Export Promotion: Better Information Needed about Federal Resources
Published: 2013-07-17T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 2010, the President launched the NEI with the goal of doubling U.S. exports over 5 years. More than 2 decades ago, Congress directed the President to establish the TPCC to provide a unifying framework for federal efforts in this area. Among other things, Congress directed the TPCC to assess the appropriate levels and allocations of resources and develop a government-wide strategic plan that identifies federal export promotion priorities, reviews current programs in light of these priorities, and proposes to the President a federal trade promotion budget that supports the plan. Congress also required the TPCC to submit annual reports to Congress describing the required strategic plan.
This report assesses the extent to which the TPCC compiles and reports information on how federal export promotion resources are aligned with export promotion priorities. GAO reviewed the laws governing the TPCC and good practices for interagency initiatives, analyzed TPCC budget data and documents, and interviewed TPCC secretariat and Office of Management and Budget staff.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The interagency Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) neither reports nor compiles information on how federal export promotion resources align with government-wide priorities. As a result, decision makers lack a clear understanding of the total resources dedicated across the country and around the world by TPCC member agencies to priority areas, such as increasing exports by small- and medium-sized businesses. GAO has previously reported that effective national strategies should address costs and has found shortcomings in the committee's response to the budget-related portions of its mandate. While the TPCC's National Export Strategy reports issued since initiation of the National Export Initiative (NEI) outline government-wide priorities and progress in achieving them, they do not discuss how resources are allocated in support of these priorities. Despite the current emphasis on export promotion as a high-priority goal, recent strategies have provided less information on budget resources than have previous strategies, as shown below. The TPCC last publicly reported a summary budget table in 2008. TPCC secretariat officials acknowledged that the TPCC agencies currently place little emphasis on displaying or discussing agencies' resources in the National Export Strategy.
The TPCC last compiled high-level data on member agencies' budget authority in 2011, but this information is not useful for assessing resource allocations. To be useful, data should, among other things, be consistent and sufficiently complete for the intended purpose. However, the TPCC's data are inconsistent across agencies and not detailed enough to facilitate an understanding or comparison of how resources are allocated among priorities. TPCC agencies do not use a common definition of export promotion, so it is unclear why some agencies are included in the TPCC's data and others are not, and the TPCC's data are not current. Although agency accounting systems and budget processes differ, which presents challenges, clear guidance for agencies on what information they should provide the TPCC could improve the quality of the data. Without better information on agencies' export promotion resources, decision makers cannot determine whether the federal investment in export promotion is being used effectively or make informed decisions about future resource decisions.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that TPCC (1) develop and distribute guidance for member agencies on what information they should provide the TPCC on the resources they spend on export promotion activities; and (2) report in its National Export Strategies on how resources are allocated by agency and aligned with the strategy's priorities. The TPCC secretariat agreed with our recommendations and stated it plans to take steps to address them.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In January 2010, the President launched the National Export Initiative  (NEI) with the goal of doubling U.S. exports over 5 years. In doing so, the  President drew renewed attention to a long-standing challenge: effectively  coordinating the many and varied federal programs aimed at supporting  growth in U.S. exports. More than 2 decades ago, Congress directed the  President to establish the interagency Trade Promotion Coordinating  Committee (TPCC) to provide a unifying framework for federal export  promotion and export financing programs. Under the Export  Enhancement Act of 1992, Congress directed the TPCC to assess the  appropriate levels and allocations of resources for export promotion and  export financing efforts. The law further required theTPCC to develop a  government-wide strategic plan and provide annual reports to Congress  describing the plan and its implementation. These strategic plans are to  identify priorities, review current export promotion programs in light of  these priorities, and propose to the President a federal trade promotion  budget that supports the TPCC’s plan for priority activities and improved  coordination and eliminates funding for identified areas of overlap and  duplication.
You requested that we review information about federal export promotion  resources available to TPCC agencies. This report assesses the extent to  which the TPCC currently compiles and reports information on how  federal export promotion resources are aligned with established priorities.
