38 



quire information pertaining to agricultural trade, carry out mar- 

 ket promotion and development activities, promotion of exports of 

 United States agriculture products, administration of international 

 food assistance programs, and programs relating to international 

 development, technical assistance and training." 



Mr. Chairman, if this is to be the new mission of FAS, then I 

 think FAS has lost its mission. 



I now would like to address specifically the issues raised in your 

 invitation to testify. 



Question: Does the consolidation of OICD and FAS into the 

 International Trade Service improve the system? 



Yes, it eliminates duplication and improves the "one-stop shop." 

 However, consolidation will only improve the program management 

 if FAS/OICD can jettison the activities that are clearly not within 

 the mission of enhancing U.S. agricultural exports. These types of 

 activities may comprise as much as 50 percent of the OICD pro- 

 grams. 



In contrast, the main international trade service is a bad idea. 

 For 40 years, FAS has used its current name and has strong and 

 clear name recognition in the U.S. agricultural community and 

 overseas. A name change serves no purpose £ind is detrimental to 

 the mission. 



Question: Does FAS have the tools and can the information be 

 easily transmitted? 



Yes, FAS has the tools to identify new markets and products. 

 These tools primarily are in two forms. The network of overseas 

 personnel in U.S. embassies and agricultural trade offices, and 

 FAS's close ties with the associations and private companies who 

 deliver the export product. 



The problem is that FAS has been squeezed on both these tools. 

 No, FAS is not doing a good enough job of information dissemina- 

 tion in today's high-tech world. I elaborate on this in my written 

 statement. 



Question: What aspects of FAS activities are critical to agricul- 

 tural exports and which programs are expendable? 



I would suggest the following list of key FAS activities: Primary 

 data and trade intelligence collection; agricultural trade policy sup- 

 port and advocacy; market development cooperation through the 

 private sector; export financing; and concessional sales programs. 



We would suggest at a minimum dropping the following: The 

 large percentage of the commodity publications assembled in FAS 

 Washington; all crop fiinction forecasting not carried out by over- 

 seas offices; import quota monitoring; obstructive regulatory proce- 

 dures, to nsime a few, 



Mr. Chairman, we would further suggest that the current tight- 

 ness in FAS budgets and regulatory environment in which the 

 agency and its private sector partners are working is forcing the 

 agency to cut back on the very foundation of its success and future 

 export competitiveness. And that is a cutback in personnel on 

 ground overseas, to be the on-the-spot eyes, ears, and proponents 

 of U.S. agricultural products. This trend should be reversed. 



Question: Does FAS need to consider new approaches or pro- 

 grams to provide the flexibility and access to developing and 

 emerging markets? 



