101 / 



In contrast, the name "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. It is a highly respected agency and is clearly 

 identified with its mission and clientele - i.e. U.S. agriculture. Consolidating OICD 

 under the title Foreign Agricultural Service is a sound idea. 



Question: Does FAS have the tools to identify new markets and products and can the 

 information be easify transmitted to producers and processors? 



Again, the response is in two parts. Yes, FAS has the tools to identify new markets 

 and products. Those 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 products. A problem is that FAS 

 has been squeezed on both those tools. The FAS field personnel, both American and 

 foreign nationals, are the key link in the U.S. export chain. If one had to drop all 

 other elements of FAS programs, the on ground resources overseas would be the 

 critical ones to maintain in place. FAS has been generally responsive to moving into - 

 new markets and working with new products, in part because their close ties with the 

 U.S. exporter sector alert FAS to the new opportunities, and vice versa. 



FAS is the premier original data collector overseas, and gets this data speedily to FAS 

 Washington. However, it is there that the system bogs down because of any number 

 of reasons -- interagency publication process, lack of resources, regulation hindering 

 more direct contact with the private sector, non-user friendly network intermediaries, 

 etc. It is my opinion that some of the divisions in FAS are still more geared to an era 

 of cold war intelligence, remote sensing and outmoded analysis and publications than 

 they are to the needs of modern day assistance to exporters. The priorities should be 

 first of all to get reliable, timely raw data and contacts information from the overseas 

 posts, deposit the data into reliable databases, and get the raw data immediately to the 

 U.S. private sector through user-friendly electronic dissemination. The private sector, 

 whether that is an association or private company, is better able to analyze that 

 information, further disseminate it to the general public and apply it to the real world 

 of exporting than a government agency. The key bottlenecks in this process at this 

 time are the requirements to hold information pending lockup and publication, and 

 the USDA outmoded contract services for dissemination. In this regard, I would like 

 to call attention to the October 26, 1993 testimony of Mr. Leslie Stroh before the 

 House Committee on Small Business on the TPCC report Toward a National Export 

 Strategv : 



"Information needs to be collected, collated, edited and disseminated. For 

 certain types of information, the US government is the best collector. It is not 

 clear if the US government is the best agency for collating and/or editing it, and 

 problems of dissemination are substantial". 