To address this objective, we analyzed the laws and presidential  directives that define what is required of the TPCC as an interagency  coordinating body, including the budget-related requirements in the  Export Enhancement Act of 1992. We also reviewed GAO’s guidance  regarding data reliability and examined good practices for coordinating  interagency initiatives, as described in other GAO reports, including those  covering the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993  and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. We reviewed budget data  collected by the TPCC, the TPCC’s annual National Export Strategies  (focusing in particular on reports issued since the NEI was announced),  and other TPCC documents describing efforts to compile and report  budget information. We also interviewed TPCC secretariat and Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) staff. For more details about our  objectives, scope, and methodology, see appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 to July 2013 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Responsibility for designing and carrying out federal export promotion  programs is widely dispersed. Numerous federal agencies have offices  across the country and overseas and operate a wide variety of programs  that are intended, at least in part, to assist U.S. companies in entering  foreign markets or expanding their presence abroad. For example,  agencies provide companies with information on market opportunities and  help them connect with potential buyers abroad, provide access to export  financing, and negotiate with other countries to lower trade barriers.
The dispersion of export promotion activities among numerous agencies  led us to observe in a 1992 report that “funding for … agencies involved  in export promotion is not made on the basis of an explicit government- wide strategy or set of priorities. Without an overall rationale it is unclear  whether export promotion resources are being channeled into areas with  the greatest potential return.” In 1992, Congress passed the Export  Enhancement Act of 1992, which directed the President to establish the  TPCC. The TPCC is chaired by the Secretary of Commerce, and its day- to-day operations are carried out by a secretariat that is housed in  Commerce’s International Trade Administration. The TPCC has 20  members, including 7 core members. Oversight of these agencies is  dispersed across many congressional committees. Table 1 identifies the  authorizing and appropriating subcommittees with jurisdiction over the  seven core TPCC agencies.
We have reviewed the TPCC’s operations on several occasions since its  creation in 1992. We have found that the TPCC and its member  agencies have improved coordination in several areas, but we also found  shortcomings in the committee’s response to the budget-related portions  of its mandate. In 2002, we observed that the Secretary of Commerce, as  the chair of the TPCC, made recommendations to the President, through  OMB, on selected export promotion budget matters on multiple  occasions. However, with no authority to reallocate resources among  member agencies and occasional agency resistance to its guidance, the  TPCC provided limited direction over the use of export promotion  resources in support of its strategies. We also noted that the TPCC had  not used its National Export Strategies to examine how agencies’  resources aligned with their goals, and we recommended that the TPCC  consistently do so. The TPCC agreed with our findings and  recommendation. However, in 2006 we determined that the committee  had not implemented our recommendation; we found that the committee’s  annual strategies did not review agencies’ allocation of resources in  relation to identified priorities. In 2009, we observed that the TPCC’s most  recently published National Export Strategy continued to lack an overall  review of agency resource allocations relative to government-wide  priorities.
Export promotion has recently been emphasized as a high priority for the  federal government. In his 2010 Executive Order announcing the NEI, the  President emphasized that creating jobs and sustainable economic  growth in the United States was his top priority, and that increasing  exports was a critical component of those efforts. He also laid out eight  priority areas to be addressed through the NEI. OMB subsequently  identified the NEI’s goal of doubling U.S. exports as one of 14 interim  crosscutting priority goals under the GPRA Modernization Act.  Additionally, as part of his 2013 and 2014 budget proposals, the  President proposed consolidating six departments and agencies involved  in export promotion into one new cabinet-level department.
