Advanced search    Help

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

• U.S. Farm Support: Compliance with WTO Commitments [October 4, 2019]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Document: "As a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements, the United States has committed to abide by WTO rules and disciplines, including those that govern domestic farm policy as spelled out in the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). Since establishment of the WTO on January 1, 1995, the United States has complied with its WTO spending limits on market-distorting types of farm program outlays (referred to as amber box spending). However, the addition of large, new trade assistance payments to producers in 2018 and 2019, on top of existing farm program support, has raised concerns by some U.S. trading partners, as well as market watchers and policymakers, that U.S. domestic farm subsidy outlays might exceed the annual spending limit of $19.1 billion agreed to as part of U.S. commitments to WTO member countries. CRS [Congressional Research Service] analysis indicates that the United States probably did not violate its WTO spending limit in 2018 but could potentially exceed it in 2019."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2019-10-04
• Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues [March 14, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Increasing dependence on foreign sources of crude oil, concerns over global climate change, and the desire to promote domestic rural economies have raised interest in renewable biofuels as an alternative to petroleum in the U.S. transportation sector. In response to this interest, U.S. policymakers have enacted an increasing variety of policies, at both the state and federal levels, to directly support U.S. biofuels production and use (although some of these policies have expired). Policy measures have included blending and production tax credits to lower the cost of biofuels to end users, an import tariff to protect domestic ethanol from cheaper foreign-produced ethanol, research grants to stimulate the development of new biofuels technologies, loans and loan guarantees to facilitate the development of biofuels production and distribution infrastructure, and, perhaps most important, minimum usage requirements to guarantee a market for biofuels irrespective of their cost. As a result of expanding policy support, biofuels (primarily corn-based ethanol and biodiesel) production has grown significantly (up over 600%) since the early 2000s. However, despite the rapid growth, U.S. biofuels consumption remains small as a component of U.S. motor fuels, comprising about 5.7% of total transportation fuel consumption (on a gasolineequivalent basis) in 2012. Initially, the most significant federal programs for supporting biofuels were tax credits for the production or blending of ethanol and biodiesel into the nation's fuel supply. However, under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)--first established in 2005, then greatly expanded in 2007 (as described below)--Congress mandated biofuels use. In the long term, the expanded RFS usage mandate is likely to prove more significant than tax incentives in promoting the use of these fuels. This report focuses specifically on the RFS. It describes the general nature of the biofuels RFS and its implementation, and outlines some of the emerging issues related to the sustainability of the continued growth in U.S. biofuels production needed to fulfill the expanding RFS mandate, as well as the emergence of potential unintended consequences of this rapid expansion. This report does not address the broader public policy issue of how best to support U.S. energy policy."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Yacobucci, Brent D.; Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2013-03-14
• Selected Issues Related to an Expansion of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) [December 3, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "High petroleum and gasoline prices, concerns over global climate change, and the desire to promote domestic rural economies have greatly increased interest in biofuels as an alternative to petroleum in the U.S. transportation sector. Biofuels, most notably corn ethanol, have grown significantly in the past few years as a component of U.S. motor fuel supply. Ethanol, the most commonly used biofuel, is blended in nearly half of all U.S. gasoline (at the 10% level or lower in most cases). However, current biofuel supply only represents about 4% of total gasoline demand. While recent proposals have set the goal of significantly expanding biofuel supply in the coming decades, questions remain about the ability of the U.S. biofuel industry to meet rapidly increasing demand. Current U.S. biofuel supply relies almost exclusively on ethanol produced from Midwest corn. In 2006, 20% of the U.S. corn crop was used for ethanol production. To meet some of the higher ethanol production goals would require more corn than the United States currently produces, if all of the envisioned ethanol was made from corn. Due to the concerns with significant expansion in corn-based ethanol supply, interest has grown in expanding the market for biodiesel produced from soybeans and other oil crops. However, a significant increase in U.S. biofuels would likely require a movement away from food and grain crops as feedstocks. Other biofuel feedstock sources, including cellulosic biomass, are promising, but technological barriers make their future uncertain. Therefore, some proposals would require ever-larger amounts of biofuels produced from feedstocks other than corn starch, including sugarcane, oil crops, and cellulose, to promote the development of these fuels."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Yacobucci, Brent D.; Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2007-12-03
