100 



obstacles than exports of computers, airplanes or other high technology industries, 

 but the agricultural sector has certainly not been immune to U.S. Government 

 imposed export controls. Grain and soybean embargoes in the 1970's and 1980's 

 come quickly to mind, and we are still sufiering the adveree consequences of those 

 poorly conceived actions. 



To my knowledge FAS was never consulted on these decisions, and better decisions 

 may have been made if the people most directly monitoring that trade had been 

 consulted. Other than the still-tarnished reputation of the U.S. as a reliable supplier, 

 those episodes are history. However, those experiences would indicate that there is a 

 role for and a reason to consult an agency like FAS in making decisions on export 

 controls of any nature. These are people who know the markets, the products, and 

 have excellent contacts with the private sector to gather the best possible information 

 to bring to bear on a government decision. 



FAS is an ideal type of agency we should have representing a major U.S. industry -- in 

 this case, U.S. agriculture. However, improvements could certainly be made. Mr. 

 Chairman, I now would like to address the issues raised in your invitation to testify, 

 elaborating on some on areas of possible improvement. 



Question: Does the consolidation of Office of Cooperation and International 

 Development (OICD) and FAS into the International Trade Service improve pi-ogram 

 delivery or strain the system? 



This question would best be broken into two parts: is it a good to consolidate FAS and 

 OICD?; and the title "International Trade Service" agency. 



Yes, consolidation of FAS and OICD improves program delivery. If we think back to 

 the TPCC report and a "one-stop shop", OICD is a rare exception of areas within the 

 USDA dealing with foreign agricultural programs that do not come under one agency. 

 Some of OICD's programs, such as the Cochran scholarships, complement ongoing 

 FAS/Market Development Cooperator efforts and, in fact, rely on FAS attaches to help 

 identify candidates for the scholarships and often on market development cooperators 

 to provide training. Some, such as marketing training seminars overseas duplicate 

 that effort. Others, such as agricultural production training or efforts to teach other 

 countries how to sell their produce to the United States, openly conflict with the FAS 

 mission. The personnel in OICD offer an opportunity to improve FAS management of 

 the enormous U.S. export programs FAS is charged with. It will only improve 

 program management, however, 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 OICD programs. 



