{
  "id": "R44985",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44985",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 585899,
      "date": "2017-10-17",
      "retrieved": "2020-01-02T14:00:29.993771",
      "title": "USDA Export Market Development and Export Credit Programs: Selected Issues",
      "summary": "Agricultural exports are important to both farmers and the U.S. economy. With the productivity of U.S. agriculture growing faster than domestic demand, farmers and agriculturally oriented firms rely heavily on export markets to sustain prices and revenue. The 2014 farm bill (Agricultural Act of 2014, P.L. 113-79) authorizes a number of programs to promote farm exports that are administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). There are two main types of agricultural trade and export promotion programs:\nExport market development programs assist efforts to build, maintain, and expand overseas markets for U.S. agricultural products. Programs include the Market Access Program (MAP), the Foreign Market Development Program (FMDP), the Emerging Markets Program (EMP), the Quality Samples Program (QSP), and the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program (TASC). \nExport financing assistance programs provide payment guarantees on commercial financing to facilitate U.S. agricultural exports. Programs include the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) and the Facility Guarantee Program (FGP). \nAnnual funding for USDA\u2019s export market promotion programs is authorized at about $255 million (not including reductions due to sequestration). In addition, USDA\u2019s export credit guarantee programs provide commercial bank financing of up to $5.5 billion of U.S. agricultural exports annually. Funding for USDA\u2019s programs is mandatory through the Commodity Credit Corporation and is not subject to annual appropriations.\nUSDA has commissioned a number of economic studies to assess the effects of its export market development programs on U.S. agricultural exports, export revenue, and other economy-wide effects. Most studies measure the \u201ceconomic return ratio\u201d or the ratio of the estimated returns compared to the estimated costs. USDA\u2019s most recently commissioned study claims that MAP and FMDP return $28 for each dollar spent. USDA\u2019s studies also claim broader economy-wide returns in terms of farm revenue, economic output, and full-time jobs. \nHowever, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has raised many questions regarding USDA\u2019s export promotion programs. GAO\u2019s reports have generally been critical of USDA-reported estimates of the economic effects of USDA\u2019s programs on U.S. agricultural exports, export revenue, and other economy-wide effects. The most recent GAO report expressed ongoing concerns about USDA\u2019s assessment methodologies for estimating program effectiveness, citing the need for improved methods and cost-benefit analysis. USDA\u2019s Office of Inspector General (OIG) also conducted a review of its export market development programs and recommended certain changes with regard to data and information collection by program participants.\nIn anticipation of the next farm bill debate, legislation introduced in both the House and Senate (Cultivating Revitalization by Expanding American Agricultural Trade and Exports Act or CREAATE Act, H.R. 2321/S. 1839) would progressively double annual funding for MAP and FMDP to $400 million and $69 million, respectively, by 2023. The Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture also support doubling funding for MAP and FMDP. However, some in Congress have long opposed USDA\u2019s export and market promotion programs, especially MAP, calling for its elimination and/or reduced program funding. President Trump\u2019s FY2018 budget proposes to eliminate both MAP and FMDP.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44985",
          "sha1": "b0276b2d4efa8af2f1ca3de72390a10a7a4f2d55",
          "filename": "files/20171017_R44985_b0276b2d4efa8af2f1ca3de72390a10a7a4f2d55.html",
          "images": {
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44985_files&id=/1.png": "files/20171017_R44985_images_c280c2811c3584e2dc9a8bd7aeaccbcfe34e2f6f.png",
            "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44985_files&id=/0.png": "files/20171017_R44985_images_b29efe88369ed608903c9373a0106e9263cb8933.png"
          }
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44985",
          "sha1": "7135535c98011bdc4c87403ed045ac68354fe0f8",
          "filename": "files/20171017_R44985_7135535c98011bdc4c87403ed045ac68354fe0f8.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4829,
          "name": "Agricultural Trade & Food Aid"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4893,
          "name": "Agricultural Trade"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Agricultural Policy",
    "Appropriations",
    "Economic Policy",
    "Foreign Affairs"
  ]
}