• U.S. Agricultural Policy Response to WTO Cotton Decision [Updated September 8, 2006]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "In a dispute settlement case (DS267) brought by Brazil against certain aspects of the U.S. cotton program, a WTO [World Trade Organization] Appellate Body (AB) recommended in March 2005 that the United States remove certain 'prohibited subsidies' by July 21, 2005, and remove the adverse effects resulting from certain 'actionable subsidies' by September 21, 2005. When the United States failed to meet these deadlines, Brazil claimed the right to retaliate against $3 billion in U.S. exports to Brazil based on the prohibited subsidies, and proposed $1 billion in retaliation based on the actionable subsidies. The United States objected to these retaliation amounts and requested WTO arbitration on the matter. However, in mid-2005 the United States and Brazil reached a procedural agreement to temporarily suspend retaliation proceedings. On August 21, 2006, Brazil submitted a request for a WTO compliance panel to review whether the United States has fully complied with panel and AB rulings. The United States blocked the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) from approving Brazil's request on August 31, 2006; however, Brazil is expected to make a second request (which the United States will be unable to block) at the DSB meeting set for September 28, 2006. If a compliance panel finds that the United States has not fully complied with the AB rulings, Brazil could ask the WTO arbitration panel to resume its work. Although the United States has already complied with a portion of the AB's recommendation by eliminating the Step 2 program (August 1, 2006), additional permanent modifications to U.S. farm programs may still be needed to fully comply with the WTO ruling on 'actionable subsidies.' This report will be updated as events warrant."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2006-09-08
• U.S. Farm Economy [Updated September 6, 2006]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "According to USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS), national net farm income -- a key indicator of U.S. farm well-being -- is expected to experience a decline in 2006 following three years of robust receipts and income. Net farm income is forecast to decline by $19.4 billion (or 26%) to $54.4 billion in 2006 due to declines in cash receipts (down $3.6 billion) and government payments (down $6.1 billion) combined with a sharp rise in production expenses (up $9.5 billion). Crop receipts are projected to reach a record high in 2006, despite a smaller crop outlook, on the strength of higher prices. However, gains in crop receipts are expected to be more than offset by sharply lower livestock receipts due to weaker hog, broiler, and dairy prices. The projected rises in crop prices are expected to reduce price-triggered marketing loan benefits, leading to lower total government payments. Finally, energy, fertilizer, and pesticide costs, as well as interest charges, are expected to rise significantly in 2006, cutting into net farm returns. Farm asset value of $1,919 billion and total farm debt of $217 billion are both projected at record levels in 2006. However, the debt-to-asset ratio of 11.3% represents a fourth consecutive year of decline (and the lowest level since 1960), suggesting a strong financial position for the agricultural sector as a whole. This report will be updated as events warrant."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2006-09-06
• U.S. Agricultural Policy Response to WTO Cotton Decision [Updated January 18, 2006]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "In March 2005, a World Trade Organization (WTO) appellate panel ruled against the United States in a dispute settlement case (DS267) brought by Brazil against certain aspects of the U.S. cotton program. To comply with the 'prohibited subsidy' portion of the WTO ruling, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns announced (July 5, 2005) that the Administration was sending proposed statutory changes to Congress including elimination of the Step 2 cotton program, removal of a 1% cap on fees charged under the GSM-102 export credit guarantee program, and termination of the GSM-103 export credit guarantee program. In light of USDA's proposed changes, and with the expectation that they will be fully implemented in an expeditious manner, Brazil has temporarily suspended its pursuit of WTO-sanctioned retaliatory trade measures against U.S. agricultural products. The U.S. National Cotton Council (NCC) has announced its opposition to the removal of the Step 2 cotton program whose elimination is contained in the pending budget reconciliation bill, S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Additional permanent modifications to U.S. farm programs may still be needed to fully comply with the 'actionable subsidies' portion of the WTO ruling. Such changes ultimately would be decided by Congress. This report will be updated as events warrant."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2006-01-18
• Brazil's WTO Case Against the U.S. Cotton Program: A Brief Overview [March 17, 2009]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This Congressional Research Service (CRS) report discusses Brazil's case against the United States regarding cotton subsidies. "On March 3, 2009, at a meeting of the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in Geneva, Brazil claimed the right to impose $2.5 billion in retaliatory sanctions against the United States in its long-running case against certain U.S. cotton subsidies. […] This report provides a brief overview of Brazil's case against the U.S. cotton program, the evolution and current status of the case, and the potential role for Congress. For a more detailed discussion of the U.S.-Brazil WTO dispute settlement case, see CRS Report RL32571, 'Brazil's WTO Case Against the U.S. Cotton Program', by Randy Schnepf. This report will be updated as events warrant."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2009-03-17
