link to page 1 link to page 1



July 5, 2022
Farm Bill Primer: Trade and Export Promotion Programs
Agricultural exports are significant to farmers and the U.S.
and agricultural exports. The Office of the U.S. Trade
economy. With the productivity of U.S. agriculture growing
Representative in its annual National Trade Estimate
faster than domestic demand, farmers and agriculturally
Report on Foreign Trade Barriers highlights a range of
oriented firms rely heavily on export markets to sustain
tariff and nontariff concerns, including sanitary and
prices and revenue. The trade title of the 2018 farm bill
phytosanitary (SPS) and technical trade barriers. These and
(P.L. 115-334) authorizes programs to expand foreign
other potential issues for Congress are discussed below.
markets for U.S. farmers and food manufacturers through
export market development programs and export credit
Trade Provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill
guarantee programs. These market expansion programs
The 2018 farm bill reauthorized several export market
derive their statutory authorities from the Agricultural
development programs and export credit guarantee
Trade Act (P.L. 95-501). The trade title of the farm bill also
programs, administered by USDA’s Foreign Agricultural
includes international food assistance programs and
Service. The 2018 farm bill included other trade and export
international science and technical exchange programs and
promotion provisions aimed at developing overseas markets
provisions, which are not addressed in this In Focus.
and addressing nontariff barriers. See CRS Report R46760,
U.S. Agricultural Export Programs: Background and Issues
Trade Situation Overview
for more background on these programs.
U.S. food and agricultural exports totaled $177 billion, and
U.S. imports totaled nearly $171 billion in 2021, resulting
Export Market Development Programs
in a trade surplus of more than $6 billion (Figure 1),
The 2018 farm bill consolidated four existing USDA export
according to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data.
promotion programs under a single Agricultural Trade
Bulk commodities, such as wheat, rice, coarse grains,
Promotion program and added to it a newly created Priority
oilseeds, cotton, and tobacco are the leading U.S. exports.
Trade Fund, with mandatory funding of $255 million
Leading consumer-oriented products include dairy
annually through FY2023 (7 U.S.C. §5623).
products, meat and poultry products, oilseeds, vegetable
ï‚· Market Access Program (MAP) provides cost-sharing
oils, fruits, vegetables, and beverages. About one-half of the
of overseas marketing and promotional activities that
value of U.S. agricultural exports in 2021 were destined for
help build commercial markets for U.S. agricultural
China, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and the European Union.
exports ($200 million per year).
Figure 1. Value of U.S. Agricultural Trade
ï‚· Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program
funds projects that address long-term opportunities to
reduce foreign import constraints or expand export
growth opportunities ($34.5 million per year).
ï‚· E. (Kika) de la Garza Emerging Markets Program
provides cost-sharing for technical assistance to support
generic U.S. agricultural exports ($8 million per year).
ï‚· Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops funds
projects addressing SPS and technical trade barriers to
U.S. specialty crop exports ($9 million per year).
ï‚· Priority Trade Fund supports activities to access,