In his directives regarding the NEI, the President established a new body,  the Export Promotion Cabinet, to develop and implement the initiative.  The Export Promotion Cabinet is coordinated by a White House official,  has most of the same member agencies as the TPCC, and is to  coordinate its efforts with the TPCC. Among other things, the President  tasked the Export Promotion Cabinet to work with the TPCC to determine  how resources should be allocated. In particular, a February 2012  Presidential Memorandum instructed the Export Promotion Cabinet, in  consultation with the TPCC, to evaluate the current allocation of federal  government resources, make recommendations to the Director of OMB  for their more effective allocation, and propose a unified federal trade  budget, consistent with the administration’s priorities, to the Director of  OMB as part of the annual process for developing the President’s budget.
section_title: The TPCC Does Not Report or Collect Information on How Resources Align with Priorities
subsections: section_title: National Export Strategies Outline Priorities, but Do Not Identify Associated Resources
paragraphs: The Export Enhancement Act states that the TPCC’s strategies should  establish a set of priorities for federal export promotion activities and  propose a unified federal trade promotion budget that supports the plan.  Additionally, we have previously reported that one of the six  characteristics of an effective interagency national strategy is that it  identifies the resources needed to carry out the strategy. Specifically, an  effective national strategy should address what it will cost, the sources  and types of resources and investments needed, and where resources  and investments should be targeted based on balancing risk reductions  with costs.
The most recent National Export Strategies, published in 2011 and 2012,  outline federal priorities for export promotion, but provide little information  on member agencies’ resources for carrying out these priorities. Both  strategies outline progress made toward the eight NEI priorities and  identify specific areas federal agencies will focus on in the coming year.  In fact, the 2011 strategy includes the NEI recommendation to “increase  the budget for trade promotion infrastructure” as one of five critical  recommendations on which TPCC agencies would focus. However, these  strategies do not provide summary information on the total resources  available for export promotion and do not discuss how resources are  currently allocated across priorities. Without this information, decision  makers lack a clear understanding of the total federal resources being  dedicated to export promotion activities, and it is not possible to assess  the appropriate levels or allocations of export promotion resources.
The 2011 and 2012 strategies contain very limited discussions on  agencies’ export promotion resources, consisting only of a few bullets that  broadly discuss agencies’ budget requests. For example, figure 1  reproduces in its entirety the section in the 2012 report titled “The  Administration’s FY2013 Trade Promotion Budget.” The section includes  three bullets relating to agencies’ requested export promotion budgets for  2013, but provides no context on the total federal export promotion  budget or on the budgets of the individual agencies it discusses. The first  bullet, for example, notes that the President’s budget proposed $30.3  million in additional funding for the U.S. and Foreign Commercial  Service’s overseas export promotion activities. However, it does not  indicate what the Commercial Service’s baseline budget is, whether the  increase supports specific priorities laid out in the strategy, or whether  resources could be shifted from existing Commerce activities, or from  other agencies, to meet these needs. The remaining bullet points do not  tie specific funding requests to individual agencies. The second bullet  states that the fiscal year 2013 President’s budget seeks “support” for  SBA’s Office of International Trade without stating what amount of  funding, if any, SBA is requesting.  The final bullet point simply states that  five other core TPCC agencies seek a total increase of $19 million over  2012 funding levels.
Despite the current emphasis on export promotion as a high-priority goal,  the level of detail on agencies’ budgets presented in the TPCC’s National  Export Strategies has decreased. During much of the 1990s, the TPCC  provided trade promotion budget information by agency and by activity,  noting as it did so that presenting meaningful information across agencies  was difficult because of the variety of programs involved. The strategies  provided in-depth tables on how agency resources were allocated, for  example, the 1997 report included 44 pages of material on this topic.  After 2000, the TPCC stopped reporting budget information in such depth.  The National Export Strategies from 2002 through 2008 provided only a  summary budget table that presented information on each agency’s total  budget authority for export promotion activities. As already noted, the  most recent reports have eliminated these summary budget tables. Figure  2 compares the budget information presented by the TPCC in 1996,  2004, and 2012.