• Farm-to-Food Price Dynamics [September 27, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Heightened commodity price volatility since 2008-driven by major market-shifting events including increased demand for corn under strong federal biofuels incentives, a prolonged surge in China's soybean import demand, and the severe U.S. drought of 2012-has generated many questions about linkages between farm commodity prices and U.S. food price inflation from Members of Congress and their constituents. This report responds to those concerns by addressing the linkage between farm and retail food prices. […] Price is the primary mechanism that links raw farm commodities through the various levels of the market system to the retail food product. The nature of price transmission between farm and retail levels depends, in general, on the size of the farm share of the retail price and the degree of market competition at each stage of the marketing chain. […] Comparisons of price data for major food groups confirm that farm-to-retail price transmission behaves slowly, with substantial lags and asymmetry. For example, the rise in farm prices that occurred between 2006 and mid-2008 was substantially larger and occurred about six months earlier than the rise in corresponding retail food product prices. Similarly, the subsequent fall in farm prices from their 2008 peaks preceded the downturn in corresponding retail food prices by several months."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2013-09-27
• Energy Provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79) [March 12, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Agriculture-based renewable energy can take several forms, including biofuels such as cornbased ethanol or soy-based biodiesel, wind-driven turbines located on farmland or in rural areas, anaerobic digesters that convert animal waste into methane and electric power, or biomass harvested for burning as a processing fuel or to generate heat as part of an industrial activity. […] By FY2007 total direct federal biofuels subsidies had grown to over $4 billion per year. By FY2011, federal biofuels subsidies had reached approximately $7.7 billion, of which an estimated $5.7 billion was attributable to the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) of $0.45/gallon. However, the VEETC expired at the end of FY2011 and federal subsidies fell to an estimated $1.3 billion in FY2012--consisting primarily of biodiesel producer tax credits of approximately $1 billion. The remaining biofuels tax credits--for biodiesel and cellulosic biofuel, and including a small producers tax credit--expired at the end of FY2013. In their absence, the funding afforded under the provisions of Title IX of the 2014 farm bill represents the principal source of federal support for biofuels production and use in the United States. This report focuses on those policies contained in the 2014 farm bill that support agriculturebased renewable energy, especially biofuels. The introductory sections of this report briefly describe how USDA bioenergy policies evolved and how they fit into the larger context of U.S. biofuels policy. Then, each of the bioenergy provisions of the 2014 farm bill are defined in terms of their function, goals, administration, funding, and implementation status."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2014-03-12
• U.S. Farm Income [February 28, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "According to USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS), national net farm income--a key indicator of U.S. farm well-being--is forecast at $95.8 billion in 2014, down 27% from last year's record $130.5 billion. The 2014 forecast would be the lowest since 2010, but would remain $8 billion above the previous 10-year average. The forecast for lower net farm income and net cash income is primarily a result of the outlook for lower crop receipts and government payments. In contrast, livestock returns are forecast to be steady to slightly higher. The 2014 farm bill […] eliminated direct payments of nearly $5 billion per year, while market prices for program crops--despite their plunge since late 2013--are expected to remain above trigger levels for price-contingent programs, thus keeping government program support at historically low levels in 2014. […]These data suggest a strong financial position heading into 2014 for the agricultural sector as a whole relative to the rest of the U.S. economy, but with substantial regional variation. Declining prices for most major program crops signal tougher times ahead. Eventual 2014 agricultural economic well-being will hinge greatly on the final crop harvests and harvest-time prices, as well as both domestic and international macroeconomic factors, including economic growth and consumer demand."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2014-02-28
• International Food Aid Programs: Background and Issues [May 28, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "For almost six decades, the United States has played a leading role in global efforts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition and to enhance world food security through international food aid assistance--primarily through either the sale on concessional terms or the donation of U.S. agricultural commodities. Foreign food aid assistance accounts for about 4% of total U.S. foreign aid each year, with economic and military assistance accounting for most outlays. The objectives of foreign food aid include providing emergency and humanitarian assistance in response to natural or manmade disasters, and promoting agricultural development and food security. […] While the 2014 farm bill made some modest changes to existing U.S. food aid programs, the Administration had proposed making more sweeping 'reforms' to both the structure and intent of U.S. food aid programs as part of its FY2014 budget request. The proposals included shifting funds from Food for Peace to three USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development] accounts, eliminating the monetization procedure, providing greater flexibility to procure commodities in local and regional markets overseas, and reducing the volume of commodities subject to cargo preference legislation. USDA and USAID continue to advocate for the Administration's reform agenda, and the President has reintroduced a revised version of his reform proposal in his FY2015 budget request. These reform proposals are being debated as part of the annual appropriations process."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2014-05-28
