 
Morocco as a potential free trade partner. This free-trade agreement 
will help lock in and hasten reforms that the Moroccan Government 
embraced on its own initiative. I am confident that this agreement will 
spur growth and opportunity for Morocco and its people.
  This trade agreement is also very good for the United States, 
especially U.S. agriculture. Implementation of the agreement is 
expected to help advance U.S. agriculture exports to Morocco to 
unprecedented heights, enabling us to better compete with the European 
Union, Canada, and South America in the Moroccan market.

  Many people worked hard to see today's vote become a reality. First 
and foremost, this would not have happened without the leadership of 
President George W. Bush. As I have noted before, President Bush is 
committed to building the U.S. economy by opening the world's markets 
to U.S. goods and services. The United States-Morocco Free-Trade 
Agreement is just the latest of his achievements in this regard.
  The United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Robert B. 
Zoellick, also merits special recognition and commendation for his 
efforts in negotiating this agreement. His commitment to expanding U.S. 
trade opportunities is steadfast, for which I am grateful. I also want 
to express my thanks to John Veroneau, the general counsel in the 
Office of United States Trade Representative, Matt Niemeyer, the 
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Congressional Affairs, and Lisa 
Coen, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Congressional 
Affairs, for their many efforts to ensure that the committee was fully 
apprised of developments during the negotiations and their efforts to 
resolve concerns raised by members as the committee informally 
considered proposed implementing legislation for this trade agreement. 
In addition, I thank Michael Smythers, a special assistant to the 
President working in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, for 
his efforts to facilitate our consideration of this implementing 
legislation.
  I commend my colleagues on the Finance Committee for their interest 
in seeing that this trade agreement was concluded and that the 
implementing legislation was passed without delay. I would like to 
extend a special thanks to the ranking member of the committee, Senator 
Baucus. We have worked together over the years to expand trade 
opportunities for the benefit of U.S. farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, 
and service workers, and to benefit U.S. consumers. I am quite pleased 
with the outcome of our current efforts with the imminent passage of 
this implementing bill today.
  My trade staff on the Finance Committee worked diligently over the 
past several weeks on developing the implementing bill and other 
materials connected with it. My goal was to have this legislation 
passed prior to the August recess, and they were instrumental in making 
this happen. Moreover, my trade staff engaged in consultations with 
officials from the Office of the United States Trade Representative 
throughout the negotiations, which began way back in January 2003, so 
this has been a long process for them. I greatly appreciate their hard 
work.
  My chief counsel and staff director, Kolan Davis, deserves 
recognition. His dedication and skills are instrumental in advancing 
the Finance Committee's agenda. The Chief International Trade Counsel 
of the Finance Committee, Everett Eissenstat, also deserves special 
mention. His expertise in trade policy and his ability to juggle 
multiple trade priorities simultaneously are key to the Committee's 
success. I would also like to recognize the other members of my trade 
staff--my two trade counsels, David Johanson and Stephen Schaefer, for 
their invaluable technical assistance throughout this process. 
Additionally, the work of Zach Paulsen, Dan Shepherdson, and Tiffany 
McCullen, is appreciated, for their dedication to the Finance 
Committee's work and to the people of Iowa. Without the diligence and 
hard work of my staff, we would not be at the point we are today.
  Senator Baucus' trade staff also deserves recognition. The Democratic 
staff director on the Finance Committee, Russ Sullivan, and the deputy 
staff director, Bill Dauster, worked well with my staff throughout the 
process. I also appreciate the efforts of Tim Punke, Senator Baucus' 
Chief International Trade Counsel, as well as Brian Pomper, John 
Gilliland, Shara Aranoff, Sara Andrews, and Pascal Niedermann.
  Finally, I would like to thank Polly Craighill of the Office of the 
Senate Legislative Counsel for the many hours she put into drafting the 
implementing bill. Without her patience, hard work, and drafting 
skills, today's vote would not have been possible.
  I look forward to the signing of this legislation into law by 
President Bush.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second.
  There is a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 13, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 159 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--13

     Akaka
     Byrd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Graham (SC)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Leahy
     Reid
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Edwards
     Kerry
       
  The bill (S. 2677) was passed, as follows:

                                S. 2677

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``United 
     States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT

Sec. 101. Approval and entry into force of the Agreement.
Sec. 102. Relationship of the Agreement to United States and State law.
Sec. 103. Implementing actions in anticipation of entry into force and 
              initial regulations.
Sec. 104. Consultation and layover provisions for, and effective date 
              of, proclaimed actions.
Sec. 105. Administration of dispute settlement proceedings.
Sec. 106. Arbitration of claims.
Sec. 107. Effective dates; effect of termination.

                      TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Tariff modifications.

[[Page S8511]]

Sec. 202. Additional duties on certain agricultural goods.
Sec. 203. Rules of origin.
Sec. 204. Enforcement relating to trade in textile and apparel goods.
Sec. 205. Regulations.

                     TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS

Sec. 301. Definitions.

     Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement

Sec. 311. Commencing of action for relief.
Sec. 312. Commission action on petition.
Sec. 313. Provision of relief.
Sec. 314. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 315. Compensation authority.
Sec. 316. Confidential business information.

           Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures

Sec. 321. Commencement of action for relief.
Sec. 322. Determination and provision of relief.
Sec. 323. Period of relief.
Sec. 324. Articles exempt from relief.
Sec. 325. Rate after termination of import relief.
Sec. 326. Termination of relief authority.
Sec. 327. Compensation authority.
Sec. 328. Business confidential information.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to approve and implement the Free Trade Agreement 
     between the United States and Morocco entered into under the 
     authority of section 2103(b) of the Bipartisan Trade 
     Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3803(b));
       (2) to strengthen and develop economic relations between 
     the United States and Morocco for their mutual benefit;
       (3) to establish free trade between the 2 nations through 
     the reduction and elimination of barriers to trade in goods 
     and services and to investment; and
       (4) to lay the foundation for further cooperation to expand 
     and enhance the benefits of such Agreement.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the United 
     States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement approved by Congress 
     under section 101(a)(1).
       (2) HTS.--The term ``HTS'' means the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule of the United States.
       (3) Textile or apparel good.--The term ``textile or apparel 
     good'' means a good listed in the Annex to the Agreement on 
     Textiles and Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the 
     Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)).

