Export Promotion: Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee's Role Remains Limited
Published: 2006-04-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 1992, Congress established the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) to provide a unifying interagency framework to coordinate U.S. export promotion activities and to develop a governmentwide strategic plan. TPCC member agencies' activities include providing training, market information, advocacy, trade finance and other services to U.S. companies, especially small- and medium-sized businesses. These U.S. government agencies together have $1.5 billion in budget authority for export promotion programs and activities for fiscal year 2006. Each year, the TPCC submits to Congress a mandated national export strategy, reporting member agencies' activities and trade promotion budget authority and establishing broad priorities. The TPCC secretariat, which has no budget of its own, is housed in the Commerce Department, which chairs the committee. In this testimony, which updates findings from a 2002 report, GAO (1) reports on trends in TPCC member agencies' budget authority; (2) assesses TPCC's coordination of trade promotion and its national export strategies; and (3) discusses small- and medium-sized businesses' participation in trade promotion activities.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: TPCC's national export strategies for fiscal years 2002-2006 show that agencies' trade promotion-related budget authority dropped by about one third. This resulted mainly from budget changes at the Department of Agriculture and Ex-Im Bank, which account for more than half of U.S. trade promotion budget authority. At the same time, budget authority for two other key agencies, the Departments of Commerce and State, remained relatively steady. However, the effect of these trends on the agencies' trade promotion activities is unclear. For example, the decline in Ex-Im Bank's budget authority did not reduce its ability to provide export financing. TPCC member agencies have taken several steps, such as participating in interagency training and outreach to exporters, to improve coordination of trade promotion efforts. However, coordination challenges persist, for example, among the Departments of Commerce, State, and Agriculture regarding the allocation of overseas staff for trade promotion activities. In addition, as GAO found in 2002, the annual national export strategies have several limitations that affect the TPCC's ability to coordinate trade promotion activities. For example, the strategies do not identify or measure agencies' progress toward mutual goals or review their budget allocations. In addition, they focus on different topics each year without evaluating progress in addressing previous years' topics. GAO has made similar comments in several prior reviews of the TPCC. A lack of systematic information makes it difficult to assess progress or trends in small and medium-sized businesses' participation in trade promotion activities across agencies. TPCC agencies track small-business participation in a variety of ways. The national export strategies provide only anecdotal information on these businesses' participation in trade promotion activities.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to report on our work on the Trade  Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC). Established by Congress in  1992, the TPCC’s mission is to provide a unifying framework to coordinate  U.S. agencies’ export promotion activities and to develop a  governmentwide strategic plan to carry out those activities. TPCC  member agencies’ activities include providing training, market  information, advocacy, trade finance and other services to U.S. companies,  especially small- and medium-sized businesses, seeking to export their  products. In fiscal year 2006, almost a dozen TPCC member agencies have  a combined $1.5 billion in budget authority for export promotion programs  and activities; for fiscal year 2007, these agencies have requested $1.3  billion in export-related budget authority. The TPCC secretariat has no  budget of its own. The secretariat, which is housed in the International  Trade Administration at the Department of Commerce, a key export  promotion agency, is currently moving from the office of the Under  Secretary for International Trade to the office of the Assistant Secretary  for Trade Promotion/Director General for the U.S. and Foreign  Commercial Service.
GAO has reviewed the TPCC several times since its inception. In a 2002  review, GAO found that it had made modest but inconsistent progress in  coordinating trade promotion activities and that its mandated yearly  reports to Congress, known as national export strategies, do not identify  and measure progress toward agency goals in relation to broad federal  priorities. GAO also reviewed agencies’ efforts to involve small and  medium-sized businesses in their export promotion programs.
Today, as requested, I will (1) report on trends in the budget authorities of  TPCC member agencies since 2002 and (2) update some of our 2002 and  earlier findings regarding the TPCC’s trade promotion coordination and  national export strategies. In addition, responding to the interest you  expressed, I will discuss TPCC agencies’ progress in involving small- and  medium-sized businesses in trade promotion activities.
