130 



more successful in its work in assisting U.S. agriculture. With a cooperative relationship both 

 government and the private sector can informally agree upon the proper market initiatives and trade 

 access work that, if successful, will result in real returns to growers and the U.S. economy. 



Turning to the Foreign Agricultural Service, I would suggest that Congress reemphasize its leading 

 role in working towards expanded agricultural trade opportunities. U.S. agriculture does not want to 

 become part of some overall coordinated approach such as through the U.S. Department of 

 Commerce. 



Before moving on, I would like to state the importance of the name "Foreign Agricultural Service." 

 FAS, as it is more commonly designated, is known worldwide as the official representative of U.S. 

 agriculture. The private sector in this country know it as FAS and foreign governments know it as 

 FAS. To change its name as is currently being considered, is without sound logic. Staff morale 

 would suffer and confusion would flourish. 



In regard to overseas offices and personnel in the fastest growing markets, I would suggest that this 

 should be left to the Secretary of Agriculture with the advice and professional judgement of FAS. 

 While it is obvious that our country cannot afford to have agricultural offices in every country and 

 market worldwide, it is less obvious where those offices should be located. To me, decision making 

 should reside with those closest to the problem and not be hampered or directed with specific 

 requirements in legislation. I hasten to emphasize that Congress should adequately fund overseas 

 offices in general because of the importance of on-site work related to market intelligence, trade 

 promotion and trade policy. The importance of these offices overseas to the U.S. agricultural export 

 community cannot be overestimated. 



