For example, seafood inspection would be transferred to the Department of Agriculture , which already carries out most food inspection programs. Marine and estuarine sanctuary management would be transferred to the Interior Department , which already manages some fisheries. Third, we would transfer many of the Commerce Department's trade programs to agencies where their functions may be better performed. Nineteen distinct federal agencies are charged with promoting U.S. exports, but only 8 percent of total federal spending on trade promotion is directed by Commerce. Secretary Ron Brown may argue that Commerce leads federal efforts at export promotion, but almost three-quarters of the export promotion funds go to the Department of Agriculture, not Commerce.
Commerce offers something for everyone, and our efforts have stepped on a lot of toes.
In the end, however, I believe we will prevail for the simple reason that, while one can justify many of the programs under the Commerce umbrella, there is no justification for the umbrella itself. It's an accident of political evolution, not the product of sound policy. For that reason, dismantling the department presents us with the unique opportunity to rationalize many of the functions currently under its jurisdiction, including those functions related to trade. Let me say at the outset that I am a big proponent of free and expanded trade. During my campaign for the U.S. Senate, I endorsed the North American Free Trade Agreement , a politically difficult position to take coming from an industrial state like Michigan.