My remarks are based on GAO’s review of TPCC and member agency  documents, including agency strategic plans and budgets and the four  most recent national export strategies. We also interviewed officials from  the agencies that have consistently represented the largest share of the  TPCC’s program budget authority or been involved in recent efforts to  enhance export-related services for small- and medium-sized businesses— the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and State; the Export-Import  Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank); the Overseas Private Investment  Corporation (OPIC); and the Small Business Administration (SBA). In  addition, we spoke with officials at the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB). Although we noted some limitations in the national export  strategies’ budget data, we found the data sufficiently reliable for our  purposes. We conducted our work from February through April 2006 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: As we discussed in our 2002 report, TPCC member agencies perform  functions that include identifying export opportunities, providing  financing and insurance, and working to create open markets for U.S.  exports and investments. Chaired by the Secretary of Commerce, the  TPCC currently has a staff of three Commerce trade professionals who  work with other member agency officials on trade promotion initiatives  and prepare the national export strategy. The TPCC generally meets once  or twice a year at the head-of-agency level and quarterly or monthly at the  deputy level (e.g., assistant secretary or under secretary); TPCC member  agency staff discuss issues frequently but meet on an ad hoc basis.
The TPCC’s national export strategies include a table showing member  agencies’ budget authority for trade promotion activities. Since 2000, this  table has included all or part of the budgets of 11 of the TPCC’s member  agencies—the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Labor,  State, and the Treasury; Ex-Im Bank; OPIC; SBA; the U.S. Trade and  Development Agency; and the U.S. Trade Representative. Although the  TPCC, together with the agencies, determines which agencies’ budgets are  included in this table, the agencies themselves decide which of their  programs or activities constitute trade promotion. However, the tables  present only the total trade promotion budget authority for each agency  without detailing the programs and activities. The Department of  Agriculture counts nine programs as trade promotion, along with salaries  and expenses for its Foreign Agricultural Service. The Commerce  Department counts three units within its International Trade  Administration—Trade Promotion and U.S. and Foreign Commercial  Service, Manufacturing and Services, and Market Access and  Compliance—and a grant for promoting foreign tourism within the United  States. The State Department considers a portion of its budget to be  related to trade promotion. This portion includes part of State’s budgets  for its regional bureaus, some of which have overseas staff in locations  with no Foreign Commercial Service officers. It also includes State’s  budget for trade capacity building, advocacy, and promotion activities  performed by, or funded through, department offices such as the Office of  Commercial and Business Affairs. The national export strategies’ trade  promotion program budget authority tables also include the entire budgets  of Ex-Im Bank, OPIC, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, and the  U.S. Trade Representative as well as very small amounts of the budgets of  the Departments of Energy, Labor, and the Treasury and SBA.
To help agencies address barriers to working collaboratively, GAO has  previously evaluated efforts such as export promotion that cut across  more than one agency. In an October 2005 review of several joint agency  efforts that was intended to help agencies address barriers to working  collaboratively, we identified eight key practices that can help enhance  and sustain interagency collaboration:   Define and articulate a common outcome—that is, a measurable goal.
Establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies.
Identify and address needs by leveraging resources.
Agree on roles and responsibilities.
Establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate  across agency boundaries.
Develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results.
Reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts through agency  plans and reports.
Reinforce individual accountability for collaborative efforts through  performance management systems.
GAO reported on the need for an export strategy before the creation of the  TPCC: in 1992, we found significant problems associated with inefficiency,  overlap, and duplication of U.S. trade promotion efforts. Since its  inception, we have reviewed the TPCC’s progress in coordinating trade  promotion several times. For example, in 1994, we recommended that the  TPCC should establish priorities with a well-reasoned and strong  analytical basis, and in 1996, we commented that the TPCC lacked  measures of value added by export services and that this limited its ability  to contribute to the budget process. We made similar comments in 1998  and 2002. In our 2002 report, we recommended that the Chairman of the  TPCC ensure that its national export strategies consistently identify  specific goals established by the agencies within the strategies’ broad  priorities; identify allocation of agencies’ resources in support of their  specific goals; and analyze the progress made in addressing the  recommendations in the TPCC’s prior annual strategies.
section_title: Total Reported TPCC Agency Budget Authority Has Declined but Implications are Unclear
paragraphs: Since 2002, the budget authority for trade promotion reported in the  national export strategies has fallen or remained relatively unchanged at  TPCC member agencies, but the implication of these trends for agencies’  trade promotion activities is not clear. The total reported budget authority  for trade promotion fell by more than one-third between fiscal years 2002  and 2007, primarily owing to decreased authority for Agriculture and Ex- Im Bank. At the same time, the trade promotion budget authority for other  key TPCC agencies remained relatively flat. (See fig. 1.)