TPCC secretariat officials acknowledged that the amount of budget  information presented in the National Export Strategies has declined and  that the TPCC members currently place little emphasis on displaying or  discussing agencies’ resources. They noted that changes in the political  and budget environment over time have affected the TPCC’s processes.  First, TPCC secretariat officials said that in the early 2000s, the TPCC  shifted its focus away from resources in favor of efforts to improve the  management of existing programs. For example, in 2003, a TPCC  secretariat memo to member agencies stated that, given the budget  environment, agencies should assume their budgets would be flat. The  TPCC recommended that agencies look for opportunities to leverage  resources through coordination or by sharing costs. Because the TPCC  anticipated that members’ appropriations would not be increasing,  secretariat officials stated that the TPCC largely stopped talking about or  examining resources. Officials further noted that, while the NEI has  generated enthusiasm for export promotion, the TPCC’s current focus  remains on better managing and coordinating existing resources.  Second, TPCC secretariat officials also stated that because final  appropriations have not been passed until later in the fiscal year, it has  been more difficult to collect up-to-date budget data. Finally, though  GPRA sought to improve agency management and reporting processes,  TPCC secretariat officials indicated that, as member agencies  increasingly worked to comply with the law in 1999, it hindered their ability  to do crosscutting analyses. Officials found that agencies focused on their  own specific core priorities and on developing agency-specific  performance plans, which complicated the TPCC’s ability to obtain and  track export promotion budgets.
section_title: The Budget Data the TPCC Collects Are Not Useful for Assessing Resource Allocations
subsections: section_title: The TPCC Collects Some High- Level Budget Data
paragraphs: The TPCC periodically collects summary data on agencies’ total budget  authority for export promotion activities with OMB’s assistance. According  to OMB staff, OMB asks agencies’ budget offices to self-identify their  activities that relate to export promotion and compile a summary budget  number. OMB resource management offices typically review the numbers  provided by the agencies to ensure they are reasonable. Table 2 below  reproduces the last table publicly released by the TPCC in its 2008  National Export Strategy, including its footnotes.
According to OMB staff, OMB only compiles this information when  requested by the TPCC, and the committee last requested this data in the  spring of 2011. Because the TPCC opted not to make these data public in  that year’s National Export Strategy, OMB staff did not fully review them.  Therefore, OMB staff requested that we not publish the data collected in  2011. We nevertheless examined the more recent information the TPCC  provided us, which included actual budget data for the same member  agencies as shown in table 2 from fiscal years 1994 through 2010 and  agencies’ requested budget for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. The TPCC  used the same process to collect data in 2011 that it used for the 2008  National Export Strategy. Therefore, our discussion below, which  identifies several significant issues impacting the reliability and usefulness  of the data, focuses on the 2011 update but also generally applies to the  data presented in table 2. According to TPCC secretariat officials, the  committee has initiated efforts to further update this information, but  officials have not indicated whether they plan to make it public as part of a  future National Export Strategy.
The data the TPCC collects are not useful for assessing the allocation of  export promotion resources. To be useful for assessing how agencies’  resources are allocated, data should, among other things, be consistent  and sufficiently comprehensive for the intended purpose. Moreover,  collaborating agencies would need to use compatible methods to track  funding. Additionally, we have reported on the importance of agencies  providing appropriate levels of detail in budgeting documents. For  example, prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security,  we noted that crosscutting funding data provided in an OMB annual report  on combating terrorism had limited utility for decision makers, in part  because it did not include data on obligations or on duplication in  programs for combating terrorism. We identified several issues with the  TPCC’s most recent data, from 2011, and determined that the data are  neither consistent across agencies nor comprehensive enough to indicate  how resources are allocated across priorities or the overall cost of  carrying out the National Export Strategy.
Agencies use different definitions: According to TPCC secretariat  and OMB staff, each agency independently defines export promotion  and self-identifies the activities to include in its export promotion  budget. The TPCC’s data include few explanatory notes about how  each agency’s budget was computed, making it difficult to compare  numbers across agencies or understand what activities are included  for each agency. In fact, TPCC secretariat officials were not always  certain what each agency’s number represented. Because agencies  use different definitions, there is no assurance that TPCC’s data treat  similar activities consistently. For example, SBA, OPIC, and Ex-Im all  provide some form of export financing, but the TPCC’s data for these  agencies represent three different aspects of their budgets. SBA’s  data show the administrative expenses for its Office of International  Trade, which is responsible for its export loan programs. OPIC’s data  capture the agency’s total impact on the federal budget but do not  provide any indication of the costs of operating its financing programs.  Ex-Im’s data show the appropriations for its Office of Inspector  General, but do not include any information on the costs of operating  its financing programs or the agency’s total impact on the federal  budget.
