[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16730-16731]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        TAJIKISTAN WTO ACCESSION

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to 
discuss a matter of great importance in the trade arena.
  Last week, the Senate approved legislation granting permanent normal 
trade relations to Russia and Moldova by a vote of 92 to 4. Such a 
strong vote would not have been possible without bipartisan cooperation 
from my Senate colleagues. I would once again like to

[[Page 16731]]

express my appreciation to all the Republican members of the Finance 
Committee who worked with me and my staff in good faith to develop a 
strong enforcement package which addresses many of the concerns we all 
have with our bilateral trade relations with Russia.
  I also want to again express my appreciation for the hard work and 
cooperation of Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee. 
The process we undertook in the Finance Committee is emblematic of how 
the Finance Committee should work. It is my sincere hope this will be a 
model for future legislation.
  Unfortunately, things don't always work so smoothly. In fact, I was 
quite disturbed to receive a letter earlier this week from Ambassador 
Kirk, our trade ambassador, informing me that the Obama administration 
intends to support approval of the proposed terms for Tajikistan's 
accession and the invitation for Tajikistan to become a member of the 
WTO at the upcoming WTO General Council meeting.
  Let me be clear. I support efforts to help advance the rule of law by 
bringing countries such as Tajikistan into the World Trade 
Organization. What disturbs me is that the administration had been 
negotiating the WTO accession package for over 1 year and failed to 
even mention it to anyone on the Senate Finance Committee.
  Even more troubling is the fact that the final WTO working party 
meeting took place on October 26, 2012, at which Tajikistan's proposed 
protocol of accession was completed. Yet no one in the Senate received 
any information about the accession until last week. Why the Obama 
administration waited 5 additional weeks after completing Tajikistan's 
WTO accession negotiations before notifying the committee is a mystery 
for me.
  For an administration that touts its commitment to transparency and 
unprecedented consultations with Congress, their failure to consult 
with the Finance Committee and the Senate on the terms of Tajikistan's 
proposed accession protocol reveals that the administration's bold 
pronouncements about their excellent consultations are nothing more 
than empty rhetoric.
  Moreover, section 122 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires 
the administration to consult with the Senate Committee on Finance 
before any vote is taken by the WTO relating to the accession of a new 
member. While sending a letter to the committee 1 mere week before a 
vote is taken in the WTO and after the terms of the accession are 
already completed might technically comply with the letter of the law, 
it in no way complies with the spirit of the law.
  Had Congress been notified of Tajikistan's pending invitation to join 
the WTO earlier, it might have been possible to include provisions 
granting Tajikistan permanent normal trade relations along with the 
Russia and Moldova bills. But that was not possible. Instead, the Obama 
administration's lack of transparency and failure to meaningfully 
consult with Congress rendered that impossible.
  As we continue to try to work with the Obama administration to 
develop policies and advance legislation which create economic growth 
and open new markets for U.S. workers and job creators, the 
administration must engage in meaningful consultations. Accordingly, I 
would expect the way the Tajikistan accession has been handled by the 
Obama administration will be an exception and not the norm regarding 
future consultations.
  To help ensure that is the case, I will soon be sending a letter to 
the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative with some detailed 
questions regarding their consultations with Congress and the private 
sector trade advisory committees. It is vitally important that we bring 
more transparency to this process, so I sincerely hope we receive a 
detailed and substantive response soon.
  I also hope we can soon begin to have a meaningful discussion with 
the administration about their plans for renewing trade promotion 
authority.
  As most of my colleagues know, trade promotion authority is an 
important tool which helps us pry open foreign markets to U.S. exports. 
Every President since FDR has sought trade promotion authority from 
Congress. Despite its critical importance, the administration keeps 
putting off any meaningful discussion of renewal. In fact, when 
Ambassador Kirk testified before the Finance Committee last March, I 
offered to sit down with him that day to start talking about TPA 
renewal. He declined my offer. Instead, he simply said he would be 
happy to sit down and talk with me and members of the Finance Committee 
about TPA renewal ``at the appropriate time.''
  Since that time, there has been no administration dialog with me or 
with the Finance Committee about TPA, even though the Obama 
administration intends to conclude the trans-Pacific partnership 
negotiations by October of next year and is considering launching 
negotiations for a free-trade agreement with the European Union as 
early as next month.
  Frankly, both of these initiatives are going to require TPA in order 
to be successful. While TPA should have been renewed long ago, we 
currently cannot wait any longer. If these trade initiatives are going 
to succeed we cannot continue to keep putting them off.
  The time for the administration to start meaningful consultation with 
Congress on TPA renewal is now and I would like to see more 
cooperation. In this Congress we have seen the Korean Free Trade 
Agreement, we have seen the Colombian Free Trade Agreement, and we have 
seen the Panamanian Free Trade Agreement. We have seen the PNTR with 
Russia. Those would not have happened if we had not been pushing on the 
Finance Committee to get them done.
  In my opinion, the administration has been slow-walking all of those. 
Those mean balance of trade positives for our companies here in America 
and I hate to see us playing around in deleterious ways with these 
types of agreements. I have suggested some other agreements here that 
need to be entered into. We need to get real on international trade. We 
need to be able to compete with anybody in this world, and we are able 
to if we are given the chance.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

                          ____________________