Farm Policy: USDA’s 2019 Trade Aid Package

Summary: On May 23, 2019, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would undertake a second trade aid package in 2019 valued at up to $16 billionâsimilar to a trade aid package initiated in 2018 valued at $12 billionâto assist farmers in response to trade damage from continued tariff retaliation and trade disruptions.

Summary: Under the 2019 trade aid package, USDA will use its authority under the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Charter Act to fund three separate programs to assist agricultural producers in 2019 while the Administration works to resolve the ongoing trade disputes with certain foreign nations, most notably China. The three programs are similar to the 2018 trade aid package but are funded at different levels:

Summary: 1. The Market Facilitation Program (MFP) for 2019, administered by USDA's Farm Service Agency, is to provide up to $14.5 billion in direct payments to producers of affected commodities (compared with up to $10 billion in 2018). 2. A Food Purchase and Distribution Program , administered through USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service, will use $1.4 billion (compared with $1.2 billion in 2018) to purchase surplus commodities affected by trade retaliation, such as fruits, vegetables, some processed foods, beef, pork, lamb, poultry, and milk, for distribution by USDA's Food and Nutrition Service to food banks, schools, and other outlets serving low-income individuals. 3. The Agricultural Trade Promotion Program , administered by USDA's Foreign Agriculture Service, will be provided $100 million ($200 million in 2018) to assist in developing new export markets on behalf of U.S. agricultural producers.

Summary: The broad discretionary authority granted to the Secretary under the CCC Charter Act to implement the trade aid package also allows the Secretary to determine how the aid is to be calculated and distributed. Some important differences between the 2018 and 2019 trade aid packages include the following.

Summary: The 2019 package includes an expanded funding commitment of $16 billion versus $12 billion under the 2018 package. The 2019 package focuses on the same three commodity groupsânon-specialty crops (grains and oilseeds), specialty crops (nuts and fruit), and animal products (hogs and dairy)âbut includes an expanded list of eligible commodities (41 eligible commodities in 2019 compared with nine in 2018). The MFP payment formula for 2019 is modified for non-specialty crops to be a single county payment rate rather than commodity-specific rates that were applied in 2018. This is done to minimize influencing producer crop choices and avoid large payment-rate discrepancies across commodities. MFP payments for non-specialty crops will be based on planted acres in 2019, not harvested production as in 2018. This change will avoid having MFP payments reduced by the lower yields that are expected across major growing regions due to the widespread wet spring and delayed plantings. The 2019 package includes expanded payment limits per individual per commodity group ($250,000 versus $125,000 under the 2018 initiative) and an expanded maximum combined payment limit across commodity groups ($500,000 versus $375,000). It continues the expanded adjusted gross income (AGI) criteria (no restriction if at least 75% of AGI is from farming operations) adopted under the 2019 Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act ( P.L. 116-20 ) and applied to 2018 MFP payments retroactively.

Summary: Payments may be made in up to three tranches, with the second and third tranches dependent on market developments. The first payment started in August and consisted of the higher of either 50% of a producer's calculated payment or $15 per acre. USDA announced on November 15, 2019, that the second tranche of payments would go out on November 18, 2019. The third tranche would depend on USDA's evaluation of market and trade conditions. If deemed necessary, they would occur in January 2020. As of November 25, 2019, USDA had made $10.2 billion in 2019 MFP payments.

Summary: USDA's use of CCC authority to initiate and fund agricultural support programs without congressional involvement is not without precedent, but the scope and scale of its use for the two trade aid packagesâat $28 billionâhas increased congressional and public interest. Some have questioned whether MFP payments have established a precedent that might persist as long as trade disputes remain unresolved. Others have questioned the equity of their distribution across commodity sectors and regions. Finally, some economists worry that large MFP payments might contribute to a violation of U.S. trade commitments to the World Trade Organization.

On May 23, 2019, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced that USDA would undertake a second round of trade aid in 2019 to assist farmers in response to trade damage from continued tariff retaliation and trade disruptions. Partial details of the new initiative were announced on July 25, 2019. Final program detailsâsuch as calculation of the individual commodity-specific payment rates used in the formulation of the county-level payment rates for non-specialty cropsâwere released on August 23, 2019.

The 2019 trade aid package builds on the 2018 trade aid package in that it is based on the same legislative authority: Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Charter Act of 1948 (P.L. 80-806; 15 U.S.C. 714 et seq. ), as amended. Specifically, the President has authorized USDA to provide up to $16 billion in new funding for the 2019 initiative. This new funding authority is in addition to the $12 billion in funding authority that was announced for the previous 2018 trade aid package.

The 2019 trade aid package is to be implemented using the same three trade assistance programs that were used under the 2018 trade aid packageâa Market Facilitation Program (MFP), a Food Purchase and Distribution Program (FPDP), and an Agricultural Trade Promotion (ATP) programâbut at generally higher funding levels ( Table 1 ), except for ATP.

Also similar to the 2018 initiative, the 2019 trade aid package funding authority corresponds with USDA's estimate of the trade damage to the U.S. agricultural sector from retaliatory tariffsâimposed on U.S. agricultural goods in response to previous U.S. trade actionsâand other trade disruptions in 2019. The 2019 programs are intended to assist agricultural producers while the Administration works to resolve the ongoing trade disputes with certain foreign nations, most notably China.

This report describes the new trade aid package authorized for 2019, including its constituent parts, and identifies distinguishing differences from the 2018 trade aid package. An appendix provides additional details on USDA's implementation of the FPDP and ATP programs and on the evolution of USDA's formulation of the MFP payment rates under the 2018 and 2019 MFP programs.

Under the 2019 trade aid package, USDA is to use up to $16 billion to fund three programs to assist producers of affected commodities in 2019:

1. A Market Facilitation Program , administered by USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA), to provide up to $14.5 billion in direct payments to producers of USDA-specified eligible commodities (described below). 2. A Food Purchase and Distribution Program , administered through USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), to use $1.4 billion to purchase surplus commodities affected by trade retaliation, such as fruits, vegetables, some processed foods, beef, pork, lamb, poultry, and milk for distribution by the Food and Nutrition Service to food banks, schools, and other outlets serving low-income individuals. 3. An Agricultural Trade Promotion Program , administered by USDA's Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS), to use $100 million to assist in developing new export markets on behalf of U.S. agricultural producers.

