[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 21, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Page S8532]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



               United States-Morocco Free-Trade Agreement

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes of the 
Senate's time to discuss the reasons behind my decision to vote against 
the Morocco free-trade agreement implementing legislation which the 
Senate passed earlier today. I want to make very clear that my vote was 
not in any way against a free-trade agreement with Morocco. My vote, as 
was my vote against the Chilean free-trade agreement, was a protest 
against the continued determination by this administration to undermine 
and to do away with provisions that address labor issues, especially 
the worst forms of child labor, that we had contained in the Jordan 
free-trade agreement and relevant provisions in the Generalized System 
of Preferences.
  In fact, I welcome this affirmation of the strong economic and 
political relationship that exists between the United States and the 
Kingdom of Morocco which can be strengthened by this agreement. I 
recognize this legislation is almost certain to pass the House this 
week very easily, and the United States-Morocco Free-Trade Agreement 
will go into effect next January.
  The Kingdom of Morocco is a politically moderate Muslim nation that 
has been a long-time friend of the United States, a friendship that has 
been demonstrated most recently with their support in the aftermath of 
the tragedy of September 11, 2001.
  Morocco has been a valuable partner in fighting the global war on 
terror, and so it is appropriate for the U.S. Government to reciprocate 
that support with a bilateral free-trade agreement so long as it leads 
to expanded economic opportunities for both partners.
  Once in place, this agreement will generate significant economic 
benefits to both Morocco and the United States, and with Morocco's 
strategic position on the continent of Africa and easy access into 
Europe through the Strait of Gibraltar, it could serve as a gateway to 
even more markets.
  This bilateral free-trade agreement could also serve as the 
foundation for a far wider free-trade agreement with the entire region 
of the Middle East and northern Africa.
  With respect to agriculture, this free-trade agreement provides 
modest but clear opportunities to a wide range of U.S. commodities.
  The opportunities provided in the free-trade agreement in 
nonagricultural goods and services will be substantial as well, and it 
reflects the determination of the Government of Morocco to modernize 
their economy to the benefit of the people of Morocco.
  So count me as a friend of Morocco. Morocco has been a strong ally of 
the United States. It is a moderate nation. I have had the privilege of 
visiting Morocco on at least two occasions, maybe more, and I have a 
great deal of respect and admiration for the Moroccan people. 
Nonetheless, I decided to vote against it because I intend to call 
attention to the decision of U.S. negotiators to retreat from the 
provisions under the Generalized System of Preferences that requires 
the U.S. Government to monitor our trading partners on their progress 
in meeting international standards on the use of child labor, and these 
provisions in the GSP also provide leverage to encourage those 
countries to continue to make progress by permitting sanctions to be 
imposed against those who backtrack.
  The Bush administration has taken a weak stand toward child labor in 
this latest trade agreement. In 2000, I, along with then-Senator Helms 
of North Carolina, authored an amendment that unanimously passed the 
Senate that extended GSP benefits to countries that took steps to 
implement ILO Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labor, and it 
mandated that the President report on the progress of these countries. 
If the President determined that countries were not taking steps to 
implement the ILO Conventions, benefits would be withheld.
  The trade agreement that we passed with Chile earlier, and with 
Morocco, takes a step backward. As I said at the time, I first proposed 
we have a free-trade agreement with Chile in 1993, 11 years ago. So I 
had mixed emotions when I had to vote against the free-trade agreement 
with Chile because Chile's Government is making great progress. But 
this administration sought to undermine what we had achieved in the 
Jordanian free-trade agreement and in the Generalized System of 
Preferences.
  Morocco does have problems with child labor. Although not employed in 
regular manufacturing, child labor is commonly used in cottage 
industries, such as rug making, and many Moroccan middle-class 
households use children as domestic servants. The Government of Morocco 
did pass new labor laws last month which included raising the minimum 
working age from 12 to 15 and reducing the workweek from 48 to 44 
hours, but a recent U.S. Department of Labor report indicates that 
enforcement of existing laws is severely constrained.
  So while Morocco has been a good friend, while they are trying to 
make progress, I think our trade laws ought to bolster that progress in 
doing away with the worst forms of child labor.
  I take into account these considerations when I determine whether I 
will support a given trade agreement, as well as the economic gains 
that may be generated.
  As in the case of Chile, my concern about the lack of direct 
protection against the use of child labor was the overriding factor, so 
I voted no on the free-trade agreement with Morocco. Again, as I say, I 
do not want this to be misinterpreted in any way as any lack of support 
for our mutual friendship and the continued development of relations 
between the United States and Morocco.