The reasons for including or excluding agencies are not always  clear: An example of the lack of clarity in how the TPCC treats  member agencies is that its summary budget table does not include  USAID, noting that it does not do so because the agency’s activities  support trade promotion indirectly. However, the TPCC’s data include  OPIC, which also focuses on international development and only  indirectly supports exports. Moreover, the TPCC’s table continues to  include other agencies, such as the Department of the Treasury,  which do not directly fund trade promotion activities. Nonetheless, as  we noted in 2006, portions of several National Export Strategies  continued to highlight export promotion programs involving USAID.  According to TPCC secretariat officials, member agencies decide  whether or not they have export promotion programs and whether to  provide resource data.
The data are not detailed enough to align with priorities: The  TPCC’s summary budget table presents data at a very high level, with  one number for each agency, and provides no information on specific  activities or programs. Without greater detail, it is not possible to  understand whether or how agency resources are aligned with the  priorities laid out in the National Export Strategy and National Export  Initiative. Some TPCC member agencies conduct activities in more  than one priority area. For example, among other activities,  Commerce supports U.S. business in conducting trade missions and  also works to reduce barriers to trade, both of which are priority areas  in the National Export Initiative. Among its many activities, USDA  supports the goals of increasing exports by small and medium-sized  enterprises and increasing export credit available to U.S. businesses.  Because it only presents information at a high level, the TPCC’s table  does not allow users to understand how federal resources are being  allocated across these, or other, priority areas.
The data are not current: The TPCC’s data are not comprehensive  because they do not include current information about agencies’  resources. The TPCC last updated its information in April 2011 and  that summary budget table reflected agency budget requests for fiscal  year 2012. The President released his fiscal year 2013 budget  request in February 2012. Nonetheless, the latest data collected by  the TPCC do not reflect fiscal year 2013 requests, nor do they show  actual data for 2011, or estimates for 2012. Moreover, because the  TPCC opted not to include the data in its National Export Strategy,  OMB staff never fully vetted the data collected in 2011. Therefore, the  most recent fully vetted data on federal export promotion resources  are from 2008.
Budget authority data does not fully reflect costs of all agencies’  programs: Finally, the TPCC’s use of total budget authority data  provides an incomplete picture of the costs of some agencies’  programs. For example, OPIC is self-funded through receipts  collected on its financing activities and has a net negative budget  authority, meaning it returns money to the U.S. government. However,  it does receive annual instructions from Congress on the amount of  money it can spend on administrative and program expenses for its  financing programs. While the TPCC’s use of total budget authority  data may accurately represent one aspect of an agency’s impact on  the overall federal budget allocated for export promotion, it is not  sufficiently detailed to fully understand the agency’s contributions  toward export promotion. For example, the TPCC’s number does not  indicate the costs associated with operating OPIC’s financing  programs or how much financing its budget supports.
Without consistent and comprehensive information on export promotion  resources, the TPCC cannot accurately assess the levels and allocation  of resources among agencies. Thus, decision makers in Congress and  the administration do not have full information about the U.S.  government’s investment in export promotion and cannot determine  whether resources are being allocated to the highest priority areas.  Further, without information on export promotion resources, neither the  TPCC nor the Export Promotion Cabinet can make informed  recommendations about their appropriate allocation across agencies.  Additionally, the Export Enhancement Act requires the TPCC to identify  overlap and duplication among export promotion programs.  However, as  we have reported, it is difficult to gauge the magnitude of the federal  commitment to a particular area of activity or assess the extent to which  federal programs are duplicative without a clear understanding of the  costs of implementing those programs and the activities they support.
According to TPCC secretariat officials, the TPCC does not provide any  guidance to agency officials on what budget information should be  reported or how agencies should determine which activities should be  included as export promotion. In the past, the TPCC provided guidance  on the information member agencies should submit on their export  promotion budgets. We reported that the data presented by the TPCC  fostered a better understanding of historic and potential expenditures.
The lack of clear TPCC guidance makes it difficult for agencies to  provide, and for the committee to collect, comparable budget information.  Without clear guidance, TPCC agencies use different definitions for  export promotion in compiling budget information. Many agencies’  programs have multiple objectives, some of which are directly related to  export promotion and some of which are not. For example, USDA’s  export promotion programs also fulfill domestic agricultural objectives.  According to OMB staff, this makes it challenging to clearly determine  what activities should be considered export promotion. OMB staff stated  that TPCC secretariat and OMB staff have had some preliminary  discussions about developing standardized definitions of what activities  should be considered export promotion and how data should be reported.  However, these discussions are in the early stages, and the TPCC would  need to decide what information it wants to include in the National Export  Strategies before moving forward.
Similarly, the TPCC does not supply guidance that could help clarify what  level of detail agencies should provide to them. As the TPCC noted in its  2000 National Export Strategy, its ability to collect and present detailed  budget information is limited by agencies’ abilities to generate  comparable data within their varied accounting structures. In developing  guidance, the TPCC could work with member agencies to determine a  reasonable level of detail and identify the limitations of the data. For  example, in 2000, the TPCC provided details on agencies’ expenditures  in major federal export promotion areas, such as combating foreign  export subsidies. However, they included a caveat that detailed budget  numbers below the overall agency total can be difficult to validate and  should only be used as an indication of the resources available for each  area.
There are lessons to be learned from other bodies coordinating  crosscutting government programs and facing similar challenges. For  example, like the TPCC, the Office of National Drug Control Policy  (ONDCP) has a statutory requirement to develop a national strategy and  propose a consolidated budget to implement that strategy. ONDCP’s  process for developing the National Drug Control Strategy and its  associated budget is not a perfect comparison for the TPCC because  ONDCP has different authorities for reviewing and suggesting changes to  member agencies’ budgets.  However, its process for collecting and  compiling data can highlight the usefulness of providing clear and detailed  guidance. ONDCP provides detailed guidance to relevant agencies on  how to assemble budget information. Its guidance includes a sample  budget table that identifies the level of detail agencies should provide,  including a list of the functions, such as corrections or interdiction,  agencies should report on. ONDCP’s guidance also defines those  functions and identifies which activities should be included in each  function. In 2011, we reported that, while drug control agency officials  raised some concerns about ONDCP’s budget process, officials at 4 of 6  agencies stated that it was somewhat or very effective at providing a  record of national drug control expenditures, among other things.
Clear guidance can help overcome challenges and make the data  collected by interagency groups more useful for understanding how  resources are currently allocated across agencies and activities, as  illustrated by the ONDCP example. The TPCC’s lack of guidance  impedes the collection of accurate, comprehensive, and consistent  information necessary to understand how resources are allocated among  priorities. Without clear guidance, TPCC agencies are using  nonstandardized definitions to identify activities that relate to export  promotion and are not clear about what level of detail is required.
section_title: Conclusion
paragraphs: In announcing the National Export Initiative, the President not only  reemphasized the importance of exports to the U.S. economy, but  specifically highlighted the need to understand and coordinate federal  resources for export promotion. However, the TPCC does not provide  decision makers—including Congress and the Export Promotion  Cabinet—with information that provides a clear understanding of how  resources are currently allocated across the country and around the world  among its member agencies or across federal export promotion priorities.  In fact, the amount of information the TPCC has reported on agencies’  resources has declined. The TPCC has responded to the National Export  Initiative by reporting on efforts to address established priorities and  working to improve interagency coordination, but the committee currently  places almost no emphasis on understanding the federal resources  dedicated to implementing the National Export Strategy, as is called for in  good practices. In the absence of clear guidance, the data the TPCC  collects are not comparable across agencies and not comprehensive  enough to allow the TPCC to determine how resources are currently  allocated in support of priority activities. Furthermore, without better  resource data, neither the TPCC nor the Export Promotion Cabinet can  make informed recommendations about how federal resources should be  allocated. As policymakers review the success of the NEI and consider  the President’s request for authority to consolidate trade agencies in a  single department, it is important to understand how federal resources are  being spent. Without consistent and comprehensive information on export  promotion resources—presented transparently through the TPCC’s  annual strategies—decision makers in Congress and the administration  cannot determine whether the return on the federal investment in export  promotion is adequate or make informed decisions about future resource  allocations.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the consistency, comprehensiveness, and transparency of  information provided to Congress and policymakers on the federal  investment in export promotion programs, the Secretary of Commerce, as  chair of the TPCC, should  1.  develop and distribute guidance for member agencies on what  information they should provide the TPCC on the resources they  spend on export promotion activities, and  2.  report in its National Export Strategies on how resources are allocated  by agency and aligned with priorities.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided drafts of this report to the Secretary of Commerce, as chair  of the TPCC, and to OMB.  In written comments reprinted in appendix II,  the Director of the TPCC Secretariat generally concurred with our  recommendations on behalf of the Secretary and stated that they intend  to work with TPCC member agencies and the Export Promotion Cabinet  to implement them. In particular, they plan to create a new TPCC Budget  Working Group to establish a robust TPCC role in assessing the  appropriate levels and allocation of resources among agencies, as called  for in its mandate. TPCC Secretariat officials provided technical  comments and suggested corrections and clarifications that we  incorporated, when appropriate. Nevertheless, the Director noted the  TPCC’s limited authority over budget reporting and resource allocations,  including its inability to compel member agencies to provide budget and  resource information.  He gave examples of some challenges they face,  including shifts in the political and budgetary landscape and how different  Administrations and Congresses have emphasized different priorities over  time.  However, he said the TPCC Secretariat will work within its existing  authorities with TPCC agencies to address our recommendations.
We support the establishment of a TPCC Budget Working Group and  note that implementing the requirements of the Export Enhancement Act  of 1992 is the responsibility of the committee, as comprised of the  member agencies, under the leadership of the Chair and with the support  of the secretariat. TPCC member discussions that improve the  consistency, comprehensiveness, and transparency of information  provided to Congress and policymakers can help overcome such  challenges, facilitate well-informed resource decisions, and better support  the National Export Initiative and the Export Promotion Cabinet.
We also requested comments on a draft of this report from OMB. On  June 21, OMB’s Office of General Counsel provided us with comments  via e-mail. OMB noted that, while export promotion budgetary data have  not been presented in a public document since the 2008 National Export  Strategy, OMB annually compiles and reviews current and proposed  resources across TPCC agencies that are devoted to export promotion  and trade activities, as part of the development of the President’s budget.  OMB further stated that it uses these data to ensure prudent government- wide allocation of export promotion-related resources and strong support  for the President’s export promotion agenda, but that because these data  are internal, pre-decisional, and deliberative, OMB does not share the  cross-agency table outside of OMB, nor does it publish this information as  part of the President’s budget or related materials. However, OMB  commented that it consults with a number of officials, including the  Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for  International Economics, as head of the Export Promotion Cabinet, when  recommending export-promotion related resources in the President’s  budget.
We acknowledge that OMB conducts a review as part of the annual  agency budget formulation process. However, this activity is distinct from  the TPCC’s budget-related requirements in the Export Enhancement Act.   As OMB notes, its activities are internal and deliberative and not shared  outside OMB, including with the TPCC Secretariat or its member  agencies. Thus, OMB’s process is not transparent to Congress or to other  relevant parties and does not benefit from activities that could improve the  consistency or comprehensiveness of this information.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 28 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of  Commerce (in her capacity as Chairman of the TPCC), as well as the  Director of OMB, interested congressional committees, and other  interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on  the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at 202-512- 8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov. Contact points for our  offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: This report assesses the extent to which the Trade Promotion  Coordinating Committee (TPCC) currently compiles and reports  information on how budgetary resources are aligned with established  export promotion priorities.
