From the article:

We believe world markets should be more open and barriers to trade should be lowered. But this trade preferences act, when it comes to asparagus, is a one-sided deal that does only harm to the U.S. industry while failing miserably at its stated intent of reducing drug production.

I'm having trouble seeing how this is "one sided." We're currently working on a free trade agreement with Peru and one of the consequences of that agreement will be tariff-free import of asparagus. So it's not like there's anything to this six-month extension that we're not already willing to give away.

I guess my major question for folks opposed to this is: why do you want asparagus-eaters to pay more at the supermarket?

And for those that say we should, at least, be getting something in return for letting Peruvian asparagus in tariff-free: like what?

Hoekstra has slavishly supported Bush, and is also  powerful in the House, chairing the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence since 2004 where he remains the ranking minority member.  I know from attending his town hall meetings that he has worked to protect asparagus growers.

in fact, it was the smoot-hawley tariff act that helped precipitate the worst depression this country's ever experienced. tariffs should be used sparingly, if at all.

the problem with determining comparibility is that, not unlike transfer pricing, it isn't a straight forward calculation. my norm isn't going to be the same as the norm for someone living in china. making this conversion would require significant assets, and should be done by an unbiased 3rd party, if there is such a thing.

The two most powerful and stable economies in the world grew and grow their economies by protecting their essential industries with high tarriffs on imports on manufactured products that compete with their domestic industries and agricultural products that would put their farmers out of business. All of asia has given us economic succes stories by following economic policies using tariffs and forsaking the free trade models advocated by western economists and policy makers. There are very good economic arguments for using tarrifs, you just aren't going to hear it in econ 101.

But, aside from that, for all you asparagus lovers, eat peruvian asparagus at your own peril. Eat anything from the produce department of your local supermarket at risk to you and your families health (industrial produced spinach, anyone?). Grow your own Asparagus or get it at the local farmers market if you want to taste what Asparagus should taste like and you want to know whether or not there are any pesticides or dangerous bugs on them. You are what you eat, and if you don't know what you eat, then you don't know what you are or what the hell is growing inside you.

Link

But Dayton (not the one in OH) is OK

Aren't there some issues more important than the needs of one state's farmers? Our national policy is to encourage crop subsitution in coca-producing countries. Now, in a rare example of success that is free of coercion, so-called "leftist" types here in the US are complaining?

Anyway, Peruvian asparagus is pretty good.  They tend to ship the tender, thin stalks, rather than the woody crap that US growers give us.

About 55 percent of Washington's crop is
canned, and less than 10 percent is
frozen.

was dominated by its frozen and or canned products.

The U.S. is one of the world's
largest producers and consumers of
fresh asparagus. In the past, fresh
asparagus was consumed in the U.S. only
in the first half of the year when U.S.
product was available. Now, thanks to
soaring imports--up 74 percent in the
1990's--fresh asparagus is available year
round.

Since frozen and canned asparagus is probably consumed during the off-season when fresh veggies are not available, it makes sense that off-season imports of fresh asparagus from Peru would hurt the demand for Washington frozen/canned asparagus. And, also, benefit consumers.

Peru has rapidly emerged as one of the
world's largest producers and exporters,
aided by climatic conditions permitting
year-round asparagus production. Peru
also enjoys duty-free access to the U.S.
market through U.S. trade concessions
under the Andean Trade Preference Act,
which was implemented for Peru in 1993.

otoh, we now have fresh veggies of many, many types all year around, which would also probably reduce demand for frozen/canned Washington asparagus. And, also, benefit consumers.

Given the proliferation in fresh produce items now available to consumers--the
average U.S. supermarket handles 340
fresh produce items--increased investment
in promotion and product innovation
may be essential to stimulate demand
for fresh asparagus relative to the attractive
substitutes.

U.S. asparagus production has declined
since 1989, due in part to some California
producers switching to more profitable
annual crops. U.S. production is expected
to increase in 1997, however, following
poor weather in 1995 and 1996 which
reduced production in California. Also,
recent plantings in California are starting
to mature, further boosting supply in the
next few years. Under these conditions,
U.S. producers should expect downward
pressure on prices. With the rapid growth
of asparagus imports from other countries,
off-season suppliers may also experience
downward price pressure.