Overview
Title
To amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to extend and expand the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 1086 wants to give more money to help farmers sell their products to other countries until 2029, but there's worry it could be too much money and might not be shared fairly.
Summary AI
H. R. 1086 aims to amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to extend the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program through 2029. The bill proposes to increase the funding for these programs to enhance the export of U.S. agricultural products and support economic output and job creation. It highlights that past investments have generated significant returns and states that a doubling of public funding could substantially boost agricultural exports. The bill also addresses the competitive disadvantage faced by U.S. producers due to static funding and increased foreign competition.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Agriculture Export Promotion Act of 2025," seeks to amend the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978. It primarily aims to extend and expand two major programs run by the Department of Agriculture: the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program. These programs are designed to boost U.S. agricultural exports by promoting access to foreign markets. Under the proposed changes, the time periods for certain provisions are updated, and the funding for these programs is significantly increased for the years 2025 to 2029.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues arise from this proposed bill. Firstly, the significant increase in budget—doubling or nearly doubling existing allocations—raises concerns about the possibility of wasteful spending without detailed justification for these increases. Secondly, the bill makes a problematic jump from the 2019-2023 timeline to 2025-2029, conspicuously omitting any mention of the year 2024. This gap might imply oversight or the existence of separate arrangements for the missing year. Thirdly, while the bill highlights historical successes of the related programs in terms of financial gains and job creation, it lacks detailed metrics for evaluating program effectiveness, which raises transparency issues.
Moreover, static funding for key programs, unchanged since 2006 for the Market Access Program and 2002 for the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, suggests the need for increased funding to match inflation. At the same time, heavy reliance on private-sector contributions (covering 70% to 77% of the funding from 2013 to 2019) could potentially skew program priorities. Finally, the bill lacks a clear distribution plan for the increased funding among different agricultural commodities and lacks implementation details, which could lead to favoritism and poor oversight.
Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders
Broadly, this bill has the potential to positively affect the U.S. agricultural sector by amplifying exports and creating job opportunities across the economy. By addressing static funding issues, it seeks to keep U.S. agricultural exports competitive in the global market. However, the public may be concerned about potential mismanagement and inefficiencies, especially regarding the large increases in funding without detailed justifications and accountability measures.
For specific stakeholders, particularly those in agricultural businesses, this bill could represent an opportunity to access expanded market resources and support, resulting in increased sales and revenue. However, smaller or less well-connected producers might worry about potential biases in the distribution of funds, notably if larger players or private entities have more influence over program priorities due to high private-sector involvement.
In conclusion, while this bill aims to fortify the U.S. agricultural export market, it must address transparency, accountability, and fair distribution of resources to ensure its effectiveness and broad acceptance within the public and among stakeholders.
Financial Assessment
In reviewing H. R. 1086, several financial aspects of the bill warrant close attention, particularly regarding the appropriations and implications outlined in the legislation.
Funding Increases
The bill proposes significant increases in funding for two key programs. The Market Access Program (MAP) funding is suggested to rise from $255,000,000 to $489,500,000, while funding for the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program (FMDCP) is proposed to increase from $34,500,000 to $69,000,000. Additionally, the overall appropriations related to export facilitation under a specific clause are suggested to grow from $200,000,000 to $400,000,000. These changes represent a substantial rise in financial commitment.
The increase in budgetary allocations raises issues related to possible waste or inefficiencies. Such a substantial jump in funding requires extensive justification and detailed plans to ensure that resources are allocated appropriately and used effectively. The high increase might introduce concerns about fiscal prudence unless coupled with rigorous oversight and accountability measures.
Extension and Oversight Gaps
The extension of these programs from "2019 through 2023" to "2025 through 2029" highlights a gap that does not account for the year 2024, creating potential confusion or oversight in funding continuity. This gap may lead to administrative or financial management issues unless the missing year is addressed through separate provisions or amendments.
Evaluation and Transparency Concerns
The findings section of the bill provides evidence of financial returns and job creation, indicating that past investments have yielded economic benefits. However, the bill does not offer comprehensive performance metrics beyond these financial and employment outcomes. This lack of clarity presents transparency concerns, suggesting the need for a broader evaluation framework to assess the effectiveness of the funded initiatives.
Competitive Disadvantages and Inflationary Pressures
The issue of static funding since 2006 for MAP and since 2002 for FMDCP, despite rising inflation, has been outlined as diminishing the competitiveness of U.S. agricultural exports. The bill proposes addressing these issues with increased funding. However, without a detailed implementation plan, there is uncertainty about whether these measures can successfully counteract past disadvantages and inflationary impacts.
Influence of Private Sector Contributions
The section on findings notes that private sector contributions have constituted 70% to 77% of the funds available for export promotion from 2013 to 2019. This significant reliance on private funding raises questions about the influence such partnerships may have on program priorities, risking potential biases. The balance between public and private funding should be carefully monitored to ensure equitable representation and decision-making in agricultural export initiatives.