The four agencies named in figure 1 account for more than 90 percent of  TPCC member agencies’ combined budget authority related to trade  promotion, which ranged from $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2002 to $1.5 billion  in fiscal year 2006 (enacted) and $1.3 (requested) in fiscal year 2007. The  Agriculture Department has consistently held the largest share, more than  40 percent over the last 4 years. During this period, Agriculture’s share  dropped from a high of 63 percent to 44 percent in fiscal year 2007 as  funding was reduced or eliminated in three program areas: export credit  guarantee programs, Public Law 480 Title I food assistance, and the  Market Access Program. The budget authorities related to trade  promotion at the Departments of Commerce and State, while remaining  relatively steady in dollar terms, rose from 15 to 27 percent and 6 to 15  percent of the total, respectively. Ex-Im Bank’s share of the total dropped  sharply, from 38 percent in fiscal year 2002 to 4 percent in fiscal year 2004,  and has remained at less than 10 percent since then.
It is difficult to determine the effect of these budgetary trends on the  availability of trade promotion resources. For example:    Although Commerce’s trade promotion budget authority has not changed  significantly, its trade promotion activities may nonetheless be affected by  increases in related costs. According to Commerce officials, the  Commerce budget data includes budget authority for security at overseas  offices. The officials provided us with information showing that security  costs for these offices have risen by 8 percent since fiscal year 2005,  leaving fewer resources available for trade promotion activities.
The decline in Ex-Im Bank’s budget authority, shown in figure 1, did not  reduce its ability to provide export financing. OMB changed its method for  determining expected loss rates for U.S. international credits, which took  effect after fiscal year 2002 and contributed to lower Ex-Im Bank  projections of subsidy costs and budget needs. Also, Ex-Im Bank had  accumulated carryovers from prior years, which resulted in its requesting  zero program appropriations beyond administrative expenses in fiscal year  2004 and program appropriations of less than $100 million in fiscal years  2005-2007.
In addition, reasons for the national export strategies’ inclusion or  exclusion of agencies’ budget authority as related to trade promotion are  not always apparent. For example, until fiscal year 2007, Agriculture’s  trade promotion budget authority reported in the strategies included  Public Law 480 Title I food assistance, although the primary objective of  this program is to assist developing countries in obtaining needed  resources, rather than promoting trade. Similarly, since 2000, the  strategies have excluded the U.S. Agency for International Development  (USAID) from the program budget authority table, stating that the agency’s  activities “support trade promotion indirectly through broad economic  growth and reform, unlike other activities that more directly fund trade  finance or promotion.” However, the 2002 national export strategy  included USAID in a letter from 10 key TPCC agencies and portions of the  2002, 2003, and 2004 strategies were devoted to a possible joint USAID– Ex-Im Bank program to support capital projects in developing countries.  In addition, the strategies’ budget tables include agencies such as the U.S.  Trade Representative, Treasury, and Labor, which do not directly fund  trade promotion activities.
section_title: TPCC Has Taken Steps to Improve Coordination, but Strategies Provide Limited Guidance for Export Promotion Activities
paragraphs: Coordination among TPCC agencies has improved, although there is still  room for improvement. However, the national export strategies continue  to provide little information on which to base future efforts to establish  consistent, shared, measurable goals and align resources in agencies’  export promotion programs to focus on results.
subsections: section_title: TPCC Has Made Some Progress in Improving Coordination
paragraphs: TPCC’s member agencies have pursued a number of efforts to improve  coordination of trade promotion activities, responding to  recommendations in its 2002 national export strategy. These  recommendations resulted from a 2001-2002 survey of more than 3,000  small businesses and other research commissioned by the secretariat.  According to agency officials, these efforts included several successful  initiatives such as joint training and other activities that leverage resources  from other TPCC agencies. For example:  Interagency training. Since 2003, the TPCC has sponsored three annual  interagency training sessions, attended by a total of 297 people. The  sessions have included participants and presenters from a variety of  member agencies, including Agriculture, Commerce, Ex-Im Bank, OPIC,  SBA, State, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, and USAID, and  according to agency officials have fostered greater cooperation through  the sharing of information. In one instance, a State Department official  recounted how a training session led by a colleague resulted in  collaboration between Commerce and State that (1) improved service to  companies seeking U.S. visas for their foreign partners and (2) produced a  list of State Foreign Service contacts who could assist exporters in  important markets such as Africa, where many countries have no Foreign  Commercial Service presence.