To address this objective, we analyzed the laws and presidential  directives that define what is required of the TPCC as an interagency  coordinating body. These included the Export Enhancement Act of 1992,  which directed the President to establish the TPCC; the 1993 Executive  Order which established the TPCC in accordance with the 1992 act; the  2010 Executive Order announcing the National Export Initiative (NEI); and  a subsequent (2012) Presidential Memorandum providing further  instruction on Export Promotion Cabinet and TPCC collaboration to  maximize the effectiveness of Federal trade programs. We also reviewed  GAO’s guidance regarding data reliability and examined alternate models  and good practices for coordinating and managing multi-agency initiatives  as described in other GAO reports, including those covering the  Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and the  GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. We reviewed the annual “National  Export Strategy” reports to Congress that the TPCC has produced since  its inception, focusing in particular on those prepared since the NEI was  announced in 2010, as well as TPCC memoranda documenting efforts to  compile and report budget information and develop a federal trade  promotion budget. We also interviewed staff of the TPCC Secretariat,  which is housed in the Department of Commerce, and staff of the Office  of Management and Budget (OMB).
To assess the reliability and usefulness of budget data collected by the  TPCC, we took a number of steps, including (1) reviewing the data for  internal consistency; (2) comparing TPCC’s data table with select agency  budget documents, including Congressional Budget Justifications,  appropriations bills, and agency financial or annual reports; (3) reviewing  past GAO work on the TPCC’s budget; and (4) interviewing  knowledgeable TPCC secretariat and OMB staff. Based on this  assessment, we identified numerous issues with the TPCC’s data, as  discussed in detail in this report. We present the TPCC’s data in the  report only to illustrate our assessment of the data.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 to July 2013 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Adam Cowles, Assistant Director;  Michael McAtee, Analyst-in-Charge; Kara Marshall; and Karen Deans  made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Export Promotion: Small Business Administration Needs to Improve  Collaboration to Implement Its Expanded Role. GAO-13-217.  Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2013.
National Export Initiative: U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service Should  Improve Performance and Resource Allocation Management.   GAO-11-909, Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2011.
International Trade: Effective Export Programs Can Help In Achieving  U.S. Economic Goals. GAO-09-480T. Washington, D.C.: March 17, 2009.
Export Promotion: Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee’s Role  Remains Limited. GAO-06-660T. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2006.
Export Promotion: Mixed Progress in Achieving a Governmentwide  Strategy. GAO-02-850. Washington, D.C.: September 4, 2002.
Export Promotion: Federal Agencies’ Activities and Resources in Fiscal  Year 1999. GAO/NSIAD-00-118. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 2000.
Export Promotion: Issues for Assessing the Governmentwide Strategy.  GAO/T-NSIAD-98-105. Washington, D.C.: February 26, 1998.
National Export Strategy. GAO/NSIAD-96-132R. Washington, D.C.:  March 26, 1996.
Export Promotion: Governmentwide Plan Contributes to Improvements.  GAO/T-GGD-94-35. Washington, D.C.: October 26, 1993.
Export Promotion: Initial Assessment of Governmentwide Strategic Plan.  GAO/T-GGD-93-48. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 1993.
Export Promotion Strategic Plan: Will It Be a Vehicle for Change?   GAO/T-GGD-93-43. Washington, D.C.: July 26, 1993.
Export Promotion: Governmentwide Strategy Needed for Federal  Programs. GAO/T-GGD-93-7. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 1993.
Export Promotion: Federal Programs Lack Organizational and Funding  Cohesiveness. GAO/NSIAD-92-49. Washington, D.C.: January 10, 1992.