Citing unfair trade concessions that have proven detrimental to Central Washington asparagus growers, Congressman Doc Hastings today voted against a bill that includes an extension of the Andean Trade Preferences Act of 1991.

A 6-month extension of the Andean Trade Preferences Act until June 30, 2007 was included as part of a broader trade bill approved by the House of Representatives by a vote of 212 to 184.  Under the bill, an additional 6-month extension would occur if a free trade agreement with Peru is enacted into law. 

For years, Hastings has worked with asparagus producers, U.S. trade officials and his congressional colleagues on ways to support the industry.  In addition to efforts to level the international playing field for American asparagus growers, Hastings has secured funding for the development of automated harvesting technology to help the industry increase its competitiveness.  He has successfully pressed the U.S. Department of Agriculture to purchase asparagus for our nation’s federal nutrition programs to help boost prices by removing product from the domestic market.   

The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.  The Andean Trade Preferences Act of 1991 is currently set to expire at the end of this month.

A copy of Hastings’ statement in opposition to the bill follows:

Congressional Record
Statement from Congressman Doc Hastings
December 8, 2006

“I am disappointed to have to speak against this trade proposal today.  I am from one of the most trade dependent states in the country and I have always supported the expansion of trade opportunities and fair trade agreements.  I am well aware of how complex and interrelated the global economy is today and how important it is that we remain engaged with our trading partners to bring down trade barriers.  I support Permanent Normal Trade Relations for Vietnam and many other provisions in this package. 

However, I have a duty to speak out against this bill, because it proposes to continue unfair trade concessions to select Andean nations in exchange for absolutely nothing.  I am speaking of the extension of the Andean Trade Preferences Act, which has been rolled into this package.  ATPA is not a trade agreement – it is a one-sided proposition that writes off the interests of American farmers under the false premise that South American drug lords are going to give up lucrative cocaine production if they simply had the opportunity to export legitimate products duty free into the United States.  It is fundamentally unfair for American farmers and has had dramatic repercussions in my district in Central Washington state.    

One of the Peruvian products that have benefited most from the ATPA windfall is asparagus, which grows in the sandy coastal areas of Peru – not the mountain highlands where coca is produced.  Since the implementation of the Andean Trade Preferences Act in 1991, imports of fresh Peruvian asparagus have soared from 2,800 metric tons to well over 55,631 metric tons.  Similarly, imports of frozen asparagus from Peru have increased more than twenty times.  This flood of duty-free imports has been devastating for American asparagus growers in the major production areas of Washington, Michigan, and California.  It has also decimated much of the domestic asparagus processing capacity.  In fact, facing a flood of inexpensive Peruvian imports, many asparagus processors simply closed their U.S. operations and reopened down in Peru.  

Perhaps if you are not from an asparagus production area in this country, you may think this trade-off is worth it if it results in less narcotics production.  The unfortunate reality is that this policy has failed.  According to the White House Office of National Drug Policy, coca cultivation in Peru has increased to 94,000 acres – the highest level in eight years.  The International Trade Commission noted that any impact to narcotics trade from ATPA is “small” and “indirect.”  Yet the impact to the American asparagus producer is the exact opposite.  Nevertheless, here we are, asking American farmers to sacrifice their livelihoods for another six to twelve months under this bill to pursue a wholly unrelated anti-narcotics strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that we are once again putting the interests of a handful of large industrial asparagus exporters in Peru ahead of our own farmers in Washington, Michigan, and California.  It is an unfair policy that sends the wrong message at time when we need to revive momentum for expanding global trade opportunities.  I must therefore oppose this flawed legislation.”