TITLE I--APPROVAL OF, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO, THE AGREEMENT

     SEC. 101. APPROVAL AND ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE AGREEMENT.

       (a) Approval of Agreement and Statement of Administrative 
     Action.--Pursuant to section 2105 of the Bipartisan Trade 
     Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3805) and section 
     151 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2191), Congress 
     approves--
       (1) the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement entered 
     into on June 15, 2004, with Morocco and submitted to Congress 
     on _______, 2004; and
       (2) the statement of administrative action proposed to 
     implement the Agreement that was submitted to Congress on 
     _______, 2004.
       (b) Conditions for Entry Into Force of the Agreement.--At 
     such time as the President determines that Morocco has taken 
     measures necessary to bring it into compliance with those 
     provisions of the Agreement that are to take effect on the 
     date on which the Agreement enters into force, the President 
     is authorized to exchange notes with the Government of 
     Morocco providing for the entry into force, on or after 
     January 1, 2005, of the Agreement with respect to the United 
     States.

     SEC. 102. RELATIONSHIP OF THE AGREEMENT TO UNITED STATES AND 
                   STATE LAW.

       (a) Relationship of Agreement to United States Law.--
       (1) United states law to prevail in conflict.--No provision 
     of the Agreement, nor the application of any such provision 
     to any person or circumstance, which is inconsistent with any 
     law of the United States shall have effect.
       (2) Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
       (A) to amend or modify any law of the United States, or
       (B) to limit any authority conferred under any law of the 
     United States,

     unless specifically provided for in this Act.
       (b) Relationship of Agreement to State Law.--
       (1) Legal challenge.--No State law, or the application 
     thereof, may be declared invalid as to any person or 
     circumstance on the ground that the provision or application 
     is inconsistent with the Agreement, except in an action 
     brought by the United States for the purpose of declaring 
     such law or application invalid.
       (2) Definition of state law.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``State law'' includes--
       (A) any law of a political subdivision of a State; and
       (B) any State law regulating or taxing the business of 
     insurance.
       (c) Effect of Agreement With Respect to Private Remedies.--
     No person other than the United States--
       (1) shall have any cause of action or defense under the 
     Agreement or by virtue of congressional approval thereof; or
       (2) may challenge, in any action brought under any 
     provision of law, any action or inaction by any department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality of the United States, any 
     State, or any political subdivision of a State, on the ground 
     that such action or inaction is inconsistent with the 
     Agreement.

     SEC. 103. IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS IN ANTICIPATION OF ENTRY INTO 
                   FORCE AND INITIAL REGULATIONS.

       (a) Implementing Actions.--
       (1) Proclamation authority.--After the date of the 
     enactment of this Act--
       (A) the President may proclaim such actions, and
       (B) other appropriate officers of the United States 
     Government may issue such regulations,

     as may be necessary to ensure that any provision of this Act, 
     or amendment made by this Act, that takes effect on the date 
     the Agreement enters into force is appropriately implemented 
     on such date, but no such proclamation or regulation may have 
     an effective date earlier than the date the Agreement enters 
     into force.
       (2) Effective date of certain proclaimed actions.--Any 
     action proclaimed by the President under the authority of 
     this Act that is not subject to the consultation and layover 
     provisions under section 104 may not take effect before the 
     15th day after the date on which the text of the proclamation 
     is published in the Federal Register.
       (3) Waiver of 15-day restriction.--The 15-day restriction 
     in paragraph (2) on the taking effect of proclaimed actions 
     is waived to the extent that the application of such 
     restriction would prevent the taking effect on the date the 
     Agreement enters into force of any action proclaimed under 
     this section.
       (b) Initial Regulations.--Initial regulations necessary or 
     appropriate to carry out the actions required by or 
     authorized under this Act or proposed in the statement of 
     administrative action submitted under section 101(a)(2) to 
     implement the Agreement shall, to the maximum extent 
     feasible, be issued within 1 year after the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force. In the case of any implementing 
     action that takes effect on a date after the date on which 
     the Agreement enters into force, initial regulations to carry 
     out that action shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be 
     issued within 1 year after such effective date.

     SEC. 104. CONSULTATION AND LAYOVER PROVISIONS FOR, AND 
                   EFFECTIVE DATE OF, PROCLAIMED ACTIONS.

       If a provision of this Act provides that the implementation 
     of an action by the President by proclamation is subject to 
     the consultation and layover requirements of this section, 
     such action may be proclaimed only if--
       (1) the President has obtained advice regarding the 
     proposed action from--
       (A) the appropriate advisory committees established under 
     section 135 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155); and
       (B) the United States International Trade Commission;
       (2) the President has submitted to the Committee on Finance 
     of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
     House of Representatives a report that sets forth--
       (A) the action proposed to be proclaimed and the reasons 
     therefor; and
       (B) the advice obtained under paragraph (1);
       (3) a period of 60 calendar days, beginning on the first 
     day on which the requirements set forth in paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) have been met has expired; and
       (4) the President has consulted with such Committees 
     regarding the proposed action during the period referred to 
     in paragraph (3).

     SEC. 105. ADMINISTRATION OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) Establishment or Designation of Office.--The President 
     is authorized to establish or designate within the Department 
     of Commerce an office that shall be responsible for providing 
     administrative assistance to panels established under chapter 
     20 of the Agreement. The office may not be considered to be 
     an agency for purposes of section 552 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for each fiscal year after fiscal year 
     2004 to the Department of Commerce such sums as may be 
     necessary for the establishment and operations of the office 
     under subsection (a) and for the payment of the United States 
     share of the expenses of panels established under chapter 20 
     of the Agreement.

     SEC. 106. ARBITRATION OF CLAIMS.

       The United States is authorized to resolve any claim 
     against the United States covered by article 10.15.1(a)(i)(C) 
     or article 10.15.1(b)(i)(C) of the Agreement, pursuant to the 
     Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedures set forth in 
     section B of chapter 10 of the Agreement.

     SEC. 107. EFFECTIVE DATES; EFFECT OF TERMINATION.

       (a) Effective Dates.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act take effect on the date the Agreement enters into force.
       (b) Exceptions.--Sections 1 through 3 and this title take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Termination of the Agreement.--On the date on which the 
     Agreement terminates, the provisions of this Act (other than

[[Page S8512]]

     this subsection) and the amendments made by this Act shall 
     cease to be effective.

                      TITLE II--CUSTOMS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. TARIFF MODIFICATIONS.

       (a) Tariff Modifications Provided for in the Agreement.--
       (1) Proclamation authority.--The President may proclaim--
       (A) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
       (B) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
       (C) such additional duties,

     as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to 
     carry out or apply articles 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 4.1, 4.3.9, 
     4.3.10, 4.3.11, 4.3.13, 4.3.14, and 4.3.15, and Annex IV of 
     the Agreement.
       (2) Effect on moroccan gsp status.--Notwithstanding section 
     502(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2462(a)(1)), 
     the President shall terminate the designation of Morocco as a 
     beneficiary developing country for purposes of title V of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 on the date of entry into force of the 
     Agreement.
       (b) Other Tariff Modifications.--Subject to the 
     consultation and layover provisions of section 104, the 
     President may proclaim--
       (1) such modifications or continuation of any duty,
       (2) such modifications as the United States may agree to 
     with Morocco regarding the staging of any duty treatment set 
     forth in Annex IV of the Agreement,
       (3) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or
       (4) such additional duties,

     as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to 
     maintain the general level of reciprocal and mutually 
     advantageous concessions with respect to Morocco provided for 
     by the Agreement.
       (c) Conversion to Ad Valorem Rates.--For purposes of 
     subsections (a) and (b), with respect to any good for which 
     the base rate in the Tariff Schedule of the United States to 
     Annex IV of the Agreement is a specific or compound rate of 
     duty, the President may substitute for the base rate an ad 
     valorem rate that the President determines to be equivalent 
     to the base rate.

     SEC. 202. ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL GOODS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Agricultural safeguard good.--The term ``agricultural 
     safeguard good'' means a good--
       (A) that qualifies as an originating good under section 
     203;
       (B) that is included in the U.S. Agricultural Safeguard 
     List set forth in Annex 3-A of the Agreement; and
       (C) for which a claim for preferential treatment under the 
     Agreement has been made.
       (2) Applicable ntr (mfn) rate of duty.--The term 
     ``applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty'' means, with respect to 
     an agricultural safeguard good, a rate of duty that is the 
     lesser of--
       (A) the column 1 general rate of duty that would have been 
     imposed under the HTS on the same agricultural safeguard good 
     entered, without a claim for preferential tariff treatment, 
     on the date on which the additional duty is imposed under 
     subsection (b); or
       (B) the column 1 general rate of duty that would have been 
     imposed under the HTS on the same agricultural safeguard good 
     entered, without a claim for preferential tariff treatment, 
     on December 31, 2004.
       (3) F.O.B.--The term ``F.O.B.'' means free on board, 
     regardless of the mode of transportation, at the point of 
     direct shipment by the seller to the buyer.
       (4) Schedule rate of duty.--The term ``schedule rate of 
     duty'' means, with respect to an agricultural safeguard good, 
     the rate of duty for that good set out in the Tariff Schedule 
     of the United States to Annex IV of the Agreement.
       (5) Trigger price.--The ``trigger price'' for a good means 
     the trigger price indicated for that good in the U.S. 
     Agricultural Safeguard List set forth in Annex 3-A of the 
     Agreement or any amendment thereto.
       (6) Unit import price.--The ``unit import price'' of a good 
     means the price of the good determined on the basis of the 
     F.O.B. import price of the good, expressed in either dollars 
     per kilogram or dollars per liter, whichever unit of measure 
     is indicated for the good in the U.S. Agricultural Safeguard 
     List set forth in Annex 3-A of the Agreement.
       (b) Additional Duties on Agricultural Safeguard Goods.--
       (1) Additional duties.--In addition to any duty proclaimed 
     under subsection (a) or (b) of section 201, and subject to 
     paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) of this subsection, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall assess a duty on an 
     agricultural safeguard good, in the amount determined under 
     paragraph (2), if the Secretary determines that the unit 
     import price of the good when it enters the United States is 
     less than the trigger price for that good.
       (2) Calculation of additional duty.--The additional duty 
     assessed under this subsection on an agricultural safeguard 
     good shall be an amount determined in accordance with the 
     following table:
The additional duty is an amount equal to:e unit import price is:

0.t more than 10 percent of the trigger price..........................
30 percent of the excess of the applicable NTR (MFN) rate of duty over 
  the schedule rate of duty.
50 percent of such excess.ot more than 60 percent of the trigger price.
70 percent of such excess.ot more than 75 percent of the trigger price.
100 percent of such excess. trigger price..............................

       (3) Exceptions.--No additional duty shall be assessed on a 
     good under this subsection if, at the time of entry, the good 
     is subject to import relief under--
       (A) subtitle A of title III of this Act; or
       (B) chapter 1 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2251 et seq.).
       (4) Termination.--The assessment of an additional duty on a 
     good under this subsection shall cease to apply to that good 
     on the date on which duty-free treatment must be provided to 
     that good under the Tariff Schedule of the United States to 
     Annex IV of the Agreement.
       (5) Tariff-rate quotas.--If an agricultural safeguard good 
     is subject to a tariff-rate quota under the Agreement, any 
     additional duty assessed under this subsection shall be 
     applied only to over-quota imports of the good.
       (6) Notice.--Not later than 60 days after the date on which 
     the Secretary of the Treasury assesses an additional duty on 
     a good under this subsection, the Secretary shall notify the 
     Government of Morocco in writing of such action and shall 
     provide to the Government of Morocco data supporting the 
     assessment of additional duties.

     SEC. 203. RULES OF ORIGIN.

       (a) Application and Interpretation.--In this section:
       (1) Tariff classification.--The basis for any tariff 
     classification is the HTS.
       (2) Reference to hts.--Whenever in this section there is a 
     reference to a heading or sub-heading, such reference shall 
     be a reference to a heading or subheading of the HTS.
       (b) Originating Goods.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of this Act and for purposes 
     of implementing the preferential tariff treatment provided 
     for under the Agreement, a good is an originating good if--
       (A) the good is imported directly--
       (i) from the territory of Morocco into the territory of the 
     United States; or
       (ii) from the territory of the United States into the 
     territory of Morocco; and
       (B)(i) the good is a good wholly the growth, product, or 
     manufacture of Morocco or the United States, or both;
       (ii) the good (other than a good to which clause (iii) 
     applies) is a new or different article of commerce that has 
     been grown, produced, or manufactured in Morocco, the United 
     States, or both, and meets the requirements of paragraph (2); 
     or
       (iii)(I) the good is a good covered by Annex 4-A or 5-A of 
     the Agreement;
       (II)(aa) each of the nonoriginating materials used in the 
     production of the good undergoes an applicable change in 
     tariff classification specified in such Annex as a result of 
     production occurring entirely in the territory of Morocco or 
     the United States, or both; or
       (bb) the good otherwise satisfies the requirements 
     specified in such Annex; and
       (III) the good satisfies all other applicable requirements 
     of this section.
       (2) Requirements.--A good described in paragraph (1)(B)(ii) 
     is an originating good only if the sum of--
       (A) the value of each material produced in the territory of 
     Morocco or the United States, or both, and
       (B) the direct costs of processing operations performed in 
     the territory of Morocco or the United States, or both,

     is not less than 35 percent of the appraised value of the 
     good at the time the good is entered into the territory of 
     the United States.
       (c) Cumulation.--
       (1) Originating good or material incorporated into goods of 
     other country.--An originating good or a material produced in 
     the territory of Morocco or the United States, or both, that 
     is incorporated into a good in the territory of the other 
     country shall be considered to originate in the territory of 
     the other country.
       (2) Multiple procedures.--A good that is grown, produced, 
     or manufactured in the territory of Morocco or the United 
     States, or both, by 1 or more producers, is an originating 
     good if the good satisfies the requirements of subsection (b) 
     and all other applicable requirements of this section.
       (d) Value of Materials.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     value of a material produced in the territory of Morocco or 
     the United States, or both, includes the following:
       (A) The price actually paid or payable for the material by 
     the producer of such good.
       (B) The freight, insurance, packing, and all other costs 
     incurred in transporting the material to the producer's 
     plant, if such costs are not included in the price referred 
     to in subparagraph (A).
       (C) The cost of waste or spoilage resulting from the use of 
     the material in the growth, production, or manufacture of the 
     good, less the value of recoverable scrap.
       (D) Taxes or customs duties imposed on the material by 
     Morocco, the United States, or both, if the taxes or customs 
     duties are not remitted upon exportation from the territory 
     of Morocco or the United States, as the case may be.

[[Page S8513]]