Some important differences between the 2018 and 2019 trade aid packages include the following:

The 2019 package includes an expanded funding commitment of up to $16 billion versus $12 billion under the previous package. The 2019 package includes an expanded list of eligible commodities (41 eligible commodities in 2019 versus 9 in 2018). The MFP payment formula for 2019 is modified for non-specialty crops (field crops) to be a single county payment rate rather than commodity-specific rates. This is done to minimize influencing producer crop choices and avoid large payment-rate discrepancies across commodities. MFP payments for non-specialty crops in 2019 are to be based on planted acres, not harvested production as in 2018. This change would avoid having MFP payments reduced by the lower yields that are expected across major growing regions due to the widespread wet spring and delayed plantings. The 2019 package includes 1. expanded payment limits per individual per commodity group ($250,000 versus $125,000 for 2018 MFP payments); 2. an expanded maximum combined payment limit across commodity groups ($500,000 versus $375,000); and 3. adjusted gross income (AGI) eligibility criteria based on the average AGI for 2015, 2016, and 2017. AGI criteria used to assess eligibility for 2018 MFP payments were based on AGI for 2013, 2014, and 2015.

Initially, 2018 MFP payment recipients were subject to an AGI limit of $900,000 for eligibility. However, the 2019 Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act ( P.L. 116-20 ) included a provision that retroactively eliminated the AGI threshold if at least 75% of a farm's AGI came from farming operations. This expanded AGI interpretation is retained for 2019 MFP payments but based on the different three-year period described above.

The MFP program is authorized to make direct payments to producers of eligible commodities. Eligible producers must submit application forms as part of the signup for the MFP program. Signup runs from Monday, July 29, through Friday, December 6, 2019. Program informationâincluding MFP application forms (CCC-913), program eligibility requirements, commodity coverage, and county-level payment ratesâis available at USDA's MFP program website. Key program details are summarized below.

Producers of MFP-eligible commodities (listed below) may apply for MFP payments, provided that they also

have an ownership interest in the commodity and are actively engaged in the farming operation; have an average AGI for tax years 2015, 2016, and 2017 of less than $900,000 per year or an AGI in excess of $900,000 with at least 75% of AGI derived from farming, ranching, or forestry-related activities; comply with the provisions of the "Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation" regulations, often called the conservation compliance provisions; and have filed a 2019 acreage report with their county FSA offices.

Producers are not required to have purchased crop insurance or coverage under the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program to be eligible for participation, nor are they required to participate in any other CCC programs.

Covered Commodities and Payment Determination

With respect to 2019 MFP payments, USDA has categorized the eligible commodities into three groups:

1. non-specialty crops (field crops including grains and oilseeds), 2. specialty crops (tree nuts and fruits), and 3. animal products (dairy and hogs).

Each of these three commodity groupings has different payment structures. In particular, producers of non-specialty crops will be eligible for a single county payment rate multiplied by their farms' total acres of MFP-eligible non-specialty crops planted in a county in 2019. In contrast, dairy, hogs, and specialty crops will each have a single national payment rate to be multiplied by their production history, inventory, or acres under cultivation in 2019, respectively ( Table 2 ).

Eligible non-specialty crops include alfalfa hay, barley, canola, corn, crambe, dried beans, dry peas, extra-long-staple cotton, flaxseed, lentils, long- and medium-grain rice, millet, mustard seed, oats, peanuts, rapeseed, rye, safflower, sesame seed, small and large chickpeas, sorghum, soybeans, sunflower seed, temperate japonica rice, triticale, upland cotton, and wheat.

Unlike 2018, where MFP payment rates were specific for each eligible non-specialty crop, 2019 MFP payment rates are fixed at the county level and do not vary with a producer's mix of crops. This change in payment structure was done to minimize influencing producer crop choices (as the announcement was made before planting was finished) and avoid large payment-rate discrepancies across commodities. Thus, under the 2019 MFP payment format, producers of MFP-eligible non-specialty crops, within a particular county, are to receive MFP payments based on that county's MFP payment rate multiplied by the farms' total plantings to eligible crops in that county in 2019. USDA is requiring that a producer's total MFP-eligible plantings in 2019 may not exceed total 2018 plantings.

The MFP payment rate for non-specialty crops is fixed within each county. However, MFP payment rates will vary across counties based on each county's historical average share of eligible crops planted, average planted acres per eligible crop, and average yields of eligible crops. Within this construct, USDA has set minimum and maximum county MFP payment rates of $15 and $150 per acre.

Producers who were prevented from planting MFP-eligible crops due to adverse weather but filed prevented-planting claims under crop insurance and planted FSA-certified cover crops (with the potential to be harvested) on the unplanted acres are also eligible for the minimum $15 per acre payment rate. Acres that were never planted in 2019 are not eligible for MFP payments. Acreage of non-specialty crops and cover crops must have been planted by August 1, 2019, to be eligible for MFP payments.

Dairy producers who were in business as of June 1, 2019, are to receive a $0.20 per hundredweight payment on their milk production history as reported for the Dairy Margin Coverage program. Hog producers are to receive a payment of $11 per head based on the number of live hogs owned on a date to be selected by the producer between April 1 and May 15, 2019.

MFP payments are to also be made to producers of almonds, cranberries, cultivated ginseng, fresh grapes, fresh sweet cherries, hazelnuts, macadamia nuts, pecans, pistachios, and walnuts. Per-acre MFP payment rates will vary across specialty crops ( Table 2 ) based on their 2019 acres of fruit- or nut-bearing plants or, in the case of ginseng, harvested acres in 2019.

Payments are to be made in up to three tranches. The first payment is to consist of the higher of either 50% of a producer's calculated payment or $15 per acre. On August 22, 2019, news media announced that USDA had begun to process the first tranche of MFP payments.

USDA announced on November 15, 2019, that the second tranche of payments would go out on November 18, 2019. For producers with overall MFP payment rates equal to $15 per acre, there will be no second or third tranche payment. For producers with payment rates less than $30 per acre but greater than $15 per acre, the second tranche would equal the remaining unpaid balance. For producers with payment rates greater than $30 per acre, the second payment would be up to 75% of a producer's calculated payment (less the portion already received in the first tranche). As of November 25, 2019, USDA reported that $10.2 billion had been paid out under the first and second tranches.

The third tranche would depend on USDA's evaluation of market and trade conditions. If deemed necessary, the third and final payment would be for the remainder of a producer's calculated payment and would begin in January 2020.

MFP payments are limited to a combined $250,000 for each crop year for non-specialty crops per person or legal entity. MFP payments are also limited to a combined $250,000 for dairy and hog producers and a combined $250,000 for specialty crop producers. However, no applicant can receive more than $500,000 across the three commodity groups.

MFP payments do not count against other 2018 farm bill payment limitations. There are no criteria in place to calculate whether MFP might duplicate losses covered under revenue support programs such as the Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs of the 2018 farm bill. As a result, the same program acres that are eligible for ARC or PLC payments may be eligible for MFP payments.

Under the 2018 MFP program, payments were skewed toward major soybean producing statesâparticularly states in the Corn Belt âas the payments were based on commodity-specific payment rates and soybeans were allocated the largest payment rate at $1.65 per bushel ( Figure 1 ). When combined with a record soybean crop of over 4.5 billion in 2018, U.S. soybean producers received total outlays estimated at about $7 billion (or 82%) of 2018 MFP payments.

