II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2992 

To require the establishment of a joint task force to identify and eliminate 

barriers to agriculture exports of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2023 

Mr. CASSIDY (for himself, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Ms. ERNST, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. 

WICKER, and Mr. TUBERVILLE) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To require the establishment of a joint task force to identify 

and eliminate barriers to agriculture exports of the 

United States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prioritizing Offensive 

5 Agricultural Disputes and Enforcement Act’’ or the ‘‘Ag 

6 Disputes Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

8 Congress finds the following: 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 2992 IS

1 (1) Agricultural competitiveness through access 

2 to international markets is a vital part of the econ3 omy of the United States. 

4 (2) A healthy, well-functioning, rules-based 

5 trading system is the basis for the success of agri6 culture exports of the United States. 

7 (3) When foreign governments erect trade bar8 riers, that makes it difficult for agricultural export9 ers in the United States to compete in the global 

10 marketplace and undermines the rules-based trading 

11 system. 

12 (4) Those trade barriers can harm farmers, 

13 ranchers, workers, and businesses in the United 

14 States and can also lead to higher prices for con15 sumers and a less resilient international trading sys16 tem. 

17 (5) Dispute settlement is available to the Presi18 dent through trade agreements with 163 countries, 

19 and there are protectionist trade barriers to agri20 culture exports of the United States in many of 

21 those countries. 

22 (6) Many of those barriers are systemically im23 portant. For example, the use by the Government of 

24 India of unrestrained price support programs vioVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:53 Oct 01, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2992.IS S2992

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 2992 IS

1 lates the commitments by that government under 

2 the World Trade Organization. 

3 (7) The Government of India recognizes that its 

4 price support programs violate its commitments 

5 under the World Trade Organization, so instead of 

6 reforming its programs, it has repeatedly demanded 

7 an exemption from disputes for those programs. 

8 Moreover, the Government of India has tried to pre9 vent discussions at the World Trade Organization of 

10 any other significant agricultural trade issue unless 

11 it gets a permanent exemption from disputes for 

12 those programs. 

13 (8) The Government of India has repeatedly 

14 raised its minimum price supports, which has had 

15 negative effects on several commodity markets and 

16 most notably has led to its dominance of the global 

17 rice trade, with a 40-percent share of the global 

18 market since marketing year 2020 through 2021. 

19 India is also the world’s largest producer of pulses 

20 and second largest producer of wheat, peanuts, and 

21 cotton. 

22 (9) The United States Trade Representative 

23 submitted a counter notification at the World Trade 

24 Organization in 2023 showing that price supports by 

25 the Government of India for rice increased from 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
4 

•S 2992 IS

1 78.6 percent of the value of production in marketing 

2 year 2014 through 2015 to 93.9 percent of the value 

3 of production in marketing year 2020 through 2021, 

4 compared to the limit at the World Trade Organiza5 tion on increased price supports of 10 percent of the 

6 value of production. That counter notification also 

7 showed price supports by the Government of India 

8 for wheat increasing from 77.7 percent to 81.3 per9 cent during the same period. Previous counter notifi10 cations have shown similar violations by the Govern11 ment of India for other commodities. For example, 

12 in the marketing year 2016 through 2017, price 

13 supports by the Government of Indian were 67.9 

14 percent for cotton, 31.7 percent for chickpeas, 41 

15 percent for lentils, and 47.4 percent for pulses over16 all. 

17 (10) Minor attempts to reform the agriculture 

18 subsidy system in India in marketing year 2020 

19 through 2021 failed to produce results. Reforms en20 acted as a result of those attempts would not have 

21 changed the policies that violate commitments under 

22 the World Trade Organization, but would have 

23 merely provided farmers in India with opportunities 

24 to sell their products outside of the government-run 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
5 

•S 2992 IS

1 mandi system, but those reforms were ultimately re2 pealed. 

3 (11) Dispute settlement is an effective way to 

4 provide a neutral assessment of compliance with 

5 terms of trade agreements and empower internal re6 formers who recognize a problem but have not been 

7 able to overcome entrenched resistance. 

8 (12) Global agriculture is uniquely susceptible 

9 to trade barriers and requires special attention to re10 solve myriad systemic and economically significant 

11 trade violations that impede the development of a re12 silient, sustainable, and rules-based agricultural 

13 trading system. 

14 SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

15 It is the sense of Congress that— 

16 (1) the President should accelerate efforts to 

17 address foreign trade barriers that harm agriculture 

18 exports of the United States; 

19 (2) the United States Trade Representative and 

20 the Secretary of Agriculture both have a critical role 

21 in developing agricultural trade disputes; 

22 (3) Congress and the private sector have key 

23 roles to play in the development of disputes and ag24 ricultural trade enforcement strategy; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
6 

•S 2992 IS

1 (4) in the case of price supports by the Govern2 ment of India, the President has exhausted other op3 tions available through the World Trade Organiza4 tion short of requesting consultations under the Dis5 pute Settlement Understanding of the World Trade 

6 Organization; 

7 (5) there should be a plan and definitive dead8 lines in place for a request for consultations and es9 tablishment of a panel under the Dispute Settlement 