Joint outreach. Ex-Im Bank and OPIC have partnered with SBA to  improve outreach and service to small- and medium-sized businesses. In  May 2002, Ex-Im Bank and SBA signed a memorandum of cooperation to  increase small businesses’ awareness and use of each agency’s financing  products, and the agencies share the same application form for their  respective products. In September 2004, the two agencies signed a  memorandum of understanding that provides for a Ex-Im Bank to co- guarantee loans to small-business exporters when SBA has already agreed  to guarantee its established maximum amount. In addition, on April 5,  2006, Ex-Im Bank’s acting chairman and president announced a new  position of Senior Vice President for Small Business and the establishment  of a Small Business Committee to coordinate, evaluate, and enhance the  agency’s services to small businesses. In September 2002, OPIC and SBA  formally integrated their efforts to promote the expansion of U.S. small  businesses into emerging markets; as part of this effort, each agency is to  provide training on its programs to the other’s personnel. OPIC and SBA  have signed a cooperative agreement, SBA has detailed staff to OPIC, and  OPIC has streamlined its approval process for small business clients.
Overseas support. In January 2005, State and the Commerce Department’s  Foreign Commercial Service completed a strategic plan to provide  coordinated support at embassies with no Foreign Commercial Service  staff. According to State officials, as a result of this plan, 75 percent of  State-funded export promotion activities at these embassies are now tied  directly to regional Foreign Commercial Service offices, up from 25  percent in 2002. Further, we were told that more of these embassies are  submitting the commercial guide for their country via a new, Web-based  process to Commerce’s market research database, which is accessible to  the public via www.Export.gov. State has also linked the embassies  electronically to domestic U.S. Export Assistance Centers and recently  developed an electronic commercial diplomacy toolbox for its Foreign  Service officers in the field that helps them assist U.S. firms seeking to  export. The toolbox provides links to joint State–Commerce strategic  planning, interagency training, and Commerce and other TPCC agency  Web sites that provide guidance on export-related issues such as business  travel and export controls. According to State officials, these resources are  primarily used by small businesses, which often lack the means to obtain  such information on their own.
However, despite this progress, coordination problems persist, according  to member agency officials. For example, State Department officials said  that concurrent realignments of Agriculture and Commerce overseas staff  are not being coordinated, a situation that could lead to gaps in country  coverage and thereby adversely impact U.S. commercial interests. State  officials also described instances of poor coordination between some  regional Foreign Commercial Service offices and nearby embassies that  lack Commercial Service staff. They said that Commerce is working with  State to improve this situation. For example, Commerce’s regional office  in Johannesburg will host a training program for the 11 embassies in  southern Africa without Commercial Service officers. Another agency  official told us that staff from at least two TPCC agencies were not aware  of how certain other TPCC initiatives or agencies support their own  agencies’ trade promotion efforts.
In addition, according to Agriculture officials, Commerce field staff have  not adhered to roles, responsibilities, and procedures outlined in a January  2001 agreement between the two agencies and reiterated in a March 2004  cable. As a result, the officials told us, a joint Agriculture-Commerce effort  to help U.S. companies export agricultural goods—described in the 2004  national export strategy as a “huge success”—was never fully  implemented. Commerce officials acknowledged these issues but told us  that coordination between the two agencies had improved. Citing a June  2005 Commerce report, the Agriculture officials noted that both agencies  have formally agreed to increase their joint cooperation.
section_title: TPCC Strategies Continue to Provide Little Guidance for Export Promotion Activities
paragraphs: As we found in 2002, the TPCC’s annual strategies provide limited  information regarding agencies’ export promotion goals and progress. In  addition, the strategies do not review agencies’ budget allocation or  represent the goals of some key agencies, and the strategies’ focus varies  yearly. Consequently, the TPCC’s ability to provide in the strategy a plan  for coordinating federal trade promotion activities, as directed by  Congress, is constrained.
As in 2002, the national export strategies do not identify member agencies’  goals or assess their progress toward the TPCC’s broad trade promotion  priorities. According to agency officials, the TPCC secretariat does not  systematically collect or compare agency plans and performance measures  to define agency goals and assess progress. In addition, the agencies have  not articulated mutual, measurable goals for trade promotion. Some  member agency officials noted that their agencies’ plans and performance  evaluations are prepared independently of the TPCC. Although several  agencies mention the TPCC in their strategic plans, each agency, as we  noted in our 2002 report, generally measures the results of its export  promotion activities according to the extent to which its own mandate  emphasizes export promotion.
Despite the TPCC’s mandate to propose an annual unified trade promotion  budget, the TPCC’s annual strategy does not review member agency  budgets in relation to their goals and the agencies do not adjust their  budgets to reflect the national export strategy. As we reported in 2002, the  TPCC does not have specific authority to direct member agencies’  allocation of their resources. Agency representatives told us, as they had  during our 2002 review, that they would resist any effort by the TPCC to  review their budgets; they said that each agency has its own statutory  requirements and that TPCC agencies’ budgets are appropriated by  different congressional subcommittees. The agencies submit their  proposed budgets separately to OMB. TPCC officials told us that the TPCC  does not recommend budget priorities to OMB, a practice that, as we  noted in our 2002 report, was last performed in 2000.
The national export strategies do not represent the goals of some key  member agencies. For example, although Agriculture’s Foreign  Agricultural Service has accounted for about half of TPCC member  agencies’ combined budget authority over the past 4 years, the 2005  strategy contains only one notable reference to this agency. In addition,  the 2005 strategy identifies Brazil as a “spotlight” market, although  Agriculture does not consider it a high-priority market because it  competes with the United States in exporting agricultural products.  Further, the 2005 strategy included very little of the information that the  Foreign Agricultural Service provided to the TPCC secretariat in  commenting on a draft of the strategy. However, Agriculture officials told  us that a draft of the 2006 strategy, due out in May, would likely  incorporate more information about their agency. Regarding other  agencies, recent strategies have focused on China, a market in which  USAID and OPIC do little or no business.
The focus of the national export strategies continues to change from year  to year with little evaluation of previous efforts’ effectiveness. For  example, although TPCC officials noted that the national export strategies  have consistently focused on China, the strategies describe a series of new  China-related initiatives without following up on the outcome of specific  activities from one year to the next. The exception to this pattern was a 3- year focus on recommendations from the TPCC’s survey and other client  research, from 2002 through 2004; however, new areas of focus continued  to be introduced. For example, the 2003 strategy introduced capacity  building, Russia, and transportation security. The 2004 strategy highlighted  China and free trade agreements, as well as coordination in crisis regions  (primarily Iraq and Afghanistan), which had resulted from the survey and  other information gathering and had been briefly raised in the 2002 and  2003 strategies. The 2005 strategy covered free trade agreements, China,  and six “growth markets” (Japan, South Korea, India, Brazil, Russia, and  the European Union). Some member agency officials commented on the  ad hoc nature of the national export strategies and the lack of staff-level  meetings focused on specific issues.
section_title: Lack of Systematic Data Hampers Assessment of Small and Medium-Sized Businesses’ Participation
paragraphs: Although available data suggest that TPCC member agencies have  involved small and medium-sized businesses in trade promotion activities,  a lack of systematically collected information makes it difficult to assess  progress or trends. First, member agencies measure small and medium- sized businesses’ participation in trade promotion activities to varying  extents and using various indicators. For example:    Department of Commerce. U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service officials  stated that they have recorded about 10,000 transaction “successes” a year  over the past 5 years involving small and medium-sized business export  sales and that they are currently in the process of updating their client  management system to enable them to observe a transaction for a given  client as it develops over time, progressing through interactions with other  TPCC member agencies such as Ex-Im Bank, SBA, and other agencies. The  U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service also runs an Advocacy Center,  which helps U.S. companies compete for specific foreign sales contracts  on a case-by-case basis. According to information posted on the U.S.  Government’s export-related website (www.Export.gov), the center has  helped 28 small and medium-sized enterprises win contracts valued at a  total of $637 million since June 2002. Commerce’s Office of Trade and  Industry Information within its Manufacturing and Services unit compiles  detailed statistics on small and medium-sized business exports.
Ex-Im Bank. Ex-Im Bank tracks small business’ participation in its  programs because Congress requires it to make available a certain  percentage of its export financing to small businesses. For fiscal years  2000-2005, Ex-Im Bank reported that slightly less than 20 percent of the  value of its financing directly benefited small businesses, and in recent  years it has reported that about 85 percent of its authorized transactions  directly benefited these clients. However, we recently found flaws in the  bank’s data and methodology, including shortcomings in its system for  estimating about one-third of its small business financing annually and  conflicting records for the same companies.
Department of Agriculture. The Foreign Agricultural Service’s Market  Development Program tracks a variety of indicators related to small  businesses, including the number of its activities that support small  businesses, the number of small businesses making a first export sale, the  number of small businesses with increased sales of 20 percent or more,  and the value of small companies’ sales.
OPIC. OPIC measures the number of small business projects that result  from its outreach through a Small Business Center. OPIC’s 2003-2008  strategic goals include supporting these clients and reducing to 60 days the  time it takes to process their applications for OPIC assistance. OPIC  officials stated that the center targets small businesses with annual  revenues of less than $35 million and that since the center’s establishment  in 2002, the share of OPIC transactions involving such companies  increased from 67 percent in 2002 to 80 percent in 2005.
Department of State. State does not presently collect data on small and  medium-sized businesses’ involvement in trade promotion activities.  However, according to a State Department official who works with small  businesses, the agency has recently initiated a system to track commercial  “success stories.” The official said the system, which State anticipates will  be operational by June 2006, will track requests for help with commercial  transactions and will also include data on the requesting companies—such  as their number of employees and annual sales—that will enable State to  identify small- and medium-sized businesses.
Finally, although 2006 TPCC agency goals include increasing the number  of small and medium-sized businesses that use member agency programs,  the TPCC does not collect information from member agencies on these  businesses’ participation in agency programs and activities, according to  TPCC officials. Moreover, the national export strategies provide anecdotal,  rather than systematic, reporting on small and medium-sized business  participation in trade promotion activities. Although the national export  strategies describe activities such as a cooperative agreement between  SBA and OPIC, they provide no comprehensive summary of small and  medium-sized business participation in all member agency activities.  Further, the strategies do not assess agency reporting on small and  medium-sized enterprise participation during the current year or identify  trends in such participation. This makes it difficult to assess progress or  trends in participation across agencies.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: Our review of the TPCC’s efforts shows it has achieved some important  progress. For example, the TPCC has pursued a number of initiatives to  improve agency coordination of trade promotion activities. Since our most  recent report in 2002, the TPCC has completed and implemented a number  of changes as a result of its private sector outreach efforts, including joint  training and other activities that leverage resources of other TPCC  member agencies. Although coordination challenges continue, there  appears to be more discussion among TPCC member agencies and a  higher level of awareness of the activities of the other agencies. This is a  noteworthy improvement over the situation that existed in the early 1990s,  when GAO began to evaluate the federal government’s trade promotion  efforts.
Despite this progress, the TPCC continues to face challenges in its ability  to achieve other aspects of its mission of coordinating federal export  promotion activities. For example, the TPCC’s annual export strategies do  not review or assess agency goals or activities. Moreover, despite its  mandate to propose a unified federal trade promotion budget, the TPCC  continues to have little influence over agencies’ allocation of resources for  trade promotion. GAO has consistently reported on the TPCC’s lack of  progress in these fundamental objectives.
Based on our long record of oversight over the TPCC, we believe that it  can continue to make improvements in agency coordination as well as  lead future outreach efforts to the private sector. In addition, we believe  that the TPCC can do a better job of tracking small and medium-size  businesses’ participation in a consistent manner. However, we question  whether the TPCC’s current structure will allow it to overcome the  challenges associated with assessing agency goals and influencing the  allocation of resources. We also question whether the TPCC’s current  move into the office of the Assistant Secretary for Trade Promotion within  the Commerce Department will help it overcome these challenges. As we  noted in previous reviews of the TPCC, sustained high-level administration  involvement is necessary for the TPCC to achieve its fundamental  objectives.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to  address any questions that you may have.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.