For the 2019 MFP program, USDA released the MFP county-level payment rates for nearly 3,000 counties in the United States on July 25, 2019. Unlike 2018, when MFP payments centered on soybean-producing regions, the areas with the highest payment rates in 2019 are regions with heavy cotton and sorghum production ( Figure 2 ). Nationally, MFP payment rates range between $15 and $150 per acre. Some 22 counties are to receive the maximum paymentâfive counties each in Alabama, Georgia, and Texas; three counties in Mississippi and Arizona; and one county in New Mexicoâwhile nearly 400 counties across the country are to receive the minimum $15 per acre payment. Some economists suggest that cotton acreage likely played a role in higher MFP payments rates in 2019 across southern states. In 2019, cotton acres averaged 52% of all MFP-eligible acres in counties with rates over $100 per acre. Peanut acreage could also play a role in higher payments.

USDA is to use CCC Charter Act authority to implement a 2019 FPDP program, valued at up to $1.4 billion, through AMS. FPDP is to purchase surplus commodities affected by trade retaliation, such as fruits, vegetables, some processed foods, beef, pork, lamb, poultry, and milk, for distribution by USDA's Food and Nutrition Service to food banks, schools, and other outlets serving low-income individuals ( Table B-1 ). The premise is that removing products from normal marketing channels helps to reduce supply and thereby increase prices and farm income.

FAS will administer the ATP under authorities of the CCC. The ATP is to provide cost-share assistance to eligible U.S. organizations for activitiesâsuch as consumer advertising, public relations, point-of-sale demonstrations, participation in trade fairs and exhibits, market research, and technical assistanceâto boost exports for U.S. agriculture, food, fish, and forestry products. On July 19, 2019, USDA awarded $100 million to 48 organizations through the ATP to help U.S. farmers and ranchers identify and access new export markets ( Table C-1 ). Many of the 2019 ATP award recipients are among the cooperator organizations that had been awarded funding from the $200 million in 2018 ATP funds.

The broad discretionary authority granted to the Secretary under the CCC Charter Act to implement the trade aid package also allows the Secretary to determine how the aid is to be calculated and distributed. In 2018, when the first trade aid package was announced with funding of $12 billion, USDA officials declared that it would be a temporary, one-time response to foreign tariffs imposed on selected U.S. commodities. However, on May 23, 2019, Secretary Perdue announced a second round of trade aid package valued at $16 billion in 2019. USDA's use of CCC authority to initiate and fund agricultural support programs without congressional involvement is not without precedent, but the scope and scale of its use for the two trade aid packagesâat $28 billionâhas increased congressional and public interest.

Some have suggested that the effects of tariffs and retaliatory tariffs could be long-lasting because they have created uncertainty about U.S. trade policy behavior and have called into question U.S. reliability as a trading partner. Furthermore, the use of CCC authority to mitigate tariff-related losses may establish a precedent for future situations. Some trade economists and market watchers have suggested that annual trade aid packages might continue as long as the trade disputes remain unresolved.

Most farm commodity and advocacy groups have been supportive of the trade aid package even as they have called for solutions that restore export activity. However, some stakeholders have questioned the equity of the distribution of 2018 MFP payments and the rationale for determining payments based on "trade damage" rather than a broader "market loss" measure. Some economists have suggested that, even under the 2019 formulation, USDA is overpaying farmers for trade losses and that USDA's calculations failed to fully incorporate last year's record soybean harvest or new trade patterns that have emerged following China's reluctance to buy U.S. soybeans.

Due to their price tag ($12 billion in 2018 and $16 billion in 2019) and the coupled nature of the MFP payments to planted acres, there is considerable interest from policymakers, market observers, and trading partners about whether these payments will be fully compliant with World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments. In particular, there is some interest in whether large MFP payments might cause the United States to breach its $19.1 billion annual WTO spending limit on trade-distorting farm subsidies.

On August 23, 2019, USDA published the details on the calculation of MFP payment rates for USDA-designated eligible commodities under the 2019 trade aid packageâincluding county-level MFP rates for non-specialty crops and national MFP rates for hogs, dairy, and specialty crops.

For both the 2018 and the 2019 trade aid packages, USDA defined economic losses due to foreign retaliatory trade actions narrowly in terms of gross trade damages rather than broadly as lost market value. Gross trade damages is defined as the total amount of expected export sales lost to the retaliating trade partner due to the additional tariffs. Gross trade damages were estimated for each of the major farm commodities affected by the retaliatory tariffs. The estimated trade damages were then used to derive both commodity-specific MFP payment rates and FPDP purchase targets for pork (hogs) and milk (dairy).

Both the 2018 and 2019 trade aid packages used the same methodology to estimate gross trade damages for USDA-designated commodities. However, the two estimates used different time frames to calculate the trade damages, thus producing different commodity-specific MFP payment rates ( Table A-1 ). The 2018 calculations of gross trade damages compared trade data from 2017 (pre-retaliatory tariffs) with 2018 data (post-retaliatory tariffs). The 2019 calculations used a longer historical time series, extending the "look-back" over a 10-year period from 2009 through 2018 compared with 2019 trade.

In a further change from the 2018 methodology, the 2019 MFP payment rates for non-specialty crops combined commodity-specific MFP payments rates at the county level in a formula (weighted by historical county planted acres and yields) to derive a single county-level MFP payment rate rather than separate national commodity-specific rates. Hogs, dairy, and specialty crops retained their national MFP payment rates but at different values due to the longer "look-back" period used to estimate gross trade damages.

This appendix section briefly reviews the methodology used to derive the 2018 MFP commodity-specific payment rates. Then it discusses the adaptations made by USDA for 2019 to derive both the county-level payments for non-specialty crops and the national-level payment rates for specialty crops, hogs, and dairy.

2018 MFP Payment-Rate and Payment Methodology

USDA calculated a unique national MFP payment rate for each affected commodity (as determined by USDA). A producer's MFP payment calculation involved three steps:

First, USDA estimated the level of direct trade-related damage caused by 2018 retaliatory tariffsâimposed by Canada, China, the European Union, Mexico, and Turkeyâto U.S. exports for each affected commodity. Direct trade loss is the difference in expected trade value for each affected commodity with and without the retaliatory tariffs. To measure this, USDA compared U.S. exports for 2017 (the year prior to the imposition of retaliatory tariffs) with 2018 export levels when trade was subject to the retaliatory tariffs.

Much of the affected 2018 agricultural production had yet to be harvested and sold at the time the MFP payment rates were calculated. In addition, the final trade effect, with or without retaliatory tariffs, was not observable, and markets had yet to fully adjust to whatever new trade patterns would emerge from the trade dispute. As a result, USDA estimated both export values (with and without retaliatory tariffs) using a global trade model that accounted for the availability of both substitute supplies from export competitors and demand for U.S. agricultural exports from alternate importers. Indirect effectsâsuch as any decline in market prices due to record 2018 soybean production and the build-up of domestic stocks, or resultant economy-wide "lost value" for non-producer owners of the affected commoditiesâwere not included in the payment calculation.