• Status of the WTO Brazil-U.S. Cotton Case [October 1, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "On October 1, 2014, Brazil and the United States reached an agreement to resolve the long-running cotton dispute in the World Trade Organization (WTO). The two countries signed a new memorandum of understanding (MOU) that spelled out the terms of the agreement: Brazil relinquishes its rights to countermeasures against U.S. trade or any further proceedings in the dispute; the United States agreed to new rules governing fees and tenor for the GSM-102 export credit guarantee program; Brazil agreed to a temporary Peace Clause with respect to any new WTO actions against U.S. cotton support programs while the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) is in force or against any agricultural export credit guarantees under the GSM-102 program as long as the program is operated consistent with the agreed terms; the United States would make a onetime final payment of $300 million to the Brazil Cotton Institute (BCI) with explicit use-of-fund conditions; and both counties agreed to routine semi-annual reporting under the MOU. The cotton dispute settlement case (DS267) was initiated by Brazil--a major cotton export competitor--in 2002 against specific provisions of the U.S. cotton program. In September 2004, a WTO dispute settlement panel ruled that (1) certain U.S. agricultural support payments for cotton distorted international agricultural markets and should be either withdrawn or modified to end the market distortions; and (2) U.S. Step-2 payments and agricultural export credit guarantees for cotton and other unscheduled commodities were prohibited subsidies under WTO rules and should be withdrawn."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2014-10-01
• U.S. Farm Income [August 29, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "According to USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS), national net farm income--a key indicator of U.S. farm well-being--is forecast at $113.2 billion in 2014, down 14% from last year's record $131.3 billion. The 2014 forecast would be the lowest since 2010, but would remain $25 billion above the previous 10-year average. [...] At the farm-household level, average farm household incomes have surged ahead of average U.S. household incomes since the late 1990s. In 2012 (the last year for which comparable data were available), the average farm household income of $108,844 was about 53% higher than the average U.S. household income of $71,274. These data suggest a strong financial position heading into 2015 for the agricultural sector as a whole relative to the rest of the U.S. economy, but with substantial regional variation. However, declining prices for most major program crops signal tougher times ahead, and considerable uncertainty surrounds producer participation in the new safety net programs of the 2014 farm bill. Eventual 2014 agricultural economic well-being will hinge greatly on the final crop harvests and harvest-time prices, as well as both domestic and international macroeconomic factors, including economic growth and consumer demand."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2014-08-29
• International Food Aid Programs: Background and Issues [June 23, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "For almost six decades, the United States has played a leading role in global efforts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition and to enhance world food security through international food aid assistance--primarily through either the sale on concessional terms or the donation of U.S. agricultural commodities. Foreign food aid assistance accounts for about 4% of total U.S. foreign aid each year, with economic and military assistance accounting for most outlays. The objectives of foreign food aid include providing emergency and humanitarian assistance in response to natural or manmade disasters, and promoting agricultural development and food security. […] While the 2014 farm bill made some modest changes to existing U.S. food aid programs, the Administration (as part of the annual appropriations process) and bipartisan bills in both the House (H.R. 1983) and Senate (S. 2421) have proposed making more sweeping 'reforms' to both the structure and intent of U.S. food aid programs. Changes would include eliminating cargo preference (i.e., legislation requiring use of U.S.-flag vessels for shipping food aid) and monetization (the process of selling U.S. commodities in recipient-country markets to generate cash for development activities), while expanding flexibility in the use of cash-based forms of assistance."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2014-06-23
• Brazil's WTO Case Against the U.S. Cotton Program [November 22, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The so-called 'Brazil cotton case' is a long-running World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement case (DS267) initiated by Brazil--a major cotton export competitor--in 2002 against specific provisions of the U.S. cotton program. In September 2004, a WTO dispute settlement panel found that certain U.S. agricultural support payments and guarantees--including (1) payments to cotton producers under the marketing loan and counter-cyclical programs, and (2) export credit guarantees under the GSM-102 program--were inconsistent with WTO commitments. In 2005, the United States made several changes to both its cotton and GSM-102 programs in an attempt to bring […] The framework agreement--which lays out a number of 'steps and discussions'--represents a path forward toward the ultimate goal of reaching a negotiated solution to the dispute, while avoiding WTO-sanctioned trade retaliation by Brazil against U.S. goods and services. As a result, Brazil has suspended trade retaliation pending U.S. compliance with the framework agreement measures. Key aspects of the framework agreement include (1) payment by the United States of a $147.3 million annual fund to a newly created 'Brazilian Cotton Institute' to provide technical assistance and capacity-building for Brazil's cotton sector, (2) quarterly discussions on potential limits of trade-distorting U.S. cotton subsidies (recognizing that actual changes will not occur prior to the 2012 farm bill), and (3) near-term modifications to the operation of the GSM-102 program coupled with a semi-annual review of whether U.S. GSM-102 program implementation satisfies certain performance benchmarks. These U.S. commitments are intended to delay any trade retaliation until after the 2012 farm bill, when potential changes to U.S. cotton programs will be evaluated. However, in the interim, several failed legislative attempts have been made to ban U.S. payments to the Brazil Cotton Institute."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2011-11-22
