{ "id": "R43905", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R43905", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 458636, "date": "2017-01-30", "retrieved": "2017-02-03T19:09:38.534357", "title": "Major Agricultural Trade Issues in the 115th Congress", "summary": "Trade, particularly exports, is critical to the vitality of American agriculture. On average, foreign markets absorb about one-fifth of U.S. agricultural production, thus contributing significantly to the health of the farm economy. The positive economic effects of trade in farm products are felt well beyond the farm gate. Farm product exports make up about 10% of total U.S. exports and contribute positively to the U.S. balance of trade. The economic benefits of agricultural exports also extend across rural communities, while overseas farm sales help to buoy a wide array of industries linked to agriculture, including transportation, processing, and farm input suppliers. Moreover, most of the future growth in food demand is expected to occur in developing countries. \nCongress has traditionally displayed a keen interest in agricultural trade issues given their importance to farmers and ranchers and to the overall economy. The plethora of agriculture-related policy questions and trade issues in play as the 115th Congress convenes suggests that trade policy in general, as well as specific farm trade issues, may continue to draw congressional oversight and input. One ongoing concern has centered on the trade-distorting domestic policies abroad, including in China, which ranked as the second largest market for U.S. farm exports in FY2016. In late 2016 the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) launched two trade enforcement actions against China at the World Trade Organization (WTO) over its administration of tariff rate quotas for imports of wheat, rice, and corn and over its domestic support measures for these crops. \nOn the multilateral front, President Trump has ordered the withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) regional free trade agreement (FTA), which the United States and 11 other Pacific-facing nations signed but which Congress has not ratified. As negotiated, TPP would have significantly improved access for U.S. farm exports. USTR continues to negotiate with the European Union (EU) over a regional FTA\u2014the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP)\u2014involving a number of thorny agricultural issues that have proved to be impediments to trade, including differences over geographic indications (GI) and discontinuity in regulating the application of biotechnology to agricultural production, as well as access for these products to commercial markets. The United Kingdom vote to exit the EU has added to the already uncertain prospects for T-TIP. \nAt the global level, further liberalization of agricultural trade is an objective of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations under the WTO, but those talks have been at an impasse for several years. Of concern to the developing world, the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)\u2014which provides duty-free tariff treatment for certain products from developing countries and benefits from $2.6 billion in U.S. agricultural imports in 2015\u2014will expire at the end of 2017 unless Congress extends it. \nBeyond trade agreements, numerous other trade issues of importance to U.S. agriculture may be of interest to Congress. For one, suspension agreements that limit Mexico\u2019s sugar exports to the United States have come under increasing criticism from U.S. stakeholders and may have implications for the U.S. sugar program. In Cuba, U.S. farm and food interests see potential to meaningfully expand exports, but a prohibition on private U.S. financing is viewed as a major obstacle to this end. U.S. dairy interests object to a Canadian dairy ingredient pricing strategy that it believes is aimed at displacing U.S. ingredient exports. U.S. exports of beef, pork, and chicken continue to face bans and trade restrictions over disease outbreaks that are inconsistent with international trade protocols. Examples include China\u2019s ongoing bans on imports of U.S. beef and poultry and restrictions imposed by several foreign markets on U.S. ractopamine-fed pork. As the 115th Congress convenes, the United States has settled two long-running WTO challenges to its policies: one to its cotton program and another to its country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43905", "sha1": "c7511174b91db6a72404dfd44b6225d5715c64d9", "filename": "files/20170130_R43905_c7511174b91db6a72404dfd44b6225d5715c64d9.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43905", "sha1": "cfcd56265ff4f60cbe98a68828c58b120788593c", "filename": "files/20170130_R43905_cfcd56265ff4f60cbe98a68828c58b120788593c.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4829, "name": "Agricultural Trade & Food Aid" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4893, "name": "Agricultural Trade" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 438149, "date": "2015-02-10", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T19:29:58.342605", "title": "Major Agricultural Trade Issues in the 114th Congress", "summary": "Trade, particularly exports, is critical to the vitality of American agriculture. On average, foreign markets absorb about one-fifth of U.S. agricultural production, thus contributing significantly to the health of the farm economy. The positive economic effects of trade in farm products are felt well beyond the farm gate. Farm product exports make up about 10% of total U.S. exports and contribute positively to the U.S. balance of trade. The economic benefits of agricultural exports also extend across rural communities, while overseas farm sales help to buoy a wide array of industries linked to agriculture, including transportation, processing, and farm input suppliers. Moreover, most of the future growth in food demand is expected to occur in developing countries. \nTrade, including agricultural trade, is clearly on the national agenda in the 114th Congress. The United States is engaged in negotiating two large regional trade agreements\u2014the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) among 12 Pacific-facing nations, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) with the European Union. These agreements hold the potential to expand foreign markets for U.S. farmers and food processors by eliminating, or substantially lowering, tariffs and restrictive quotas around certain commodities, such as rice and pork in Japan, or by dismantling supply management programs that protect poultry, eggs, and dairy in Canada. Also on the negotiating agenda are non-tariff trade barriers, including certain sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures that governments employ to safeguard human, animal, and plant health, but which may also be used to deter imports. Geographic Indications (GI) that restrict the use of common names for certain agricultural products and can thereby impede trade in U.S. farm products are on the agenda of U.S. negotiators in both TPP and T-TIP. At the global level, further liberalization of agricultural trade is an objective of the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations under the World Trade Organization (WTO), but those talks have effectively stalled. \nNumerous other trade issues of importance to U.S. agriculture are currently in play. Among these, U.S. producers are often subject to import bans that are not supported by internationally recognized animal health and food safety standards, including bans on U.S. poultry products due to avian influenza, and on beef and pork owing to the use of ractopamine to boost weight gain and meat yield. At the same time, the United States currently is appealing a WTO decision that determined its country-of-origin labeling (COOL) regulations on marketing of meat violate its WTO obligations. President Obama\u2019s overture in December 2014 to engage Cuba and normalize relations has drawn the support of many in the agricultural community who see the potential to markedly expand exports of U.S. agricultural products to Cuba if Congress were to further ease, or remove entirely, existing restrictions on trade with that country. Agreements the United States struck with Mexico late in 2014 have recast the terms of bilateral trade in sugar, but the two suspension agreements currently are being challenged by some U.S. sugar refiners. \nCongress traditionally has displayed a keen interest in agricultural trade issues given their importance to agriculture and to the economy at large. Congress has a consequential role to play in many of these trade matters\u2014from providing direction to U.S. trade negotiators within the context of TPP or T-TIP to considering whether to provide the Administration with Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to facilitate the negotiation and congressional consideration of any trade agreements. Also of potential interest if Congress considers trade legislation are trade-related programs for which authorization has expired. Two such are Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers (TAAF), which provides technical and financial assistance to producers who are adversely affected by import surges, and the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), which provides duty-free tariff treatment for certain products from designated developing countries.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43905", "sha1": "5151a2d2d28a48f6cc756d880b71790af08b2549", "filename": "files/20150210_R43905_5151a2d2d28a48f6cc756d880b71790af08b2549.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43905", "sha1": "7bada648e5aebb9c5e8f204dcc44a0c5b345c450", "filename": "files/20150210_R43905_7bada648e5aebb9c5e8f204dcc44a0c5b345c450.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 217, "name": "Agricultural Trade" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Agricultural Policy", "Foreign Affairs" ] }