Second, the estimated trade damage for each affected commodity was divided by the crop's production in 2017 to calculate a national commodity-specific, per-unit damage rate. This per-unit damage rate is the commodity-specific MFP payment rate. In the case of both pork and milk, FPDP purchases were subtracted from the estimated trade damage before the per-unit MFP payment rates for hogs and milk were calculated.

Finally, a producer's 2018 MFP payment was equal to the commodity-specific MFP payment rate multiplied by the producer's 2018 production for corn, cotton, sorghum, soybeans, wheat, fresh sweet cherries, and shelled almonds. For hog producers, the MFP payment rate was multiplied by a producer-selected hog inventory from July 15 to August 15, 2018. For milk producers, the MFP payment rate was multiplied by the farm's production history as reported for the Margin Protection Program of the 2014 farm bill.

2019 MFP Payment-Rate and Payment Methodology

To calculate the 2019 MFP payment rates, USDA made several adaptations to the 2018 methodology. As a result, a producer's MFP payment calculation in 2019 involved an additional fourth step.

First, USDA again calculated the level of direct trade-related damage caused by retaliatory tariffs to U.S. exports for each commodity. However, USDA used 2019 retaliatory tariffs (not 2018) that were being imposed by China, the European Union, and Turkey. Canada and Mexico were removed from the calculations, as they were no longer imposing retaliatory tariffs on U.S. agricultural exports. In addition, USDA adjusted the calculation of direct trade damage by using 10 years of historical U.S. export data (2009-2018) rather than a single year. This larger period captured trade losses for certain commodities that experienced fluctuating trade patterns in recent years and where trade levels during the 2017 data period were unrepresentative of historical trade volumes.

Second, the estimated trade damage for each affected commodity was divided by the crop's average production during the three-year period 2015-2017 to calculate a national commodity-specific, per-unit damage rate. In the case of both pork and milk, FPDP purchases were subtracted from the estimated trade damage before the per-unit MFP payment rates for hogs and milk were calculated.

Third, the commodity-specific damage rates were then used to establish county-level, per-acre payment rates based on historical county data for average planted area and yields of the affected commodities. For each county, USDA multiplied three terms together to estimate the county-level trade damage for each MFP-eligible crop: (1) the three-year (2015-2017) average yield for each cropâtaken from USDA's Risk Management Agency's (RMA) crop insurance data, (2) the four-year (2015-2018) average planted acres of each crop in the countyâtaken from FSA's database of crop acreage reportsâand (3) the commodity-specific, per-unit damage rate for each crop (from step two above). Then, for each county, the crop damage estimates were added across all MFP-eligible crops produced in the county to generate an estimate of the county's total trade damages. The county's total trade damage estimate was then divided by total planted acres of MFP-eligible crops within the county. The result is a unique county-level MFP payment rate. Under this formulation, MFP county-level rates will vary across counties based on the average crop mix, the average planted acres per crop, and average crop yields.

Finally, a producer's 2019 MFP non-specialty-crop payment is equal to the county-level MFP non-specialty-crop payment rate (for the county where production occurs) multiplied by the total acreage of all non-specialty crops planted in that county by that producer. Thus, the 2019 MFP non-specialty-crop payment is independent of an individual farmer's crop mix (from among MFP-eligible non-specialty crops).

In 2019, many producers were prevented from planting acreage due to wet, cool conditions. These acres were not eligible for MFP non-specialty crop payments. However, if a USDA-approved cover crop was planted on the "prevent-plant" acres with the potential to be harvested, then those producers qualified for a $15-per-acre payment on "prevent-plant" acres.

USDA suggests that this independence from individual crop choices prevents the county-level MFP payment from distorting producer planting decisions that were ongoing at the time of the initial trade aid package announcement on May 23, 2019. However, planting of an MFP-eligible crop was a requirement for MFP eligibility. Thus, the 2019 MFP payments may be non-commodity-specific outlays, but they are coupled to the planting of an MFP-eligible crop. These distinctions, although subtle, are important considerations for how the resultant outlays may be notified under WTO domestic-support program disciplines.

The Administration is allocating about $1.4 billion of its 2019 trade aid package to USDA's AMS for purchasing various agricultural commodities and distributing them through domestic nutrition assistance programs ( Table B-1 ).

Under the 2019 FPDP program, AMS is to buy affected products in four phases, starting after October 1, 2019, with deliveries beginning in January 2020. The products purchased can be adjusted between phases to accommodate changes due to growing conditions, product availability, market conditions, trade negotiation status, and program capacity.

AMS maintains purchase specifications for a variety of commodities based on recipient needs. The products discussed in this plan are to be distributed to states for use in the network of food banks and food pantries that participate in the Emergency Feeding Assistance Program, elderly feeding programs such as the Commodity Supplemental Foods Program, and tribes that operate the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. These outlets are in addition to child nutrition programs such as the National School Lunch Program, which may also benefit from these purchases.

USDA announced funding allocations under the ATP program for both the 2018 and 2019 trade aid packages in 2019 ( Table C-1 ). A total of 59 organizations have received $300 million in awards under the two ATP programs, including 57 organization receiving $200 million under the 2018 ATP program and 48 organizations sharing $100 million under the 2019 program.


Bureau of Reclamation Rural Water Projects

Summary: Congress has authorized projects and programs through various federal agencies to address water supply needs. Since 1980, Congress has authorized the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), among other agencies, to develop municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply projects in rural areas and on tribal lands. Congress has authorized these projects, known as rural water supply projects, for several locations throughout the West.

Summary: From 1980 through 2009, Congress authorized Reclamation to undertake the design and construction, and sometimes the operations and maintenance (O&M), of specific rural water supply projects intended to deliver potable water supplies to rural communities in western states. These projects are largely located in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and New Mexico. The rural communities served by these projects included tribal reservations and nontribal rural communities with nonexistent, substandard, or declining water supply or water quality. Many rural water projects are large in scopeâtaking water from one location and moving it across long distances to tie to existing systems. Although M&I portions of most Reclamation water supply facilities require 100% repayment with interest, Congress has authorized rural water projects that receive some or all costs from the federal government on a nonreimbursable basis (i.e., a de facto grant). For example, the federal government pays up to 100% of costs for tribal rural water supply projects, including O&M. For nontribal rural water supply projects, the federal cost share for current projects ranges from 75% to 80%.