10 Understanding; 

11 (6) the United States Trade Representative and 

12 the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with 

13 Congress and the private sector, should jointly de14 velop a proactive enforcement strategy for address15 ing systemic and economically significant trade bar16 riers in the agriculture sector; and 

17 (7) the Office of the United States Trade Rep18 resentative is the lead agency for trade policy of the 

19 United States. 

20 SEC. 4. AGRICULTURAL TRADE ENFORCEMENT TASK 

21 FORCE. 

22 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than 30 days after 

23 the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall 

24 establish a joint task force to be known as the ‘‘AgriculVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:53 Oct 01, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2992.IS S2992

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
7 

•S 2992 IS

1 tural Trade Enforcement Task Force’’ (in this section re2 ferred to as the ‘‘Task Force’’). 

3 (b) MEMBERSHIP.—The Task Force shall be com4 prised of the following members: 

5 (1) Employees of the Foreign Agricultural Serv6 ice of the Department of Agriculture, who shall be 

7 appointed by the Under Secretary of Agriculture for 

8 Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs. 

9 (2) Employees of the Office of the United 

10 States Trade Representative, who shall— 

11 (A) be appointed by the General Counsel 

12 and the Chief Agricultural Negotiator; and 

13 (B) have appropriate expertise in agricul14 tural trade policy and trade enforcement. 

15 (3) Employees from other Federal agencies as 

16 determined by the United States Trade Representa17 tive or the Secretary of Agriculture. 

18 (c) DUTIES.— 

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Task Force shall— 

20 (A) identify trade barriers to agriculture 

21 exports of the United States that are vulnerable 

22 to dispute settlement under the World Trade 

23 Organization or other trade agreements to 

24 which the United States is a party; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
8 

•S 2992 IS

1 (B) develop and implement a strategy for 

2 enforcing violations of trade agreements related 

3 to those trade barriers; 

4 (C) identify like-minded trading partners 

5 that could act as co-complainants or primary 

6 complainants on disputes relating to specific 

7 trade barriers that are systemically or economi8 cally important to the United States; and 

9 (D) report to Congress pursuant to sub10 section (d). 

11 (2) CONSULTATION.—In carrying out the duties 

12 under paragraph (1), the Task Force shall regularly 

13 consult, to the extent necessary and appropriate, 

14 with the following: 

15 (A) Relevant stakeholders in the private 

16 sector, including the agricultural trade advisory 

17 committees. 

18 (B) Federal agencies that are not rep19 resented on the Task Force. 

20 (C) Like-minded trading partners that are 

21 similarly concerned with trade barriers and are 

22 potential participants in a dispute settlement 

23 process. 

24 (d) REPORTS.— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
9 

•S 2992 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act, and not less 

3 frequently than quarterly thereafter, the Task Force 

4 shall submit to Congress a report on the progress of 

5 the Task Force in identifying and addressing trade 

6 barriers to agriculture exports of the United States. 

7 (2) ELEMENTS.—Each report submitted under 

8 paragraph (1) shall include the following: 

9 (A) The systemic and economically signifi10 cant trade barriers that have been identified by 

11 the Task Force. 

12 (B) A justification for including those 

13 trade barriers in the report. 

14 (C) The progress that has been made in 

15 developing dispute settlement cases and an as16 sessment of whether further information is re17 quired. 

18 (D) The current status of ongoing disputes 

19 and the implementation of panel decisions, arbi20 tration decisions, or decisions by the Appellate 

21 Body of the World Trade Organization. 

22 (3) CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.— 

23 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Task Force shall 

24 remove from each report submitted under paraVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:53 Oct 01, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2992.IS S2992

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
10 

•S 2992 IS

1 graph (1) any information determined by the 

2 Task Force to be confidential. 

3 (B) BRIEFING.—For each report required 

4 to be submitted under paragraph (1), the 

5 United States Trade Representative and the 

6 Secretary of Agriculture shall provide to mem7 bers of Congress, congressional staff, and 

8 cleared advisors a briefing on the information 

9 determined by the Task Force to be confidential 

10 and removed from the report pursuant to sub11 paragraph (A). 

12 (e) CONSULTATIONS WITH INDIA.— 

13 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Task Force shall in14 clude as part of the first report required under sub15 section (d)(1) a plan for filing a request for con16 sultations under the World Trade Organization with 

17 respect to the price supports implemented by the 

18 Government of India with respect to agricultural 

19 products, which shall include other members of the 

20 World Trade Organization that have been identified 

21 and approached as potential co-complainants. 

22 (2) ELEMENTS.—The plan required under 

23 paragraph (1) shall include— 

24 (A) specific claims that the United States 

25 Trade Representative intends to make during 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
11 

•S 2992 IS

1 the consultations requested pursuant to the 

2 plan; and 

3 (B) a timeline for— 

4 (i) requesting those consultations; and 

5 (ii) requesting the establishment of a 

6 panel under the World Trade Organization 

7 in the event that the Government of India 

8 fails to provide a satisfactory path to com9 pliance by the date that is 60 days after 

10 the date of receipt of the request for con11 sultations. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB