Bill Overview
Title: Protecting American Food Producers from Russia’s Market Distortions Act
Description: This bill prohibits the importation of certain agricultural products, raw materials, and food from Russia if the Russian government prohibits the importation of these products from the United States. Specifically, the bill prohibits the importation of Russian products that are classified under chapters 1-24 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (which includes, among other products, live animals, animal and vegetable products, seafood, prepared foodstuffs, and beverages). Further, the bill prohibits federal funds from being obligated or expended for the procurement of these products from Russia. These prohibitions shall terminate on the date on which the President determines and certifies to Congress that (1) the Russian government has terminated its prohibition on the importation of these products from the United States, (2) the Russian government and its proxies have withdrawn all military and paramilitary forces from Ukraine, and (3) the President has received credible commitments from the Russian government that it will not engage in hostile action against Ukraine in the future.
Sponsors: Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals globally impacted indirectly by US-Russian import sanctions
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill primarily impacts American food producers by providing them with a level playing field, as Russian agricultural products would no longer have an unfair market advantage if reciprocal trade restrictions are in place.
- The bill restricts the importation of specific Russian agricultural and food products, impacting American consumers and businesses dependent on these imports.
- Russian agricultural producers aiming to export to the US market will be affected due to restricted access.
- American consumers might face changes in prices or availability of certain food products previously imported from Russia.
- The prohibitions are intended to counteract market distortions caused by Russian trade policies and potentially stimulate domestic production.
Reasoning
- This policy primarily affects individuals involved in agriculture and related industries on both sides of the Russian-American trade relationship. American producers who compete with Russian imports may benefit from reduced competition, whereas businesses that rely on imports from Russia may face challenges.
- The direct impact is on the agricultural market participants, while consumers may see indirect effects in terms of availability and prices.
- Cost restrictions suggest a limited immediate implementation, serving as a protective measure rather than providing direct subsidies or financial compensations to individual farmers in the U.S.
- Many individuals may not feel the direct impact unless they are closely tied to affected agricultural imports or exports.
Simulated Interviews
Soybean Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should prevent market flooding with cheaper Russian products, which is good for local farmers.
- I hope this leads to better pricing for my crops.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Supermarket Manager (New York)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We might need to source alternatives, which could be costly.
- Some customers are particular about brands and origins.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Wine Distributor (California)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We will lose some unique product lines.
- Our margins might get squeezed adjusting to new suppliers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Seafood Importer (Texas)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seafood supply chain is already fragile, this adds more pressure.
- Domestic sources might be unreliable initially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Dietitian (Florida)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Overall food diversity might shrink temporarily.
- Clients seeking specific imported foods might face challenges.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Fisherman (Alaska)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Eliminating Russian competition could mean better prices for local fish.
- It's a chance to increase local demand.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Import Regulation Analyst (Chicago)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lead to a significant analysis workload, aligning import strategies.
- Some of our partners might rethink their sourcing due to this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Policy Advisor (Washington)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sets a precedent for balanced trade in agriculture.
- Our farmers might get more leverage in the long term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
College Student (Oregon)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's interesting to observe such trade policies in action.
- It might become a case study for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Poultry Farmer (Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With fewer foreign products to compete against, our local poultry might see a price rise.
- This policy could also encourage local consumers to choose American.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $30000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- The prohibitions are conditional upon geopolitical developments, which might alter the duration and overall impact of this policy.
- Alternative suppliers and their capacity to meet U.S. demand will affect the domestic market and economics of the policy.
- Compliance costs for importers and federal agencies must be considered, as well as any potential legal challenges against the policy.
- The policy might serve as leverage for geopolitical negotiations, adding complexity to its direct economic assessment.