102 



Mr. Stroh has a number of comments on this topic in his testimony, and his 

 comments are, for the most part, right on target. 



Question: What aspects of FAS activities are critical to agricultural exports and which 

 programs are expendable? This is always a difficult question. If, as suggested by the 

 TPCC report, it is good to have a "one-stop shop" then it is hard to drop functions 

 that FAS incorporates. I would suggest the following list of key FAS activities; primary 

 data and trade intelligence collection; agricultural trade policy support and advocacy; 

 market development cooperation through the private sector; export financing and 

 concessional sales programs. -/ .. 



I would suggest at a minimum dropping the following: a large percentage of the 

 commodity publications assembled in FAS Washington; most crop production 

 estimates and forecasting not carried out by overseas offices; import quota 

 monitoring; and obstructive regulatory procedures. 



Mr. Chairman, I would further suggest that the current tightness in F.\S budgets and 

 the 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. It is forcing a cutback in the personnel on ground 

 overseas who are 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 programs to provide the 

 flexibility and access to developing and emerging markets? In the experience of the 

 National Cotton Council, FAS has been quite flexible in its approaches and programs 

 in order to address new market opjxjitunities in developing countries and new market 

 economies. FAS has been able to be relatively flexible because it has an array of 

 programs on which to draw to meet the specific needs of a given new market or new 

 customer. Additional flexibility within existing programs has sometimes been 

 necessary, but that flexibility has normally evolved through close communication with 

 the private sector. If there are limits to flexibility, they usually come through statute 

 and are not within FAS's direct purview. Increasingly, flexibility is being further stifled 

 by excessive regulation and audit burdens which drain a significant amount of energy 

 and responsiveness from the agency and its private sector partners. In spite of this, I 

 would generally give FAS high marks on flexibility and openness to new approaches. 



