1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Prioritizing Offensive Agricultural Disputes and Enforcement Act or the Ag Disputes Act . 2. Findings Congress finds the following: (1) Agricultural competitiveness through access to international markets is a vital part of the economy of the United States. (2) A healthy, well-functioning, rules-based trading system is the basis for the success of agriculture exports of the United States. (3) When foreign governments erect trade barriers, that makes it difficult for agricultural exporters in the United States to compete in the global marketplace and undermines the rules-based trading system. (4) Those trade barriers can harm farmers, ranchers, workers, and businesses in the United States and can also lead to higher prices for consumers and a less resilient international trading system. (5) Dispute settlement is available to the President through trade agreements with 163 countries, and there are protectionist trade barriers to agriculture exports of the United States in many of those countries. (6) Many of those barriers are systemically important. For example, the use by the Government of India of unrestrained price support programs violates the commitments by that government under the World Trade Organization. (7) The Government of India recognizes that its price support programs violate its commitments under the World Trade Organization, so instead of reforming its programs, it has repeatedly demanded an exemption from disputes for those programs. Moreover, the Government of India has tried to prevent discussions at the World Trade Organization of any other significant agricultural trade issue unless it gets a permanent exemption from disputes for those programs. (8) The Government of India has repeatedly raised its minimum price supports, which has had negative effects on several commodity markets and most notably has led to its dominance of the global rice trade, with a 40-percent share of the global market since marketing year 2020 through 2021. India is also the