• Renewable Energy Programs and the Farm Bill: Status and Issues [November 22, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) renewable energy programs have been used to incentivize adoption of renewable energy projects including solar, wind, and anaerobic digesters. However, the primary focus of USDA renewable energy programs has been to promote U.S. biofuels production and use--including corn starch-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and soybean-based biodiesel. The 2008 farm bill (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246) built on the 2002 farm bill (Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, P.L. 107-171) as well as previous renewable energy legislation (especially the Energy Policy Act of 2005, P.L. 109-58; and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, P.L. 110-140), but refocused biofuels policy initiatives in favor of non-corn feedstocks, especially cellulosic-based feedstocks, in response to growing concerns about the emerging spillover effects of increasing corn use for ethanol production. Like the 2002 farm bill, the 2008 farm bill contained a distinct energy title (Title IX) that significantly expanded the number and types of programs available to support renewable energy production and use. In addition, new renewable-energy provisions were included in the rural development (Title VI), research (Title VII), livestock (Title XI), and tax (Title XV) titles of the 2008 farm bill. […] Implementation of the farm bill's energy provisions is ongoing. President Obama, in May 2009, directed USDA and the Department of Energy (DOE) to accelerate implementation of renewable energy programs. Notices, proposed rules, and final rules have appeared in the 'Federal Register' soliciting applications for those programs with available funding. The primary energy-related issue for the next farm bill is the expiration at the end of FY2012 and lack of baseline funding going forward for all major energy-related provisions of Title IX. In addition, the appearance of substantial redundancy across renewable energy programs at USDA and DOE, the slow development of the U.S. cellulosic biofuels sector, and concerns about the emerging spillover effects of increasing corn use for ethanol production are issues that are likely to emerge during the next farm bill debate."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2011-11-22
• Brazil's WTO Case Against the U.S. Cotton Program [October 4, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The so-called 'Brazil cotton case' is a long-running World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement case (DS267) initiated by Brazil--a major cotton export competitor--in 2002 against specific provisions of the U.S. cotton program. In September 2004, a WTO dispute settlement panel found that certain U.S. agricultural support payments and guarantees--including (1) payments to cotton producers under the marketing loan and counter-cyclical programs, and (2) export credit guarantees under the GSM-102 program--were inconsistent with WTO commitments. In 2005, the United States made several changes to both its cotton and GSM-102 programs in an attempt to bring them into compliance with WTO recommendations. […] As a result, Brazil has suspended trade retaliation pending U.S. compliance with the framework agreement measures. Key aspects of the framework agreement include (1) payment by the United States of a $147.3 million annual fund to a newly created 'Brazilian Cotton Institute' to provide technical assistance and capacitybuilding for Brazil's cotton sector, (2) quarterly discussions on potential limits of trade-distorting U.S. cotton subsidies (recognizing that actual changes will not occur prior to the 2012 farm bill), and (3) near-term modifications to the operation of the GSM-102 program coupled with a semiannual review of whether U.S. GSM-102 program implementation satisfies certain performance benchmarks. A further U.S. commitment, made under the April MOU [memorandum of understanding], includes modification of the animal disease status of the Brazilian state of Santa Catarina to allow products such as pork and live swine exports into the United States. These U.S. commitments are intended to delay any trade retaliation until after the 2012 farm bill, when potential changes to U.S. domestic cotton subsidies will be evaluated."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2011-10-04
• Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Overview and Issues [October 14, 2010]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Federal policy has played a key role in the emergence of the U.S. biofuels industry. Policy measures include minimum renewable fuel usage requirements, blending and production tax credits, an import tariff, loans and loan guarantees, and research grants. This report focuses on the mandated minimum usage requirements--referred to as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)-- whereby a minimum volume of biofuels is to be used in the national transportation fuel supply each year. It describes the general nature of the RFS mandate and its implementation, and outlines some emerging issues related to the sustainability of the continued growth in U.S. biofuels production needed to fulfill the expanding RFS mandate, as well as the emergence of potential unintended consequences of this rapid expansion. Congress first established an RFS with the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct, P.L. 109-58). This initial RFS (referred to as RFS1) mandated that a minimum of 4 billion gallons be used in 2006, and that this minimum usage volume rise to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. Two years later, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, P.L. 110-140) superseded and greatly expanded the biofuels blending mandate. The expanded RFS (referred to as RFS2) required the annual use of 9 billion gallons of biofuels in 2008 and expanded the mandate to 36 billion gallons annually in 2022, of which no more than 15 billion gallons can be ethanol from corn starch, and no less than 16 billion must be from cellulosic biofuels. In addition, EISA carved out specific requirements for 'other advanced biofuels' and biomass-based biodiesel."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-; Yacobucci, Brent D.

  2010-10-14
• Consumers and Food Price Inflation [April 14, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The heightened commodity price volatility of 2008 and 2010 and the subsequent acceleration in U.S. food price inflation associated with those market shifts raised concerns and generated many questions about farm and food price movements by Members of Congress and their constituents. This report responds to those concerns by addressing the nature and measurement of retail food price inflation. For a discussion of the relationship between farm and retail prices, and the major factors influencing retail food prices, see CRS Report R40621, Farm-to-Food Price Dynamics. During the 1991 to 2006 period, U.S. food prices were fairly stable--annual food price inflation, as measured by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Price Index (CPI) for all food (excluding alcoholic beverages), averaged a relatively low 2.5%. However, several economic factors emerged in late 2005 that began to gradually push market prices higher for both raw agricultural commodities and energy costs, and ultimately retail food prices. U.S. food price inflation increased at a rate of 4% in 2007 and at 5.5% in 2008--the highest since 1990 and well above the general inflation rate of 3.8%."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Richardson, Joe; Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2011-04-14
• U.S. Farm Income Outlook for 2015 [February 18, 2015]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "According to USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS), national net farm income--a key indicator of U.S. farm well-being--is forecast at $73.6 billion in 2015, down 32% from last year's level of $108.0 billion. The 2015 forecast would be the lowest since 2009. Net cash income is projected down 22.4% in 2015 to $89.4 billion. The forecast for lower net farm income and net cash income is primarily a result of the outlook for lower crop and livestock receipts--down a combined 6.3%. The fall in cash receipts comes despite record corn and soybean harvests in 2014, as commodity prices plunged in the last half of 2014 and are expected to remain at substantially lower levels compared with the period of 2012- 2014, when prices for many major program crops experienced record or near-record highs. Government payments are projected up by 15% to $12.4 billion, which partially offsets the $25.8 billion decline in crop and livestock receipts. The 2014 farm bill (Agricultural Act of 2014; P.L. 113-79) eliminated direct payments of nearly $5 billion per year and replaced them with a new suite of price and revenue support programs. In particular, the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program replaced the previous Counter-Cyclical Price (CCP) program, but with a set of reference prices based on substantially higher support levels for most program crops."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2015-02-18
• Obama Administration's Feed the Future Initiative [January 29, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the Summary: "The Obama Administration's Feed the Future (FTF) Initiative is a U.S. international development program launched in 2010 that invests in food security and agricultural development activities in a select group of developing countries in an effort to reduce hunger, malnutrition, poverty, and food insecurity. The bulk of FTF funding supports 19 'focus countries' selected based on country ownership potential, needs, and opportunities to achieve success. FTF supports additional countries under aligned and regional programs and through assistance to three 'strategic partners'--Brazil, India, and South Africa--to increase regionally based sustainable development capacities."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Lawson, Marian Leonardo; Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-; Cook, Nicolas

  2016-01-29
• U.S. International Food Aid Programs: Background and Issues [April 1, 2015]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "For almost six decades, the United States has played a leading role in global efforts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition and to enhance world food security through international food aid assistance--primarily through either the donation or sale on concessional terms of U.S. agricultural commodities. Objectives of U.S. foreign food aid include providing emergency and humanitarian assistance in response to natural or manmade disasters and promoting agricultural development and food security. Historically, U.S. international food aid has been distributed through four main program authorities: (1) the Food for Peace Act (FFPA, also known as P.L. 480); (2) the Section 416(b) program (which has been inactive since 2007); (3) the Food for Progress Act of 1985; and (4) the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. Since 2010, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has also used its authority under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA) to initiate cash-based food assistance under the Emergency Food Security Program (EFSP) as a complement to FFPA Title II emergency in-kind food aid donations. In addition, the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79) added the local and regional purchase project which also relies on cash-based assistance. These six food assistance programs are administered either by the Foreign Agricultural Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or USAID. The Section 416(b) program is permanently authorized by the Agricultural Act of 1949. EFSP is authorized through the FAA. The other programs are re-authorized in periodic farm bills; most recently (through FY2018) by the 2014 farm bill."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2015-04-01
• U.S. Farm Income Outlook for 2016 [February 16, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "According to USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS), national net farm income--a key indicator of U.S. farm well-being--is forecast at $54.8 billion in 2016, down 3% from last year. The 2016 forecast represents the third consecutive year of decline and would be the lowest since 2002 in both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars. Net farm income is calculated on an accrual basis. Net cash income (calculated on a cash-flow basis) is also projected lower in 2016, down 2.5% to $90.9 billion. The forecast for lower net farm income and net cash income is the result of the outlook for lower crop and livestock receipts--down a combined 2.5% ($9.6 billion). The fall in cash receipts reflects continued declines in prices for most commodities compared with the period of 2011-2013, when prices for many major commodities experienced record or near-record highs. Partially offsetting the decline in farm revenues is a mild decline of about 3% in farm cash expenses. In addition, government payments are projected up by 31% to $13.9 billion. The 2014 farm bill (Agricultural Act of 2014; P.L. 113-79) eliminated direct payments of nearly $5 billion per year and replaced them with a new suite of revenue support programs. In particular, the new Price Loss Coverage (PLC) and Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) programs are expected to trigger payments in excess of $9 billion in 2016."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2016-02-16
• Brazil's WTO Case Against the U.S. Cotton Program [January 4, 2010]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "On December 21, 2009, Brazil announced that it was authorized by the WTO to impose trade retaliation against up to $829.3 million in U.S. goods in 2010 in a long-running dispute over U.S. cotton subsidies. Brazil states that it may levy duties of up to 100% on a preliminary list of 222 goods of U.S. origin valued at $561 million, then apply the remaining value of $268.3 million in cross-retaliation (i.e., retaliatory countermeasures in sectors outside of the trade in goods, most notably in the area of U.S. copyrights and patents). Brazil has not yet finalized its decision to actually impose retaliatory measures; however, Brazil has said that it would announce a final list of potential retaliatory products in February 2010, when U.S. trade data becomes available."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2010-01-04
• Brazil's WTO Case Against U.S. Agricultural Support: A Brief Overview [September 21, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "On July 11, 2007, Brazil requested consultations with the United States, under World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement rules, to discuss two charges against U.S. farm programs -- first, that the United States has exceeded its annual commitment levels for the total aggregate measure of support (AMS) in each of the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005, and second, that the U.S. export credit guarantee program operates as a WTO-illegal export subsidy. Both charges stem from a previous successful challenge by Brazil of the U.S. cotton program […]. Canada is currently pursuing a similar case against the United States. Brazil initially had joined Canada's case as an interested 'third party,' but has since chosen to pursue its own case. A 60-day consultation period ended with no mutual agreement between Brazil and the United States. Brazil is now free to request the establishment of a WTO panel to rule on its complaint, but has not as yet done so. Should Brazil successfully pursue this case, any changes in U.S. farm policy to comply with a WTO ruling would likely involve action by Congress to produce new legislation. This report will be updated as events warrant."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2007-09-21
• Previewing a 2007 Farm Bill [Updated January 3, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Federal farm support, food assistance, agricultural trade, marketing, and rural development policies are governed by a variety of separate laws. However, many of these laws periodically are evaluated, revised, and renewed through an omnibus, multi-year 'farm bill.' The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. [Public Law] 107-171) was the most recent omnibus farm bill, and many of its provisions expire in 2007, so reauthorization is expected to be addressed in the first session of the 110th Congress. The heart of every omnibus farm bill is farm income and commodity price support policy -- namely, the methods and levels of support that the federal government provides to agricultural producers. However, farm bills typically include titles on agricultural trade and foreign food aid, conservation and environment, forestry, domestic food assistance (primarily food stamps), agricultural credit, rural development, agricultural research and education, and marketing-related programs. Often, such 'miscellaneous' provisions as food safety, marketing orders, animal health and welfare, and energy are added. This omnibus nature of the farm bill creates a broad coalition of support among sometimes conflicting interests for policies that, individually, might not survive the legislative process. The scope and direction of a new farm bill may be shaped by such factors as financial conditions in the agricultural economy, competition among various interests, international trade obligations, and -- possibly most important -- a tight limit on federal funds."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Womach, Jasper; Becker, Geoffrey S.; Chite, Ralph M. . . .