       (2) Exception.--If the relationship between the producer of 
     a good and the seller of a material influenced the price 
     actually paid or payable for the material, or if there is no 
     price actually paid or payable by the producer for the 
     material, the value of the material produced in the territory 
     of Morocco or the United States, or both, includes the 
     following:
       (A) All expenses incurred in the growth, production, or 
     manufacture of the material, including general expenses.
       (B) A reasonable amount for profit.
       (C) Freight, insurance, packing, and all other costs 
     incurred in transporting the material to the producer's 
     plant.
       (e) Packaging and Packing Materials and Containers for 
     Retail Sale and for Shipment.--Packaging and packing 
     materials and containers for retail sale and shipment shall 
     be disregarded in determining whether a good qualifies as an 
     originating good, except to the extent that the value of such 
     packaging and packing materials and containers have been 
     included in meeting the requirements set forth in subsection 
     (b)(2).
       (f) Indirect Materials.--Indirect materials shall be 
     disregarded in determining whether a good qualifies as an 
     originating good, except that the cost of such indirect 
     materials may be included in meeting the requirements set 
     forth in subsection (b)(2).
       (g) Transit and Transshipment.--A good shall not be 
     considered to meet the requirement of subsection (b)(1)(A) 
     if, after exportation from the territory of Morocco or the 
     United States, the good undergoes production, manufacturing, 
     or any other operation outside the territory of Morocco or 
     the United States, other than unloading, reloading, or any 
     other operation necessary to preserve the good in good 
     condition or to transport the good to the territory of the 
     United States or Morocco.
       (h) Textile and Apparel Goods.--
       (1) De minimis amounts of nonoriginating materials.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a 
     textile or apparel good that is not an originating good 
     because certain fibers or yarns used in the production of the 
     component of the good that determines the tariff 
     classification of the good do not undergo an applicable 
     change in tariff classification set out in Annex 4-A of the 
     Agreement shall be considered to be an originating good if 
     the total weight of all such fibers or yarns in that 
     component is not more than 7 percent of the total weight of 
     that component.
       (B) Certain textile or apparel goods.--A textile or apparel 
     good containing elastomeric yarns in the component of the 
     good that determines the tariff classification of the good 
     shall be considered to be an originating good only if such 
     yarns are wholly formed in the territory of Morocco or the 
     United States.
       (C) Yarn, fabric, or group of fibers.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, in the case of a textile or apparel good that is a 
     yarn, fabric, or group of fibers, the term ``component of the 
     good that determines the tariff classification of the good'' 
     means all of the fibers in the yarn, fabric, or group of 
     fibers.
       (2) Goods put up in sets for retail sale.--Notwithstanding 
     the rules set forth in Annex 4-A of the Agreement, textile or 
     apparel goods classifiable as goods put up in sets for retail 
     sale as provided for in General Rule of Interpretation 3 of 
     the HTS shall not be considered to be originating goods 
     unless each of the goods in the set is an originating good or 
     the total value of the nonoriginating goods in the set does 
     not exceed 10 percent of the value of the set determined for 
     purposes of assessing customs duties.
       (i) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Direct costs of processing operations.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``direct costs of processing 
     operations'', with respect to a good, includes, to the extent 
     they are includable in the appraised value of the good when 
     imported into Morocco or the United States, as the case may 
     be, the following:
       (i) All actual labor costs involved in the growth, 
     production, or manufacture of the good, including fringe 
     benefits, on-the-job training, and the costs of engineering, 
     supervisory, quality control, and similar personnel.
       (ii) Tools, dies, molds, and other indirect materials, and 
     depreciation on machinery and equipment that are allocable to 
     the good.
       (iii) Research, development, design, engineering, and 
     blueprint costs, to the extent that they are allocable to the 
     good.
       (iv) Costs of inspecting and testing the good.
       (v) Costs of packaging the good for export to the territory 
     of the other country.
       (B) Exceptions.--The term ``direct costs of processing 
     operations'' does not include costs that are not directly 
     attributable to a good or are not costs of growth, 
     production, or manufacture of the good, such as--
       (i) profit; and
       (ii) general expenses of doing business that are either not 
     allocable to the good or are not related to the growth, 
     production, or manufacture of the good, such as 
     administrative salaries, casualty and liability insurance, 
     advertising, and sales staff salaries, commissions, or 
     expenses.
       (2) Good.--The term ``good'' means any merchandise, 
     product, article, or material.
       (3) Good wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of 
     morocco, the united states, or both.--The term ``good wholly 
     the growth, product, or manufacture of Morocco, the United 
     States, or both'' means--
       (A) a mineral good extracted in the territory of Morocco or 
     the United States, or both;
       (B) a vegetable good, as such a good is provided for in the 
     HTS, harvested in the territory of Morocco or the United 
     States, or both;
       (C) a live animal born and raised in the territory of 
     Morocco or the United States, or both;
       (D) a good obtained from live animals raised in the 
     territory of Morocco or the United States, or both;
       (E) a good obtained from hunting, trapping, or fishing in 
     the territory of Morocco or the United States, or both;
       (F) a good (fish, shellfish, and other marine life) taken 
     from the sea by vessels registered or recorded with Morocco 
     or the United States and flying the flag of that country;
       (G) a good produced from goods referred to in subparagraph 
     (F) on board factory ships registered or recorded with 
     Morocco or the United States and flying the flag of that 
     country;
       (H) a good taken by Morocco or the United States or a 
     person of Morocco or the United States from the seabed or 
     beneath the seabed outside territorial waters, if Morocco or 
     the United States has rights to exploit such seabed;
       (I) a good taken from outer space, if such good is obtained 
     by Morocco or the United States or a person of Morocco or the 
     United States and not processed in the territory of a country 
     other than Morocco or the United States;
       (J) waste and scrap derived from--
       (i) production or manufacture in the territory of Morocco 
     or the United States, or both; or
       (ii) used goods collected in the territory of Morocco or 
     the United States, or both, if such goods are fit only for 
     the recovery of raw materials;
       (K) a recovered good derived in the territory of Morocco or 
     the United States from used goods and utilized in the 
     territory of that country in the production of remanufactured 
     goods; and
       (L) a good produced in the territory of Morocco or the 
     United States, or both, exclusively--
       (i) from goods referred to in subparagraphs (A) through 
     (J), or
       (ii) from the derivatives of goods referred to in clause 
     (i),
     at any stage of production.
       (4) Indirect material.--The term ``indirect material'' 
     means a good used in the growth, production, manufacture, 
     testing, or inspection of a good but not physically 
     incorporated into the good, or a good used in the maintenance 
     of buildings or the operation of equipment associated with 
     the growth, production, or manufacture of a good, including--
       (A) fuel and energy;
       (B) tools, dies, and molds;
       (C) spare parts and materials used in the maintenance of 
     equipment and buildings;
       (D) lubricants, greases, compounding materials, and other 
     materials used in the growth, production, or manufacture of a 
     good or used to operate equipment and buildings;
       (E) gloves, glasses, footwear, clothing, safety equipment, 
     and supplies;
       (F) equipment, devices, and supplies used for testing or 
     inspecting the good;
       (G) catalysts and solvents; and
       (H) any other goods that are not incorporated into the good 
     but the use of which in the growth, production, or 
     manufacture of the good can reasonably be demonstrated to be 
     a part of that growth, production, or manufacture.
       (5) Material.--The term ``material'' means a good, 
     including a part or ingredient, that is used in the growth, 
     production, or manufacture of another good that is a new or 
     different article of commerce that has been grown, produced, 
     or manufactured in Morocco, the United States, or both.
       (6) Material produced in the territory of morocco or the 
     united states, or both.--The term ``material produced in the 
     territory of Morocco or the United States, or both'' means a 
     good that is either wholly the growth, product, or 
     manufacture of Morocco, the United States, or both, or a new 
     or different article of commerce that has been grown, 
     produced, or manufactured in the territory of Morocco or the 
     United States, or both.
       (7) New or different article of commerce.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``new or different article of 
     commerce'' means, except as provided in subparagraph (B), a 
     good that--
       (i) has been substantially transformed from a good or 
     material that is not wholly the growth, product, or 
     manufacture of Morocco, the United States, or both; and
       (ii) has a new name, character, or use distinct from the 
     good or material from which it was transformed.
       (B) Exception.--A good shall not be considered a new or 
     different article of commerce by virtue of having undergone 
     simple combining or packaging operations, or mere dilution 
     with water or another substance that does not materially 
     alter the characteristics of the good.
       (8) Recovered goods.--The term ``recovered goods'' means 
     materials in the form of individual parts that result from--
       (A) the complete disassembly of used goods into individual 
     parts; and

[[Page S8514]]

       (B) the cleaning, inspecting, testing, or other processing 
     of those parts that is necessary for improvement to sound 
     working condition.
       (9) Remanufactured good.--The term ``remanufactured good'' 
     means an industrial good that is assembled in the territory 
     of Morocco or the United States and that--
       (A) is entirely or partially comprised of recovered goods;
       (B) has a similar life expectancy to, and meets similar 
     performance standards as, a like good that is new; and
       (C) enjoys a factory warranty similar to that of a like 
     good that is new.
       (10) Simple combining or packaging operations.--The term 
     ``simple combining or packaging operations'' means operations 
     such as adding batteries to electronic devices, fitting 
     together a small number of components by bolting, gluing, or 
     soldering, or packing or repacking components together.
       (11) Substantially transformed.--The term ``substantially 
     transformed'' means, with respect to a good or material, 
     changed as the result of a manufacturing or processing 
     operation so that--
       (A)(i) the good or material is converted from a good that 
     has multiple uses into a good or material that has limited 
     uses;
       (ii) the physical properties of the good or material are 
     changed to a significant extent; or
       (iii) the operation undergone by the good or material is 
     complex by reason of the number of processes and materials 
     involved and the time and level of skill required to perform 
     those processes; and
       (B) the good or material loses its separate identity in the 
     manufacturing or processing operation.
       (j) Presidential Proclamation Authority.--
       (1) In general.--The President is authorized to proclaim, 
     as part of the HTS--
       (A) the provisions set out in Annex 4-A and Annex 5-A of 
     the Agreement; and
       (B) any additional subordinate category necessary to carry 
     out this title consistent with the Agreement.
       (2) Modifications.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to the consultation and layover 
     provisions of section 104, the President may proclaim 
     modifications to the provisions proclaimed under the 
     authority of paragraph (1)(A), other than provisions of 
     chapters 50 through 63 of the HTS, as included in Annex 4-A 
     of the Agreement.
       (B) Additional proclamations.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (A), and subject to the consultation and layover provisions 
     of section 104, the President may proclaim--
       (i) modifications to the provisions proclaimed under the 
     authority of paragraph (1)(A) as are necessary to implement 
     an agreement with Morocco pursuant to article 4.3.6 of the 
     Agreement; and
       (ii) before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, modifications to correct 
     any typographical, clerical, or other nonsubstantive 
     technical error regarding the provisions of chapters 50 
     through 63 of the HTS, as included in Annex 4-A of the 
     Agreement.

     SEC. 204. ENFORCEMENT RELATING TO TRADE IN TEXTILE AND 
                   APPAREL GOODS.

       (a) Action During Verification.--
       (1) In general.--If the Secretary of the Treasury requests 
     the Government of Morocco to conduct a verification pursuant 
     to article 4.4 of the Agreement for purposes of making a 
     determination under paragraph (2), the President may direct 
     the Secretary to take appropriate action described in 
     subsection (b) while the verification is being conducted.
       (2) Determination.--A determination under this paragraph is 
     a determination--
       (A) that an exporter or producer in Morocco is complying 
     with applicable customs laws, regulations, procedures, 
     requirements, or practices affecting trade in textile or 
     apparel goods; or
       (B) that a claim that a textile or apparel good exported or 
     produced by such exporter or producer--
       (i) qualifies as an originating good under section 203 of 
     this Act, or
       (ii) is a good of Morocco,

     is accurate.
       (b) Appropriate Action Described.--Appropriate action under 
     subsection (a)(1) includes--
       (1) suspension of liquidation of the entry of any textile 
     or apparel good exported or produced by the person that is 
     the subject of a verification referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1) regarding compliance described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A), in a case in which the request for verification 
     was based on a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity 
     related to such goods; and
       (2) suspension of liquidation of the entry of a textile or 
     apparel good for which a claim has been made that is the 
     subject of a verification referred to in subsection (a)(1) 
     regarding a claim described in subsection (a)(2)(B).
       (c) Action When Information Is Insufficient.--If the 
     Secretary of the Treasury determines that the information 
     obtained within 12 months after making a request for a 
     verification under subsection (a)(1) is insufficient to make 
     a determination under subsection (a)(2), the President may 
     direct the Secretary to take appropriate action described in 
     subsection (d) until such time as the Secretary receives 
     information sufficient to make a determination under 
     subsection (a)(2) or until such earlier date as the President 
     may direct.
       (d) Appropriate Action Described.--Appropriate action 
     referred to in subsection (c) includes--
       (1) publication of the name and address of the person that 
     is the subject of the verification;
       (2) denial of preferential tariff treatment under the 
     Agreement to--
       (A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the 
     person that is the subject of a verification referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) regarding compliance described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(A); or
       (B) a textile or apparel good for which a claim has been 
     made that is the subject of a verification referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) regarding a claim described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(B); and
       (3) denial of entry into the United States of--
       (A) any textile or apparel good exported or produced by the 
     person that is the subject of a verification referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) regarding compliance described in 
     subsection (a)(2)(A); or
       (B) a textile or apparel good for which a claim has been 
     made that is the subject of a verification referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1) regarding a claim described in subsection 
     (a)(2)(B).

     SEC. 205. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out--
       (1) subsections (a) through (i) of section 203;
       (2) amendments to existing law made by the subsections 
     referred to in paragraph (1); and
       (3) proclamations issued under section 203(j).

                     TITLE III--RELIEF FROM IMPORTS

     SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Moroccan article.--The term ``Moroccan article'' means 
     an article that qualifies as an originating good under 
     section 203(b) of this Act or receives preferential tariff 
     treatment under paragraphs 9 through 15 of article 4.3 of the 
     Agreement.
       (2) Moroccan textile or apparel article.--The term 
     ``Moroccan textile or apparel article'' means an article 
     that--
       (A) is listed in the Annex to the Agreement on Textiles and 
     Clothing referred to in section 101(d)(4) of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(4)); and
       (B) is a Moroccan article.
       (3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the United 
     States International Trade Commission.

     Subtitle A--Relief From Imports Benefiting From the Agreement

     SEC. 311. COMMENCING OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.

       (a) Filing of Petition.--
       (1) In general.--A petition requesting action under this 
     subtitle for the purpose of adjusting to the obligations of 
     the United States under the Agreement may be filed with the 
     Commission by an entity, including a trade association, firm, 
     certified or recognized union, or group of workers, that is 
     representative of an industry. The Commission shall transmit 
     a copy of any petition filed under this subsection to the 
     United States Trade Representative.
       (2) Provisional relief.--An entity filing a petition under 
     this subsection may request that provisional relief be 
     provided as if the petition had been filed under section 
     202(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252(a)).
       (3) Critical circumstances.--Any allegation that critical 
     circumstances exist shall be included in the petition.
       (b) Investigation and Determination.--Upon the filing of a 
     petition under subsection (a), the Commission, unless 
     subsection (d) applies, shall promptly initiate an 
     investigation to determine whether, as a result of the 
     reduction or elimination of a duty provided for under the 
     Agreement, a Moroccan article is being imported into the 
     United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms 
     or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions 
     that imports of the Moroccan article constitute a substantial 
     cause of serious injury or threat thereof to the domestic 
     industry producing an article that is like, or directly 
     competitive with, the imported article.
       (c) Applicable Provisions.--The following provisions of 
     section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2252) apply 
     with respect to any investigation initiated under subsection 
     (b):
       (1) Paragraphs (1)(B) and (3) of subsection (b).
       (2) Subsection (c).
       (3) Subsection (d).
       (4) Subsection (i).
       (d) Articles Exempt From Investigation.--No investigation 
     may be initiated under this section with respect to any 
     Moroccan article if, after the date on which the Agreement 
     enters into force, import relief has been provided with 
     respect to that Moroccan article under this subtitle.

     SEC. 312. COMMISSION ACTION ON PETITION.

       (a) Determination.--Not later than 120 days (180 days if 
     critical circumstances have been alleged) after the date on 
     which an investigation is initiated under section 311(b) with 
     respect to a petition, the Commission shall make the 
     determination required under that section.
       (b) Applicable Provisions.--For purposes of this subtitle, 
     the provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 
     330(d) of the Tariff

[[Page S8515]]

     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d) (1), (2), and (3)) shall be 
     applied with respect to determinations and findings made 
     under this section as if such determinations and findings 
     were made under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2252).
       (c) Additional Finding and Recommendation If Determination 
     Affirmative.--If the determination made by the Commission 
     under subsection (a) with respect to imports of an article is 
     affirmative, or if the President may consider a determination 
     of the Commission to be an affirmative determination as 
     provided for under paragraph (1) of section 330(d) of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930) (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)), the Commission shall 
     find, and recommend to the President in the report required 
     under subsection (d), the amount of import relief that is 
     necessary to remedy or prevent the injury found by the 
     Commission in the determination and to facilitate the efforts 
     of the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to 
     import competition. The import relief recommended by the 
     Commission under this subsection shall be limited to that 
     described in section 313(c). Only those members of the 
     Commission who voted in the affirmative under subsection (a) 
     are eligible to vote on the proposed action to remedy or 
     prevent the injury found by the Commission. Members of the 
     Commission who did not vote in the affirmative may submit, in 
     the report required under subsection (d), separate views 
     regarding what action, if any, should be taken to remedy or 
     prevent the injury.
       (d) Report to President.--Not later than the date that is 
     30 days after the date on which a determination is made under 
     subsection (a) with respect to an investigation, the 
     Commission shall submit to the President a report that 
     includes--
       (1) the determination made under subsection (a) and an 
     explanation of the basis for the determination;
       (2) if the determination under subsection (a) is 
     affirmative, any findings and recommendations for import 
     relief made under subsection (c) and an explanation of the 
     basis for each recommendation; and
       (3) any dissenting or separate views by members of the 
     Commission regarding the determination and recommendation 
     referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (e) Public Notice.--Upon submitting a report to the 
     President under subsection (d), the Commission shall promptly 
     make public such report (with the exception of information 
     which the Commission determines to be confidential) and shall 
     cause a summary thereof to be published in the Federal 
     Register.

     SEC. 313. PROVISION OF RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--Not later than the date that is 30 days 
     after the date on which the President receives the report of 
     the Commission in which the Commission's determination under 
     section 312(a) is affirmative, or which contains a 
     determination under section 312(a) that the President 
     considers to be affirmative under paragraph (1) of section 
     330(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1330(d)(1)), the 
     President, subject to subsection (b), shall provide relief 
     from imports of the article that is the subject of such 
     determination to the extent that the President determines 
     necessary to remedy or prevent the injury found by the 
     Commission and to facilitate the efforts of the domestic 
     industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition.
       (b) Exception.--The President is not required to provide 
     import relief under this section if the President determines 
     that the provision of the import relief will not provide 
     greater economic and social benefits than costs.
       (c) Nature of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--The import relief (including provisional 
     relief) that the President is authorized to provide under 
     this section with respect to imports of an article is as 
     follows:
       (A) The suspension of any further reduction provided for 
     under Annex IV of the Agreement in the duty imposed on such 
     article.
       (B) An increase in the rate of duty imposed on such article 
     to a level that does not exceed the lesser of--
       (i) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles at the time the import relief is provided; 
     or
       (ii) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the 
     HTS on like articles on the day before the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force.
       (C) In the case of a duty applied on a seasonal basis to 
     such article, an increase in the rate of duty imposed on the 
     article to a level that does not exceed the lesser of--
       (i) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles for the immediately preceding corresponding 
     season; or
       (ii) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the 
     HTS on like articles on the day before the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force.
       (2) Progressive liberalization.--If the period for which 
     import relief is provided under this section is greater than 
     1 year, the President shall provide for the progressive 
     liberalization of such relief at regular intervals during the 
     period in which the relief is in effect.
       (d) Period of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), any import 
     relief that the President provides under this section may not 
     be in effect for more than 3 years.
       (2) Extension.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the 
     President, after receiving an affirmative determination from 
     the Commission under subparagraph (B), may extend the 
     effective period of any import relief provided under this 
     section if the President determines that--
       (i) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy 
     or prevent serious injury and to facilitate adjustment by the 
     domestic industry to import competition; and
       (ii) there is evidence that the industry is making a 
     positive adjustment to import competition.
       (B) Action by commission.--(i) Upon a petition on behalf of 
     the industry concerned that is filed with the Commission not 
     earlier than the date which is 9 months, and not later than 
     the date which is 6 months, before the date any action taken 
     under subsection (a) is to terminate, the Commission shall 
     conduct an investigation to determine whether action under 
     this section continues to be necessary to remedy or prevent 
     serious injury and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic 
     industry to import competition and whether there is evidence 
     that the industry is making a positive adjustment to import 
     competition.
       (ii) The Commission shall publish notice of the 
     commencement of any proceeding under this subparagraph in the 
     Federal Register and shall, within a reasonable time 
     thereafter, hold a public hearing at which the Commission 
     shall afford interested parties and consumers an opportunity 
     to be present, to present evidence, and to respond to the 
     presentations of other parties and consumers, and otherwise 
     to be heard.
       (iii) The Commission shall transmit to the President a 
     report on its investigation and determination under this 
     subparagraph not later than 60 days before the action under 
     subsection (a) is to terminate, unless the President 
     specifies a different date.
       (C) Period of import relief.--Any import relief provided 
     under this section, including any extensions thereof, may 
     not, in the aggregate, be in effect for more than 5 years.
       (e) Rate After Termination of Import Relief.--When import 
     relief under this section is terminated with respect to an 
     article, the rate of duty on that article shall be the rate 
     that would have been in effect, but for the provision of such 
     relief, on the date on which the relief terminates.
       (f) Articles Exempt From Relief.--No import relief may be 
     provided under this section on any article that--
       (1) is subject to an assessment of additional duty under 
     section 202(b); or
       (2) has been subject to import relief under this subtitle 
     after the date on which the Agreement enters into force.

     SEC. 314. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.

       (a) General Rule.--Subject to subsection (b), no import 
     relief may be provided under this subtitle with respect to a 
     good after the date that is 5 years after the date on which 
     duty-free treatment must be provided by the United States to 
     that good pursuant to Annex IV of the Agreement.
       (b) Presidential Determination.--Import relief may be 
     provided under this subtitle in the case of a Moroccan 
     article after the date on which such relief would, but for 
     this subsection, terminate under subsection (a), if the 
     President determines that Morocco has consented to such 
     relief.

     SEC. 315. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

       For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President 
     under section 313 shall be treated as action taken under 
     chapter 1 of title II of such Act.

     SEC. 316. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION.

       Section 202(a)(8) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2252(a)(8)) is amended in the first sentence--
       (1) by striking ``and''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end ``, and title 
     III of the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement 
     Implementation Act''.

           Subtitle B--Textile and Apparel Safeguard Measures

     SEC. 321. COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION FOR RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--A request under this subtitle for the 
     purpose of adjusting to the obligations of the United States 
     under the Agreement may be filed with the President by an 
     interested party. Upon the filing of a request, the President 
     shall review the request to determine, from information 
     presented in the request, whether to commence consideration 
     of the request.
       (b) Publication of Request.--If the President determines 
     that the request under subsection (a) provides the 
     information necessary for the request to be considered, the 
     President shall cause to be published in the Federal Register 
     a notice of commencement of consideration of the request, and 
     notice seeking public comments regarding the request. The 
     notice shall include a summary of the request and the dates 
     by which comments and rebuttals must be received.

     SEC. 322. DETERMINATION AND PROVISION OF RELIEF.

       (a) Determination.--
       (1) In general.--If a positive determination is made under 
     section 321(b), the President shall determine whether, as a 
     result of the reduction or elimination of a duty under the 
     Agreement, a Moroccan textile or apparel article is being 
     imported into the United States in such increased quantities,

[[Page S8516]]

     in absolute terms or relative to the domestic market for that 
     article, and under such conditions as to cause serious 
     damage, or actual threat thereof, to a domestic industry 
     producing an article that is like, or directly competitive 
     with, the imported article.
       (2) Serious damage.--In making a determination under 
     paragraph (1), the President--
       (A) shall examine the effect of increased imports on the 
     domestic industry, as reflected in changes in such relevant 
     economic factors as output, productivity, utilization of 
     capacity, inventories, market share, exports, wages, 
     employment, domestic prices, profits, and investment, none of 
     which is necessarily decisive; and
       (B) shall not consider changes in technology or consumer 
     preference as factors supporting a determination of serious 
     damage or actual threat thereof.
       (b) Provision of Relief.--
       (1) In general.--If a determination under subsection (a) is 
     affirmative, the President may provide relief from imports of 
     the article that is the subject of such determination, as 
     described in paragraph (2), to the extent that the President 
     determines necessary to remedy or prevent the serious damage 
     and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic industry to 
     import competition.
       (2) Nature of relief.--The relief that the President is 
     authorized to provide under this subsection with respect to 
     imports of an article is an increase in the rate of duty 
     imposed on the article to a level that does not exceed the 
     lesser of--
       (A) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles at the time the import relief is provided; 
     or
       (B) the column 1 general rate of duty imposed under the HTS 
     on like articles on the day before the date on which the 
     Agreement enters into force.

     SEC. 323. PERIOD OF RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the import 
     relief that the President provides under subsection (b) of 
     section 322 may not, in the aggregate, be in effect for more 
     than 3 years.
       (b) Extension.--
       (1) In General.--Subject to paragraph (2), the President 
     may extend the effective period of any import relief provided 
     under this subtitle for a period of not more than 2 years, if 
     the President determines that--
       (A) the import relief continues to be necessary to remedy 
     or prevent serious damage and to facilitate adjustment by the 
     domestic industry to import competition; and
       (B) there is evidence that the industry is making a 
     positive adjustment to import competition.
       (2) Limitation.--Any relief provided under this subtitle, 
     including any extensions thereof, may not, in the aggregate, 
     be in effect for more than 5 years.

     SEC. 324. ARTICLES EXEMPT FROM RELIEF.

       The President may not provide import relief under this 
     subtitle with respect to any article if--
       (1) the article has been subject to import relief under 
     this subtitle after the date on which the Agreement enters 
     into force; or
       (2) the article is subject to import relief under chapter 1 
     of title II of the Trade Act of 1974.

     SEC. 325. RATE AFTER TERMINATION OF IMPORT RELIEF.

       When import relief under this subtitle is terminated with 
     respect to an article, the rate of duty on that article shall 
     be the rate that would have been in effect, but for the 
     provision of such relief, on the date on which the relief 
     terminates.

     SEC. 326. TERMINATION OF RELIEF AUTHORITY.

       No import relief may be provided under this subtitle with 
     respect to any article after the date that is 10 years after 
     the date on which duties on the article are eliminated 
     pursuant to the Agreement.

     SEC. 327. COMPENSATION AUTHORITY.

       For purposes of section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2133), any import relief provided by the President 
     under this subtitle shall be treated as action taken under 
     chapter 1 of title II of such Act.

     SEC. 328. BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

       The President may not release information which is 
     submitted in a proceeding under this subtitle and which the 
     President considers to be confidential business information 
     unless the party submitting the confidential business 
     information had notice, at the time of submission, that such 
     information would be released, or such party subsequently 
     consents to the release of the information. To the extent a 
     party submits confidential business information to the 
     President in a proceeding under this subtitle, the party also 
     shall submit a nonconfidential version of the information, in 
     which the confidential business information is summarized or, 
     if necessary, deleted.

                          ____________________