106 



page 2 

 FAS Misaion 

 Rlchiord Krajeck 

 November 10, 1993 



on programe tha't are more tirade oriented. The key to the creation of any nev; 

 agricultural inatitutlone or a new framework for existing institutiono is to 

 insure that expanding agricultural exports is in the forefront of its purpose and 

 mission. 



Using this standard, we seriously question the continuation of the Farmer to 

 Farmer Missions within the new organization. Although these missions have helped 

 promote better understanding of different agrarian cultures they have not 

 increased D.S. exports of agricultural commodities or contributed to farmer 

 profitability. In light of decreased overall funding for agriculture, this 

 program is no longer justified. 



We feel that the name of the new organization must continue to highlight its 

 agricultural roots and future focus. We strongly recommend that the name be 

 changed to the "International Agricultural Trade Service". 



In addition, while it may not be in the purview of this Committee, I would ask 

 that there be a far broader view taken of the government programs that need to 

 be examined in the context of creating the better coordination of programs 

 designed to benefit U.S. agricultural exports. It is critical that included in 

 this review are the agricultural development programs being carried out by the 

 Agency of International Developooent (AID) under the Department of State. The AID 

 program is funded at $6.2 billion per year and has been primarily a foreign aid 

 program that has been shaped by U.S. political and strategic interests during the 

 cold war. Those days are over and the mission of AID and its role in developing 

 agriculture must be reviewed. 



There have been instances in the past where AID agricultural development programs 

 have been totally counter to U.S. agricultural interests. In fact., many of the 

 programs have seemed to operate in a vacuum and have ignored other federal 

 agencies' objectives of increasing agricultural exports and eliminating trade 

 barriers. AID programs funded by U.S. taxpayers have directly competed with U.S. 

 agricultural export programs. There are countless examples, but let me list just 

 two: 



1) AID has worked with Latin American grains producers to promote the government 

 implementation of price bands for feed grains that have resulted in high variable 

 levies that have shut the United States out of these markets, AID continued to 

 advocate price bands even after reaching an agreement with DSTR and other federal 

 agencies not to do so. 



2) There are many cases in which AID workers have suggested that livestock 

 producers, who are customers of U.S. feed grains, end livestock production and 

 produce grains at costs substantially above world market prices. 



The U. S. Feed Grains Council believes that during this time of program review, 

 the mission and operation of AID definitely needs to be reviewed. We believe 

 funding from this program could be better directed so as not to duplicate other 

 agricultural programs, or worse yet, fund projects that provide direct benefits 

 to our competition while proving disadvantageous to the U.S. agricultural sector. 