Summary: The Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 (Title I of P.L. 109-451 ) created the Rural Water Supply Program, a structured program for developing and recommending future rural water supply projects. This program was to replace the previous process of authorizing projects individuallyâoften without the level of analysis and review (e.g., feasibility studies) required for Reclamation's other projects. Under the Rural Water Supply Program, Congress authorized Reclamation to work with rural communities and tribes to identify M&I water needs and options to address such needs through appraisal investigations and feasibility studies. Congress would then consider feasibility studies recommended by the Administration before authorizing specific project construction in legislation. Ultimately, Reclamation did not recommend and Congress did not authorize any projects through this process, and the authority for the program expired in 2016. Members have introduced legislation in the 116 th Congress to reauthorize the Rural Water Supply Program through FY2026: the Water Justice Act ( H.R. 4033 ) and the Securing Access for the Central Valley and Enhancing (SAVE) Water Resources Act ( H.R. 2473 ). Other bills would authorize individual activities (i.e., a feasibility study and a project) previously considered by the Rural Water Supply Program or would address rural water needs by creating authorities for rural water grants or water technology programs.

Summary: Reclamation continues to construct rural water projects (and to provide O&M assistance for some tribal components) authorized and initiated outside of the Rural Water Supply Program. Enacted funding for rural water supply projects in FY2020 provided $145.1 million for construction and O&M at seven authorized rural water projects, which was $117.4 million above the Administration's FY2020 budget request. Five projects received construction funding in FY2020: Garrison Diversion Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie Rural Water System, Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Rural Water System, and Eastern New Mexico Water Supply. For FY2021, the Administration requested $30.3 million for rural water projects. As of early 2020, Reclamation reported that $1.2 billion was needed to construct authorized, ongoing rural water projects.

According to a 2019 study, 2 million Americans lack access to running water, indoor plumbing, or wastewater services. Many of the communities with inadequate water supply infrastructure are in rural areas or on tribal lands. Over time, Congress has authorized projects and programs through various federal agencies to address rural water supply needs. Since 1980, Congress has authorized the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), among other federal agencies, to develop municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply projects in rural areas and on tribal lands.

Reclamation was established to implement the Reclamation Act of 1902, which authorized the construction of water works to provide water for irrigation in arid western states. Reclamation owns and manages 491 dams and 338 reservoirs, which are capable of storing a combined 140 million acre-feet of water. Reclamation has incorporated M&I water resource projects into larger projects that serve various other authorized purposes (e.g., irrigation, power). Reclamation-funded M&I water deliveries total approximately 10 trillion gallons of water per year. As part of Reclamation's M&I responsibilities, Congress has expressly authorized the agency to undertake the design and construction of rural water supply projects intended to deliver potable water supplies to defined rural communities.

From 1980 through 2009, Congress authorized Reclamation to undertake the design and construction, and in some cases the operations and maintenance (O&M), of specific projects intended to deliver potable water supplies to rural communities in western Reclamation states. These projects were largely located in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and New Mexico. The rural communities include tribal reservations and nontribal rural communities with nonexistent, substandard, or declining water supply or water quality. Many rural water projects are large in scopeâtaking water from one location and moving it long distances to tie to existing systems. M&I portions of Reclamation water supply facilities typically require 100% repayment of construction costs to the federal treasury with interest. Congress also has authorized rural water projects that receive funding from the federal government for some or all costs on a nonreimbursable basis (i.e., a de facto grant). For example, the federal government pays up to 100% of the cost of tribal rural water supply projects, including O&M. For nontribal rural water supply projects, the federal cost share for current projects ranges from 75% to 80%.

The Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 (Title I of P.L. 109-451 ) created the Rural Water Supply Program, a structured program for developing and recommending rural water supply projects. This program was to replace the previous process of authorizing projects individuallyâoften without the level of analysis and review (e.g., feasibility studies) consistent with Reclamation's other projects. Under the Rural Water Supply Program, Congress authorized Reclamation to work with rural communities and tribes to identify M&I water needs and options to address such needs through appraisal investigations and feasibility studies. Congress would then consider feasibility studies recommended by the Administration before authorizing specific projects for construction in legislation. Ultimately, Congress did not authorize any projects for construction through this process, and the authority for the program expired in 2016.

Reclamation continues to construct rural water projects (and to provide O&M assistance for some tribal components) that were authorized and initiated outside of the Rural Water Supply Program. In 2012, Reclamation developed prioritization criteria for budgeting these projects:

inclusion of tribal components amount of financial resources committed urgency and severity of need financial need and potential economic impact regional and watershed approach water, energy, and other priority objectives

According to Reclamation, the criteria aim to reflect both the priorities identified in the statutes that authorized individual projects and the goals of the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006.

For FY2020, Congress appropriated $145.1 million for construction and O&M at seven authorized rural water projects, which was $117.4 million above the Administration's FY2020 budget request. As of early 2020, Reclamation reported that $1.2 billion was still needed to construct authorized, ongoing rural water projects. For FY2021, the Administration requested $30.3 million for Reclamation rural water activities, of which $8.1 million is for construction.

This report provides an overview of Reclamation rural water projects, including completed and ongoing rural projects and efforts under Reclamation's Rural Water Supply Program. The report also discusses considerations for Congress (e.g., funding prioritization, potential nexus with other federal programs) and presents recent legislation relating to authorizing additional projects and reauthorizing the Rural Water Supply Program.

Congress has funded water supply projects in rural areas for more than four decades. Reclamation first became involved in these efforts beginning with authorization of the WEB Rural Water Supply Project in 1980 ( P.L. 96-355 ). Since that time, Congress has authorized Reclamation to fund the construction of several other rural water supply projects (see Table 1 ). These projects have individual authorizations and generally aim to provide water exclusively for M&I water uses in rural areasâa departure from the historical mission of providing water for irrigation, with M&I water use as an incidental project purpose. According to a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, Reclamation became involved in such projects because communities proposed projects directly to Congress and, in response, Congress created specific authorizations for these rural water supply projects, with Reclamation overseeing funding and construction. In addition to projects authorized only in Reclamation states, Congress specifically authorized Reclamation's involvement in the Lewis and Clark Rural Water Supply Project located in South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota.

Reclamation reported that, prior to authorization, some rural water projects did not go through the level of analysis and review that is consistent with Reclamation's other projects and did not meet the economic, environmental, and design standards that are required to determine the feasibility of federal water resources development projects. In these instances, following authorization, Reclamation was to complete the analysis that was necessary to execute the project while adhering to the project configuration and designs specified by the authorizing statutes and in accordance with other laws (e.g., Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. Â§Â§1251-1387], National Environmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C. Â§4321 et seq.]). Critics have sometimes expressed concerns over this approachâspecifically, whether the authorized project would have emerged as the most cost-effective preferred alternative had a feasibility study been performed prior to authorization.

Each rural water project authorization required that the cost ceilings authorized in the legislation be indexed to adjust for inflation to include the rising cost of materials and labor, which was estimated to be 4% annually. The result of these indexing requirements is that the overall cost of authorized rural water projects has risen and continues to rise due in part to actual federal appropriations for projects falling short of the optimal funding scenarios that were assumed under planning projections. As of early 2020, Reclamation reported that $1.2 billion was needed to construct authorized, ongoing rural water projects.

For FY2021, the Administration's budget proposal requested $30.3 million: $8.1 million for ongoing construction at four authorized rural water projects and $22.2 million for O&M of tribal systems (e.g., $14.5 million for the Mni Wiconi Project, $7.7 million for the Garrison Diversion Unit M&I, and $20,000 for the Mid-Dakota Rural Water System). The FY2021 request is $114.8 million less than FY2020 enacted funding of $145.1 million. The FY2021 request continues a trend since FY2014 in which the President's budget requested reduced funding for rural water projects from prior-year enacted levels. Reclamation also has emphasized its authority to accept nonfederal contributions in excess of cost-sharing requirements as one way to expedite projects in the absence of increased federal funding. In the FY2021 budget request, Reclamation noted that nonfederal parties have the ability to move forward with important investments in water resources infrastructure by contributing amounts in excess of minimum contributions.

Rural Water Projects Under Construction in FY2020

In FY2020, Reclamation funded $125.4 million in construction work at five projects ( Table 2 ). Reclamation's FY2020 budget request included $8.0 million in construction for four projects, but Congress provided $117.4 million in appropriations above the President's budget request. The Administration distributed the funds above the request among five authorized projects, as described in Reclamation's additional funding spend plan. The following briefly describes the projects under construction in FY2020 based on Reclamation budget documents.

The Garrison Diversion Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri-Basin Program was authorized in 1965 (P.L. 89-108) and was amended in 1986 by the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act ( P.L. 99-294 ) to include rural water services. Garrison Diversion Unit water supply facilities are associated with Garrison Dam of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. They are located in eight counties in the central and eastern part of North Dakota and serve four tribal reservations (Spirit Lake, Fort Berthold, Turtle Mountain, and Standing Rock Indian Reservations). The multipurpose project principally provides tribal and nontribal M&I water, along with fish and wildlife, recreation, and flood control benefits.

The Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000 ( P.L. 106-382 ), as amended, authorized rural water projects in northeastern Montana for the Fort Peck Reservation, serving the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, and for the Dry Prairie Rural Water Authority, serving towns outside of the reservation. The total service area population is around 25,000 people; rural water use is also available for commercial users and livestock. Currently, groundwater from shallow alluvial aquifers is the primary water source for the municipal systems, but groundwater quality is generally poor. The regional rural water project is to provide for a single water treatment plant located on the Missouri River, which is to distribute up to 13.6 million gallons of treated water per day through 3,200 miles of pipeline.

The Lewis and Clark Rural Water System Act of 2000 (Division B, Title IV of P.L. 106-246 ) authorized the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System to serve over 300,000 people in southeast South Dakota, southwest Minnesota, and northwest Iowa. The project aims to address concerns regarding low water quality, contamination, and insufficient supplies of existing drinking water sources throughout the project area. The water source for the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System is the sand and gravel aquifers of the Missouri River near Vermillion, SD. The project is to collect, treat, and distribute water through a network of wells, pipelines, pump stations, and storage reservoirs to each of 15 municipalities (including the city of Sioux Falls) and five rural systems. As of February 2020, completed facilities delivered water to the first 14 of 20 members, serving more than 200,000 individuals in Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota.

The Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System Act of 2002 (Title IX of P.L. 107-331 ) authorized a rural water system to serve the Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation (Chippewa Cree Tribe) and surrounding communities in northern Montana. The system is designed to serve a total projected population of 43,000 (14,000 on reservation and 29,000 off reservation) by providing infrastructure to ensure existing water systems within the project service area comply with federal Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. Â§Â§300f-300j-26) regulations. A core pipeline is to provide potable water from Tiber Reservoir to the Rocky Boy's Reservation, and non-core pipelines are to serve 21 surrounding towns and rural water districts. A $20 million trust fund established with Bureau of Indian Affairs appropriations is to fund O&M and replacement for the core and on-reservation systems initially; eventually, water users are expected to entirely fund the project. Reclamation states that the current authorization is not adequate to cover the project.

Section 9103 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-11 ) authorized the Eastern New Mexico Water Supply project to deliver water from Ute Reservoir on the Canadian River to eight member communities. The use of Ute Reservoir water aims to provide long-term water supply and reduce the eight communities' dependence on groundwater in the Ogallala Aquifer. Current funding is for planning, design, and construction of interim projects to deliver groundwater to the communities before treated surface water is delivered from the Ute Reservoir Pipeline.

The Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 (Title I of P.L. 109-451 ) authorized the Rural Water Supply Program and directed the Secretary of the Interior to undertake certain activities to implement the program. Specifically, the act directed Reclamation to conduct appraisal investigations and feasibility studies (or to ensure that nonfederal entities conducted such studies) and to recommend proposed projects to Congress for construction authorization and subsequent funding.

In 2008, Reclamation published an interim final rule (43 C.F.R. Â§404) that established operating criteria for the program and defined the criteria for the prioritization, eligibility, and evaluation of appraisal investigations and feasibility studies, in accordance with the act. To be eligible under the rule, a rural community must have a population under 50,000. The rule prioritized domestic, residential, and municipal uses and prohibited the use of water for commercial irrigation purposes. Interested entities (e.g., Reclamation states and western tribes) may request that either (1) Reclamation complete an appraisal investigation or feasibility study or (2) Reclamation provide financial assistance so the entity can conduct an appraisal investigation or feasibility study.

Reclamation began to implement the Rural Water Supply Program in FY2010 on a pilot basis, providing assistance to nonfederal entities to conduct appraisal investigations and feasibility studies. Between FY2009 and FY2012, Congress provided Reclamation a total of $7.9 million for the program. After FY2012, Reclamation no longer requested funding for the program and Congress did not appropriate funds for it. Overall, Reclamation reported using this authority to study approximately 22 projects to varying extents (see Appendix ). Twelve were located in the Reclamation's Great Plains region, five in the Upper Colorado region, four in the Lower Colorado region, and one in the Pacific Northwest region. Of these, Reclamation finalized and approved two feasibility reports: the Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System Feasibility Report (Montana) and the Payson-Cragin Reservoir Water Supply Project Feasibility Report (Arizona). Reclamation did not recommend these or any other projects for authorization, and Congress did not authorize any projects. In justifying its lack of construction recommendations, Reclamation pointed to existing rural water construction obligations, which it argued precluded recommendation of new projects with completed feasibility studies.

The authority for the Rural Water Supply Program expired at the end of FY2016 and has not been renewed. Members of Congress have introduced legislation in the 116 th Congress that would reauthorize both the Rural Water Supply Program and particular projects and studies previously considered through the expired program (see " Legislation in the 116th Congress ").