develop, maintain, and expand markets for U.S.
Source: CRS from USDA’s Global Agricultural Trade System data
agricultural exports ($3.5 million per year).
(FATUS product group). Data are calendar year.
The once sizable U.S. agricultural trade surplus, which
Funding allocations by program are available at USDA’s
reached $40.1 billion in 2011, shrunk to below $10 billion
Directory of Market Development Program Participants
in 2018. The United States posted a deficit in 2019 before
(https://apps.fas.usda.gov/pcd/PCD_HelpSearch.aspx),
returning to a surplus in 2020 and 2021. This trend reflects
which lists agricultural commodities and export
both rising U.S. imports and generally slower growth in
destinations. The 2018 farm bill also allows USDA to fund
U.S. exports (Figure 1). As the margin of exports over
export promotion activities in Cuba (7 U.S.C. §5623(f)(4)).
imports has narrowed, some producer groups have sought
enhanced export promotion and market development. Some
Separately, the Quality Samples Program, which promotes
U.S. government officials and industry representatives have
U.S. agricultural products, is authorized under the
expressed an interest in countering regulatory policies of
Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act and is funded
some U.S. trading partners that may be impeding U.S. food
through its borrowing authority (15 U.S.C. §714c(f)).
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Farm Bill Primer: Trade and Export Promotion Programs
Export Credit Guarantee Programs
Supporters of these trade programs, such as the Coalition to
The 2018 farm bill reauthorized $1 billion annually through
Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports and the National
FY2023 in direct credits or export credit guarantees for
Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA),
exports to emerging markets (7 U.S.C. §5622 note).
claim various benefits of developing U.S. agricultural
Regulations at 7 C.F.R. Part 1493 cover two programs:
export markets. They cite helping to keep U.S. food and
ï‚·
agricultural products competitive in foreign markets and
GSM-102 Program provides credit guarantees to
diversifying U.S. market opportunities and assert that U.S.
finance commercial U.S. agricultural exports mainly to
spending on export promotion often lags behind that of U.S.
developing countries. Available FY2022 GSM-102
foreign competitors, such as China and European Union
allocations totaled $3 billion, with about one-half of
member countries. The coalition and NASDA further cite
allocations for approved financial institutions in Latin
market studies indicating that USDA’s export programs
American countries and the remainder destined for Asia,
have helped raise producer cash receipts and generate jobs.
Africa, and the Middle East. An eligible “agricultural
commodity” are those referenced at 7 U.S.C. §5602.
Questions about whether export promotion programs are as
ï‚· Facility Guarantee Program (FGP) provides payment
effective as they could be, and whether new approaches to
guarantees to improve or establish agriculture-related
facilitate and promote U.S. farm exports may be needed,
facilities in emerging markets. Available FY2022 FGP
could be topics of discussion in a new farm bill. The
allocations totaled $500 million. Eligible “destination
eligibility of certain types of organizations and producer
countries” are listed at 7 C.F.R. §1493.210.
groups and the levels of funding for various programs may
also come up for debate. Congress could consider whether
Under these programs, the Commodity Credit Corporation
to reauthorize and further expand the Biotechnology and
provides payment guarantees on commercial financing and
Agricultural Trade Program or other related programs to
assumes the risk of default on payments by the foreign
address nontariff and other technical trade barriers to U.S.
purchasers on loans to facilitate U.S. exports.
agricultural exports. Congress also may review policy
options to help facilitate implementation of the recently
Other Export-Related Provisions
enacted Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-
The 2018 farm bill created the Biotechnology and
146), which addresses ocean shipping costs and shipping-
Agricultural Trade Program (7 U.S.C. §5679) and provided
related obstacles to U.S. food and agricultural exports.
$2 million in annual appropriations through FY2023 to fund
grants for public and private sector projects that provide
Other trade-related issues often outside the context of the
“quick response intervention” and develop protocols as part
farm bill—but debated in view of lower farm export sales in
of bilateral negotiations with other countries. Trade
recent years—may include various multilateral and bilateral
concerns pertain to nontariff regulatory barriers to U.S.
trade negotiations that U.S. farm groups generally support.
exports produced with agricultural biotechnology and other
The Biden Administration’s plans to launch its Indo-Pacific
new technologies and requirements involving food safety,
Economic Framework initiative involving discussions with
plant and animal disease, or other SPS measures. The
several Asian nations has gained support from several U.S.
program was previously part of the 1990 farm bill (Food,
farm groups, including the American Farm Bureau
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990; P.L.
Federation. Congress also may review the implications of
101-624) and was appropriated $6 million annually (2002-
various retaliatory trade tariffs that remain in effect and/or
2007) before being allowed to lapse in 2007.
are under consideration, including tariffs imposed on U.S.
exports to China in retaliation for U.S. Section 301 duties
The 2018 farm bill also directed USDA, coordinating with
on Chinese goods that may be limiting certain U.S. food
other federal agencies, to work with tribal representations
and agricultural exports.
on U.S. trade missions to increase the inclusion of tribal
food products in trade-related activities (7 U.S.C. §5608).
Congress also may debate policy issues related to U.S.
Issues and Options
commitments and obligations within the World Trade
Organization (WTO). As a WTO member, the United States
Federal support for agricultural export market promotion
has committed to abide by WTO rules and disciplines,
has raised questions about the appropriateness of
including those that govern domestic farm policy and other
government support for private sector export promotion and
trade-related rules. Recently, WTO members (including the
the effectiveness and impact of these programs. Although
United States) agreed to enhance rules governing SPS
some support these programs, citing benefits to the U.S.
measures in food and agricultural trade. In addition, since
farm sector, others have expressed concerns about whether
2018, USDA has initiated large ad hoc program spending—
the federal government should play an active role in helping
valued at more than $55 billion cumulatively through
agribusiness entities market their products overseas.
2021—in response to international trade retaliation and
economic disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the run-up to the 2014 and 2018 farm bills, deficit
This additional spending increased U.S. farm payments,
reduction proposals targeted MAP for cuts or elimination.
raising questions among some policymakers about whether
Detractors claim these programs are forms of corporate
the United States may exceed its annual spending limits on
welfare, funding activities that private firms could and
domestic farm support under WTO rules.
would otherwise fund. Other critics contend that the
principal beneficiaries are foreign consumers and that funds
Renée Johnson, Specialist in Agricultural Policy
could be better spent, for example, by instructing U.S. firms
on how to export and on overcoming trade barriers.
IF12155
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Farm Bill Primer: Trade and Export Promotion Programs


Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF12155 · VERSION 1 · NEW

---