Distribution of Funds Across Commodities
The bill does not clarify how the increased funds will be distributed among various agricultural communities and commodities. This lack of specificity could lead to favoritism, where certain communities or commodities may benefit disproportionately. Ensuring fair and transparent allocation will be crucial to maintain trust and equity among different agricultural stakeholders.
In conclusion, while the financial allocations in H. R. 1086 aim to bolster U.S. agricultural exports, the unique challenges outlined highlight areas where additional clarity, accountability, and oversight might be necessary. Adequately addressing these will be key to realizing the intended benefits of the proposed funding increases.
Issues
The significant increase in budget allocations, as stated in Section 3 of the bill, raises concerns about potential wasteful spending. The budget changes from $255,000,000 to $489,500,000, $200,000,000 to $400,000,000, and $34,500,000 to $69,000,000 require more detailed justifications to ensure accountability and fiscal responsibility.
The extension of timelines from '2019 through 2023' to '2025 through 2029' without addressing the missing year 2024 in Section 3 suggests potential oversight or the existence of separate provisions for that year, which could lead to confusion or mismanagement of funds during the gap period.
Section 2 highlights a potential lack of metrics or accountability for measuring the effectiveness of export promotion programs beyond financial return and job creation metrics. This raises concerns over transparency and program evaluation practices.
The bill reflects a static funding problem since 2006 for the Market Access Program and since 2002 for the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, as noted in Section 2, despite inflation. This could diminish the overall impact and competitiveness of U.S. agricultural exports in international markets.
In Section 2, the reliance on private sector contributions (70% to 77% for export promotion) can influence program priorities or directions, raising ethical questions about the balance of public-private partnership and potential biases in how programs are executed.
Section 2 does not clarify how funding will be distributed among various agricultural communities and commodities, which could lead to favoritism and unfair advantage for certain groups over others.
A lack of detailed implementation and monitoring plans for the proposed funding increases in Section 2 raises concerns about ensuring effectiveness and proper oversight of the expanded programs.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section specifies the short title of the Act, allowing it to be referred to as the "Agriculture Export Promotion Act of 2025".
2. Findings Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress highlights the positive impact of the Department of Agriculture's export promotion programs, noting they significantly increased U.S. agricultural exports and created jobs. However, it points out that funding has not kept pace with inflation, disadvantaging U.S. producers against international competitors, and suggests that boosting both public funding and private contributions could further enhance export gains.
Money References
- Congress finds that— (1) between 1977 and 2019, the export promotion programs of the Department of Agriculture— (A) have added an average of $9,600,000,000 annually to the value of United States agricultural exports, equal to a total of nearly $648,000,000,000, or 13.7 percent, in additional export revenue; and (B) have generated a net return of $24.50 for every dollar invested; (2) between 2002 and 2019, the export promotion programs of the Department of Agriculture— (A) have contributed to the creation of up to 225,800 full- and part-time jobs across the United States economy; and (B) have added up to $45,000,000,000 in gross economic output and $22,300,000,000 in gross domestic product; (3) communities across the United States producing agricultural commodities as varied as apples, cotton, beef, soybeans, rice, wheat, dairy, corn, citrus, wine, pork, peanuts, cranberries, lentils, tree nuts, timber, poultry, potatoes, and seafood have utilized the export promotion programs of the Department of Agriculture to increase access to foreign markets; (4) private sector contributions have helped maintain the public-private partnership between the Department of Agriculture and private agricultural groups as available funds from the Department of Agriculture have declined, with private contributions representing approximately 70 to 77 percent of the funds available for export promotion from 2013 to 2019; (5) foreign competitors have expanded their agricultural export promotion programs at a far faster rate than the United States, placing United States producers at a competitive disadvantage in international markets; (6) the economic impact of the export promotion programs of the Department of Agriculture has eroded in recent years, as funding for the Market Access Program has remained static since 2006 and funding for the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program has remained static since 2002, while inflation has increased; and (7) a recent academic analysis found that doubling public funding for the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, coupled with increasing private contributions ranging from 10 to 20 percent, would result in average annual gains in agricultural exports of approximately $7,400,000,000.
3. Agricultural trade promotion and facilitation Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 203(f) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 extends the timeframe for certain provisions from 2019-2023 to 2025-2029, increases funding amounts in some paragraphs, and clarifies the language regarding the operational period of specific memorandums.
Money References
- Section 203(f) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623(f)) is amended— (1) by striking “2019 through 2023” each place it appears and inserting “2025 through 2029”; (2) in paragraph (2), by striking “$255,000,000” and inserting “$489,500,000”; (3) in paragraph (3)(A)(i), by striking “$200,000,000” and inserting “$400,000,000”; (4) in paragraph (3)(A)(ii), by striking “$34,500,000” and inserting “$69,000,000”; and (5) in paragraph (4), by striking “during the period in which that memorandum is in effect” and inserting “during the period in which the directives in such memorandum are in effect”.