  2007-01-03
• WTO Disciplines on U.S. Domestic Support for Agriculture [September 19, 2018]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Trade is critical to the U.S. agricultural sector: Exports account for about 20% of total U.S. agricultural production. Some commodities--such as cotton, wheat, and soybeans--have export shares of nearly 50% or greater. As a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the United States has committed to abide by WTO rules and disciplines, including those that govern domestic farm policy."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2018-09-18
• Potential WTO Implications of USDA's Proposed Response to Trade-Retaliation [July 27, 2018]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "On July 24, 2018, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would be taking several actions to assist farmers in response to trade damage from what the Administration has characterized as 'unjustified retaliation.' Specifically, the Secretary said that USDA would authorize up to $12 billion in programs under the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Charter Act (See CRS Report R44606, The Commodity Credit Corporation: In Brief) to help agricultural producers meet the costs of disrupted markets. (See CRS Insight IN10880, China's Retaliatory Tariffs on Selected U.S. Agricultural Products.) Due to its price tag ($12 billion) and the uncertainty over how payments will be implemented, there is considerable interest from policymakers and market watchers about whether these payments will be fully compliant with World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments. This Insight briefly discusses the WTO commitments that are relevant to U.S. domestic support programs and how the newly announced U.S. trade retaliation assistance program may or may not comply with those WTO commitments."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2018-07-27
• U.S. International Food Aid Programs: Background and Issues [September 14, 2016]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "For almost six decades, the United States has played a leading role in global efforts to alleviate hunger and malnutrition and to enhance world food security through international food assistance-traditionally through either the donation or sale on concessional terms of U.S. agricultural commodities but in recent years also by direct cash transfers targeting emergency situations and by investing in host-country nutrition and agricultural development activities. Historically, U.S. international food assistance has been distributed through four main program authorities: (1) the Food for Peace Act (FFPA, also known as P.L. 480); (2) the Section 416(b) program (which has been inactive since 2007); (3) the Food for Progress Act of 1985; and (4) the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. [...] Since FY2006, annual spending on U.S. international food assistance programs has averaged $2.5 billion, with FFPA Title II outlays averaging $1.8 billion (74%). Despite growth in cash-based assistance under EFSP, the United States continues to rely heavily on in-kind transfers of domestic commodities for international food aid. In contrast, most other countries operating international food aid programs have converted primarily to cash-based food assistance. U.S. reliance on in-kind food aid has become controversial due to its identified inefficiencies and potential market distortions compared with cash-based assistance. In addition to domestic sourcing, U.S. food aid is subject to a suite of legislative requirements that potentially limit the U.S. response to emergency food crises."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2016-09-14
• NASS and U.S. Crop Production Forecasts: Methods and Issues [April 13, 2017]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This report provides an overview of NASS [National Agricultural Statistics Service]. First, it reviews the origins, legislative authority, and funding for NASS. Then, the report describes the survey methodology used by NASS to generate crop production forecasts and estimates for U.S. crops at both the state and national level. Third, this report describes the systematic evolution that occurs over the course of a growing season for both the survey methodology and the annual sequence of NASS reports that are used to convey the crop production forecasts to the U.S. agricultural sector. Fourth, this report describes how NASS survey methodology is extended to collect county-level crop area and yield estimates. This fourth section also includes a discussion of emergent issues related to low producer response rates to NASS surveys and the subsequent discrepancies in neighboring county yield estimates and farm program payments. Finally, the report discusses how evidence on market price reaction to USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] crop production forecasts indicates that there is no visible pattern of bias or error."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Schnepf, Randall Dean, 1954-

  2017-04-13