Congress continues to fund construction and O&M (only required for tribal components) of authorized rural water projects; however, since the FY2016 expiration of the Rural Water Supply Program, Reclamation has for the most part ceased activities relating to new project study and authorization. Congress may consider conducting oversight or legislating changes to Reclamation's rural water activities, including those related to existing or new program and project authorizations, funding prioritization criteria, and Reclamation's role in supporting rural water projects.

The Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 required the Secretary of the Interior to assess the demand for new rural water supply projects in Reclamation states. In FY2009, Reclamation estimated that identified needs for potable water supply systems in rural areas ranged from $5 billion to $8 billion for nontribal needs; in the same year, it estimated approximately $1.2 billion for specific tribal water supply projects. However, the Administration has not recommended, and Congress has not authorized, any new Reclamation rural water projects since 2009. Additionally, because authorization of Reclamation's Rural Water Supply Program lapsed at the end of FY2016, Reclamation lacks a structured program for developing and recommending rural water supply projects.

In the 116 th Congress, House and Senate companion bills H.R. 967 and S. 334 , both titled the Clean Water for Rural Communities Act, would authorize $5 million for a feasibility study for the Dry Redwater Rural Water System and $56.7 million (2014 price levels) for construction of the Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System. As noted, a feasibility report for the Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System was completed through Reclamation's Rural Water Supply Program, but the Administration did not recommend the project to Congress for authorization.

Congress also is considering legislation to reauthorize the Rural Water Supply Program through FY2026. In the 116 th Congress, both the Water Justice Act ( H.R. 4033 ) and the Securing Access for the Central Valley and Enhancing (SAVE) Water Resources Act ( H.R. 2473 ) would reauthorize the existing program.

Congress may consider other legislative proposals to address the demand for rural water assistance in the West. For example, the Disadvantaged Community Drinking Water Assistance Act ( H.R. 5347 ) would require the Secretary of the Interior to establish a grant program to provide financial assistance to disadvantaged communities of less than 60,000 residents that have experienced a significant decline in quantity or quality of drinking water. The grants could fund technical assistance, initial operating and capital costs for edible facilities, and up to 25% of such facilities' O&M. Other legislative proposals would address rural water needs by amending authorities to specific water technology and programs. For example, the Western Water Security Act of 2019 ( H.R. 4891 ) would amend the Water Desalination Act of 1996, as amended ( P.L. 104-298 ; 42 U.S.C. Â§10301 note), to add a classification for rural desalination projects with a higher federal cost share than desalination projects serving more than 40,000 individuals.

In early 2020, Reclamation stated that $1.2 billion was needed to complete authorized rural water projects under construction by the agency. In addition, Reclamation has previously estimated nontribal rural water supply needs in excess of $5 billion, and some observers have reported that assistance for communities is needed to address these needs. Some stakeholders have requested continued and increased funding for Reclamation rural water projects. In the 115 th Congress, representatives of the National Water Resources Association and the Family Farm Alliance asked Congress to compel Reclamation and the Office of Management and Budget to implement the Rural Water Supply Program and investigate opportunities to develop loan and loan guarantee programs that can help fund new water infrastructure projects.

Over the years, Reclamation has provided its views regarding funding for rural water projects. In general, Reclamation has testified that rural water projects must compete with a long list of other priorities, including aging infrastructure, environmental compliance and restoration actions, and dam safety. During the consideration of authorizing existing rural water projects, Reclamation stated that long-standing agency policy was that local sponsors, particularly those that are nontribal, should reimburse Reclamation for 100% of the costs incurred for rural water supply from multipurpose projects. Reclamation notes in its budget requests to Congress that constrained federal budgets do not preclude nonfederal sponsors' ability to move forward with rural water projects by funding in excess of the minimum nonfederal contributions. Reclamation has recommended that tribes, where possible, and other project beneficiaries be responsible for the O&M expenses of their rural water projects.

Congress has appropriated funds for rural water projects on a nonreimbursable basis (i.e., as de facto grants). In some cases, local and tribal sponsors do not have funds or have not prioritized funds to increase their funding contributions. Should Congress continue to support rural water projects through Reclamation, Congress may consider various options. These might include

Continue to provide Reclamation annual appropriations for the agency to allocate funds to individually authorized rural water projects based on established agency criteria. Establish mandatory funding for Reclamation to allocate funds to individually authorized rural water projects based on established agency criteria. For example, the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act ( S. 1556 ) in the 115 th Congress would have created a Reclamation Rural Water Construction Account to receive $80 million annually that otherwise would be deposited into the Reclamation Fund. Funds in the Reclamation Rural Water Construction Account, in addition to amounts appropriated for rural water projects, would be available for the construction of authorized rural water projects. Provide grant funding through a competitive process for nonfederal sponsors to support local projects, such as the grant program the Disadvantaged Community Drinking Water Assistance Act ( H.R. 5347 ) would establish for communities with fewer than 60,000 residents. Direct appropriations to individually authorized rural water projects.

As GAO noted in a 2007 report, numerous federal entities provide funding for water supply and wastewater projects. In addition to Reclamation (which funds only water supply projects), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Department of Commerce (DOC) all provide funding for both water supply and wastewater projects. USDA, EPA, HUD, and DOC have formal, nationwide programs with standardized eligibility criteria and processes under which communities compete for funding. In contrast, Reclamation and USACE fund water projects in defined geographic locations under explicit congressional authorizations. According to GAO, Congress has chosen Reclamation to fill a void for projects that are larger and more complex than other rural water projects and that do not meet the criteria of other rural water programs.

Some might argue that these projects would be better accomplished via other existing federal water quality or water supply programs. However, as GAO has observed, as designed, some of Reclamation's authorized rural water projects do not fit criteria of other agency's programs due to their cost and regional focus; thus, project proponents have looked to Reclamation for funding. For example, Reclamation may assist rural areas with populations in excess of 10,000 residents that may not be eligible for funding under other programs. Reclamation rural water projects also may serve more than one community (i.e., a regional area, as opposed to a single area).

Reclamation developed its Rural Water Supply Program with the intent to complement, rather than duplicate, the efforts of the other agencies' programs and activities. In creating the program, Reclamation signed memoranda of understanding and related documents with other agencies to coordinate efforts. Reclamation has stated that it participates in a variety of broad coordination activities among agencies related to ongoing authorized projects. With the expiration of the Rural Water Supply Program, this formal coordination between Reclamation and other agencies' programs is no longer required.

Appendix. Rural Water Supply Program Appraisal Investigations and Feasibility Studies

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) provided the Congressional Research Service with a list of appraisal investigations and feasibility studies conducted for potential projects under the Rural Water Supply Program. Before the program authorization expired in FY2016, 22 appraisal investigations were conducted, with nine recommendations for a feasibility study. Five feasibility studies were conducted. Reclamation did not recommend any projects for construction funding, although two studies found feasible alternatives for rural water supply. Reclamation issued concluding reports for appraisal investigations and feasibility studies of projects that were not recommended for construction funding. Reclamation provided a range of reasons for issuing concluding reports: studies being incomplete, no found feasible alternatives, lack of funding, and program expiration. According to Reclamation, some concluding reports were not issued due to a lack of time or resources. In these cases, Reclamation considered the appraisal reports as concluding reports for the purposes of the Rural Water Supply Program. A feasibility report for the Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System was completed through Reclamation's Rural Water Supply Program. Legislation introduced in the 116 th congress, the Clean Water for Rural Communities Act ( H.R. 967 and S. 334 ), would authorize the Central Montana Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System.


Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority

Summary: Through Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), Congress has delegated authority to the President to negotiate free trade agreements (FTAs). This authority requires congressional approval (through implementation legislation) of comprehensive FTAs. Since 1979, Congress has passed 17 implementation measures for FTAs and multilateral trade agreements. The majority of these trade agreementsâincluding the recent United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) â were considered in Congress under TPA, which provides for expedited consideration of FTAs in Congress. Since 1979, Congress has passed six measures extending TPA for limited time periods. As with many international trade issues, TPA has been politically contentious over time, resulting in vigorous debate and two multi-year lapses in authority.

Summary: USMCA is the most recent free trade agreement (FTA) to be approved by Congress under TPA.

This report compiles the final congressional votes on free trade agreements (FTAs), trade promotion authority (TPA), and U.S membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

In the past 30 years, the United States has pursued bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements in an attempt to liberalize markets and reduce trade and investment barriers. Congress has played a central role in shaping this trade policy. Congressâthrough debate and legislationâdefines trade negotiation priorities, approves FTAs, and helps oversee agreements' implementation and enforcement.

While the President has the authority to negotiate treaties with foreign countries, Congress has sole constitutional authority to regulate international trade. Since 1934, Congress has periodically delegated some authority to negotiate trade agreements to the President. In the Trade Act of 1974, Congress outlined many of the congressional and executive roles regarding trade agreements; Congress delegated negotiation authority to the President, but required congressional approval (through implementation legislation) of free trade agreements. Congress also created a process to allow for expedient consideration in Congress of FTAs, provided that the President observe certain statutory requirements. This expedient consideration is known as TPA or, formerly, "fast-track" consideration.

Free Trade Agreements: Bilateral, Regional, and Multilateral

The United States is currently party to 12 bilateral FTAs (with Australia, Bahrain, Chile, Colombia, Israel, Jordan, South Korea, Morocco, Oman, Panama, Peru, and Singapore) and to 2 regional free trade agreements (the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)). The United States has also signed an agreement with Canada and Mexico to replace NAFTA. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) has been ratified by all three parties, and the agreement will enter into force, after the necessary legal and regulatory measures are in place for each party to meet its commitments. For a list and timeline of trade agreements where negotiations were concluded, see Table 1 . For a compilation of final congressional votes on FTAs considered in Congress, see Table 2 .

In addition to bilateral and regional FTAs, the United States is also party to multilateral agreements that outline membership in the WTO, a 164-member international organization. The WTO was created in 1995 to oversee and administer multilateral trade rules, serve as a forum for trade liberalization negotiations, and resolve trade disputes. When Congress approved the WTO Uruguay Round Agreement, it included a set of procedures to allow Congress to reconsider U.S. membership in the WTO by passing a joint resolution calling for withdrawal from the organization. Congress may vote every five years on withdrawal from the WTO. Resolutions were introduced in the 106 th and 109 th Congress; neither passed. See Table 3 for a compilation of major legislation and votes concerning U.S. membership to the WTO.

All U.S. FTAs, except the agreement with Jordan, were considered in Congress under Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). TPA is the process by which Congress enables FTA legislation to be considered under expedited legislative procedures, provided the President observes certain statutory obligations. Because TPA is extended only for limited periods, Congress periodically reconsiders legislation to extend it and to outline future negotiation objectives. Since 1974, Congress has passed seven measures extending TPA. TPA, like many issues related to international trade, has been politically contentious in Congress over time, resulting in vigorous debate and two multi-year lapses in authority. For a list of major votes on TPA, see Table 4 .

Congressional Votes on Select Trade Legislation

Congressional consideration of bills can be a complex process, sometimes requiring multiple votes. For clarity's sake, this report only provides the final vote for each measure. More complete bill information can be found on Congress.govâincluding roll call votes for all legislation back to 1993. The bill numbers listed in the following tables link to Congress.gov, and the vote tallies link to the House and Senate roll call votes, for all votes back to 1993.

Table 1 provides a timeline of trade agreements including the date the agreement was signed, the date implementing legislation was enacted, and the date the agreement went into force. The table also notes the TPA legislation under which the trade agreement was considered in Congress. The table includes fully implemented trade agreements, as well as two recent agreements: the USMCA, which has not yet entered into force, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that the United States signed, but later announced that it would not ratify.

Table 2 provides major votes on FTAs, including the final House and Senate votes on FTA implementing legislation.

Table 3 provides major votes on U.S. membership to the WTO, including implementing legislation for multilateral agreements and resolutions calling for the United States to withdraw from the WTO.

Table 4 provides major votes on TPA legislation. It includes the final House and Senate votes on TPA-related provisions. Votes are grouped by the trade agreement authority granted to the President.

For a selected list of CRS products on FTAs and TPA, see the Appendix .

Appendix. Selected CRS Reports and Resources

CRS In Focus IF10297, TPP-Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Timeline , by Ian F. Fergusson

CRS Report R43491, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): Frequently Asked Questions , by Ian F. Fergusson and Christopher M. Davis

CRS Report RL33743, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade Policy , by Ian F. Fergusson

CRS Infographic IG10001, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and U.S. Trade Agreements , by Brock R. Williams

CRS Report R45198, U.S. and Global Trade Agreements: Issues for Congress , by Brock R. Williams

CRS Report R44981, NAFTA and the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) , by M. Angeles Villarreal and Ian F. Fergusson.

CRS In Focus IF10997, U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) Trade Agreement , by M. Angeles Villarreal and Ian F. Fergusson

CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10399, USMCA: Implementation and Considerations for Congress , by Nina M. Hart

CRS In Focus IF10733, U.S.-South Korea (KORUS) FTA , coordinated by Brock R. Williams

CRS Report RL34470, The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues , by M. Angeles Villarreal and Edward Y. Gracia

CRS Report RS22164, DR-CAFTA: Regional Issues , by Clare Ribando Seelke

CRS In Focus IF10394, Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) , by M. Angeles Villarreal

CRS Insight IN10903, CRS Products on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) , by M. Angeles Villarreal

CRS In Focus IF10000, TPP: Overview and Current Status , by Brock R. Williams and Ian F. Fergusson

CRS Report R45417, World Trade Organization: Overview and Future Direction , coordinated by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs