Export Promotion: Mixed Progress in Achieving a Governmentwide Strategy
Published: 2002-09-04T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Ten years ago, to coordinate the activities of the various federal agencies involved in export promotion and to ensure better delivery of services to potential exporters, Congress established the interagency Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) under the Export Enhancement Act of 1992. Among other things, the act required the committee to develop a governmentwide strategic plan that (1) establishes priorities for federal activities in support of U.S. export activities and (2) proposes the annual, united federal trade promotion budget that supports the plan. TPCC's annual national export strategies identify broad priorities for promoting U.S. trade, but they do not discuss agencies' specific goals or assess progress made. In its initial strategies, the committee identified 10 regionally dispersed priority markets for future trade promotion efforts, but it did not discuss agencies' specific goals or report later on progress made in increasing exports to these markets. Shifting to a regional approach 3 years later in its 1997 strategy, the committee identified Central and Eastern Europe as a region where U.S. government assistance to U.S. exporters would be important in increasing market share. Again the strategy did not discuss agencies' specific goals nor did later strategies report on progress made or even cover consistent topics from year to year. Without regular assessments of progress, it is not clear whether export promotion resources are being used most productively in support of the strategy. Furthermore, the committee has limited ability to align agency resources with its strategy. The committee has made modest but inconsistent progress in coordinating federal agencies' export promotion efforts. In its first national export strategy in 1993, the committee identified coordination weaknesses and recommended improvements, most of which required interagency consensus to implement. Although many of its initial recommendations were implemented during the committee's first few years, some have not been implemented--for example, the need for improved agency staff training and improved trade information services to bring clarity to the export process, as well as the need for expanded outreach and trade education for new-to-export firms.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Ten years ago, to coordinate the activities of the various federal agencies  involved in export promotion and to ensure better delivery of services to  potential exporters, Congress established the interagency Trade Promotion  Coordinating Committee under the Export Enhancement Act of 1992 (P.L.  102-429). Among other things, the act required the committee to develop a  governmentwide strategic plan that (1) establishes priorities for federal  activities in support of U.S. export activities and (2) proposes an annual,  unified federal trade promotion budget that supports the plan. The nine  federal agencies that play important roles in assisting U.S. firms to export  or invest overseas were to be part of the committee that would develop the  plan and set a unified budget. These nine agencies’ export promotion  budgets totaled about $2.5 billion in fiscal year 2002. The committee  developed the first national export strategy in 1993 and has generally  reported annually since then.
As you requested, we reviewed how the Trade Promotion Coordinating  Committee has carried out these directives. Specifically, we assessed (1)  whether the committee’s strategy has established export priorities,  assessed progress made toward achieving the strategy’s priorities, and  proposed an alignment of federal resources in support of these priorities;  and (2) whether the committee has made progress in coordinating the  various agencies’ export promotion programs. In addition, we also  identified how the various agencies are including small- and medium-sized  businesses in their export promotion programs.
To address these questions, we reviewed the Trade Promotion  Coordinating Committee’s national export strategies for 1993-1998, 2000,  and 2002 and its coordination efforts during the past 10 years. To examine  how the committee developed the export strategy and coordinated various  agencies’ export promotion programs, we reviewed the committee’s  strategy for Central and Eastern Europe contained in the 1997 national  export strategy. We visited five countries in this region including two of the  designated “big emerging markets”—Poland and Turkey— as well as  Croatia, a country in the early stages of making a transition to a market  economy; and the Czech Republic, a country in a more advanced  transitional phase. For perspective on the nature of U.S. programs in a  more mature market, we visited and reviewed U.S. export promotion  programs in Germany. To assess how small businesses have participated in  these federal export programs we obtained data on agencies’ programs  dedicated to small- and medium-sized businesses. Appendix I contains a  more detailed description of our scope and methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) is a cabinet-level  interagency committee chaired by the Secretary of Commerce. It began  meeting in 1993, and it has met at least once annually, except during an 18- month period between 1999 and 2001. The TPCC also encouraged the  formation of various interagency staff-level working groups. These groups  have met or communicated more frequently. The TPCC has a staff of three  or four Commerce trade professionals, located in Commerce’s  International Trade Administration. The TPCC has no independent budget  and no specific authority to direct its member agencies.
subsections: section_title: Key Agencies’ Responsibilities
paragraphs: Nine key TPCC member agencies provide a range of specific trade  promotion programs for exporters. The Departments of Commerce and  Agriculture identify export opportunities and conduct trade promotion  activities. The U.S. Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) and the Overseas  Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) help businesses participate in  riskier markets by providing financing and insurance for exports or  development projects. The Small Business Administration (SBA) provides  export training and loans for small- and medium-sized businesses desiring  to export. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and the Department of  State seek to create and maintain open markets for U.S. exports and  investments. Although it is not actually a trade agency, the U.S. Agency for  International Development (USAID) seeks to promote economic growth;  assist developing country governments make economic reforms and  identify changes to laws, regulations, and banking systems; and provide  firm-level assistance to small businesses, thus allowing these countries to  become more attractive trade and investment partners to the United States.   In developing country markets, basic infrastructure and capital equipment  are also essential to assist market growth. The U.S. Trade and Development  Agency (TDA) supports the planning of infrastructure development and  trade capacity building in such areas as energy or transportation systems,  with the expectation that U.S. exporters will later have opportunities to bid  on these projects for which TDA has provided support.
section_title: Distribution of the Export Promotion Resources Among TPCC Agencies
paragraphs: Total export promotion funding (excluding that for OPIC and USAID)  declined slightly, from nearly $2.4 billion to $2 billion between fiscal years  1996 and 2001, but rose to $2.5 billion in fiscal year 2002. The resource  allocations among TPCC agencies did not change significantly over the last  5 years. The Department of Agriculture continued to have the largest share  of total export promotion funding in fiscal year 2002, as it did in fiscal year  1996. (See fig 1.)  Eximbank and the Department of Commerce still have  the second and third largest funding levels among the agencies.
During this period, the funding levels of the two agencies whose overseas  staff identify and develop export opportunities for U.S. firms seeking to  export—Commerce’s Foreign Commercial Service (FCS) and Agriculture’s  Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)—increased. The FCS budget increased  about 14 percent, and the FAS budget increased by about 8 percent  between fiscal years 1996 and 2002.  However, beginning in 1998, these  agencies’ administrative costs increased due to the implementation of the  Department of State’s Interagency Cost Sharing System.  According to  Commerce, these costs made fewer funds available for export services.
section_title: Limits of TPCC Authority
paragraphs: The Export Enhancement Act of 1992 requires that the TPCC develop and  implement an annual national export strategy that, among other things,  establishes a set of federal priorities supporting U.S. exports and   develops a plan to align federal programs with established priorities;   proposes an annual unified federal trade promotion budget.
The act did not provide the TPCC with specific authority to create a unified  export promotion budget, which would include the reallocation of agency  resources to support the national export strategies. In practice, the TPCC  facilitates interagency discussions of trade issues,  coordinates interagency responses to administrative or congressional   prepares the mandated national export strategy.
section_title: The TPCC’s National Export Strategies Do Not Identify Agencies’ Specific Goals or Use of Resources
paragraphs: The TPCC’s annual national export strategies have identified broad  priorities, but they have not discussed agencies’ specific export promotion  goals, such as increasing exports in a TPCC targeted market, or assessed  progress made toward achieving the committee’s broad priorities. The  TPCC has limited ability to affect the alignment of export promotion  resources across agencies, but some agencies have aligned resources to  support the TPCC’s broad priorities.
subsections: section_title: Strategies Identify Broad Priorities but Not Agencies’ Specific Goals
paragraphs: The TPCC’s annual strategies, called “national export strategies,” describe  export promotion efforts and outline broad priorities. However, they do not  identify specific goals and associated agency responsibilities. The first  several strategies identified numerous markets and sectors of export  promise as priorities. For example, the 1994 national export strategy  identified a broad set of 10 markets, called the big emerging markets  (BEM), where the TPCC expected exports to grow over the next several  decades. In 1995, the strategy gave additional attention to the traditional  export markets of Japan, Canada, and Western Europe, and 3 years later  the strategy expanded its targets further, emphasizing increasing exports to  nontraditional markets in Latin America and Asia. However, none of these  strategies discussed agencies’ specific goals for targeted markets or  regions or outlined various agencies’ responsibilities in addressing goals  over the coming years.
One of the regions identified as having promise as a market for U.S.  exporters, for example, was Central and Eastern Europe. Citing Poland’s  and Turkey’s rapid transitions to market economies, their pent-up demand  for western goods, and their desire to join the European Union (EU), the  1997 strategy noted that these countries drove regional trade and, together  with the Czech Republic and Hungary, were regional focal points for U.S.  trade and investment. It identified the most competitive sectors for U.S.  companies as well as regional barriers to U.S. exports. Later strategies also  discussed broad trade objectives. Again, however, they did not identify  specific goals or agency responsibilities in implementing the strategy.
section_title: TPCC Has Not Assessed Progress
paragraphs: The TPCC’s successive strategies lack continuity in addressing identified  issues, and they have not assessed progress made toward achieving the  TPCC’s broad export priorities. For example, the 1997 strategy noted that  the United States was losing market share in Eastern Europe to the EU,  but the 1998 strategy did not report on any changes in this condition.  Instead, it discussed U.S. market share in the EU countries. Nor did the  1998 strategy update specific objectives for Central and Eastern Europe  identified earlier, such as addressing bribery, negotiating for international  product standards in Poland, or identifying specific barriers to trade in  Turkey. Rather, the 1998 strategy focused on Europe and the challenges of  competing in the EU market. The next strategy, for 2000, did not discuss  East European markets but highlighted the opportunities in China. The  2002 strategy did not specifically discuss China.
The TPCC has been unable to identify common performance measures  because it has not achieved consensus on how agencies should measure  export program results. Moreover, it has not reviewed agencies’ annual  performance reports under the Government Performance and Results Act  of 1993. This act mandates that the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB) require federal agencies to develop performance measures and  assess performance. Since 1994, the TPCC has called for the development  of common measures to evaluate trade promotion performance. The TPCC  identified three common measures of success—the amount of new  exports, the number of new jobs, or the value of sales resulting from  exported services—to help assess agencies’ export promotion programs.  However, the TPCC’s 2000 national export strategy noted that generally the  indicators that each agency developed to measure its performance differed  from those of other agencies, as well as from the cross-cutting measures  developed for prior TPCC reports. Without common indicators, it is not  possible to trace performance over time in achieving TPCC priorities. The  overall effect is that it is not clear whether federal export promotion  resources are being used most productively.
section_title: TPCC Has Limited Ability to Align Agency Resources with Its Strategy
paragraphs: The TPCC has sought to move toward developing a unified federal trade  promotion budget and has worked with OMB to participate in the budget  process. However, with no authority to reallocate resources among the  agencies and occasional agency resistance to its guidance, the TPCC has  provided limited direction over the use of export promotion resources used  to support the strategy. Moreover, the most dramatic resource changes  occurred within its own agency, Commerce, but even Commerce did not  fully support all the targeted markets. Finally, resource allocations have  been affected by other factors, such as foreign policy initiatives, the need to  provide broad country coverage, and the agencies’ emphasis on pursuing  export opportunities in the most accessible overseas markets.
section_title: TPCC Sought to Work with OMB to Influence Resource Allocations
paragraphs: The TPCC has sought to propose a unified federal trade promotion budget  by making recommendations to the President, through OMB, on selected  export promotion budget matters. The TPCC also obtained OMB approval  to screen member agencies’ high-priority trade promotion initiatives in  1999; however, this effort was limited in that it highlighted only individual  agency priorities and did not serve as an examination of how agencies’  trade promotion programs and budgets overall were most productively  used to support the strategy. Agencies have continued to submit their  proposed budgets separately to OMB, and agency representatives told us  that their agencies would resist any TPCC “clearance” of their budgets. For  example, in 1999, USAID decided not to participate in the TPCC budget  reviews, even after representatives of the TPCC Chairman specifically  requested that it do so. USAID representatives with whom we spoke did  not view their programs as having a commercial application, although  some TPCC member agencies consider some types of USAID technical  assistance, such as energy or environmental projects, as possible  precursors to potential exports of U.S. services.
The TPCC indicated to its members that the use of this process could more  likely result in favorable funding decisions; however, OMB was not always  responsive to TPCC recommendations. For example, of 10 items submitted  by the TPCC to OMB for funding, only 2 received full funding, 4 received  partial funding, and 4 were not funded. The TPCC has not consistently used  this process and did not submit a list of priorities to OMB in 2001 or 2002.
section_title: Staffing Resources Shifted to Targeted Markets
paragraphs: Based on the TPCC’s strategy of targeting big emerging markets, we  analyzed the shift in staffing allocations to these markets. Generally, FCS  and FAS have shifted their staffing allocations to support TPCC-identified  priority markets. For example, in fiscal year 1996, 32 percent of FCS  overseas staff were located in the BEMs. In the same year, 23 percent of  overseas staff were located in the group of industrialized countries called  the Group of Six (G-6) countries (to exclude the United States). In fiscal  year 2001, the distribution changed to 37 percent in the BEMs and 17  percent in G-6 countries. (See fig. 2.)
The distribution of FAS’s staff among G-6 countries, BEM countries, and all  other countries with FAS offices also shifted between fiscal years 1996 and  2001. In fiscal year 1996, 26 percent of FAS staff in overseas offices were  located in BEM countries, and 22 percent were in G-6 countries. In fiscal  year 2001, the distribution changed to 29 percent in BEM countries and 21  percent in G-6 countries. (See fig. 3.)
With respect to the TPCC priority markets that we visited, Poland and  Turkey, Commerce’s FCS staff increases have been at lower levels. In its  1997 national export strategy, the TPCC noted that the United States was  losing market share in some of the BEMs and directed that, where  resources allow, the TPCC agencies target the more promising of these  markets. It identified Poland as one of four BEMs with the greatest market  potential. Commercial staff in Poland initially rose from 9 to 18 between  fiscal years 1996 and 1997; however, the Commerce Inspector General,  noted in a 1997 report that this level was not sufficient. The Inspector  General reported that Poland did not get increased resources, like other  BEMs did, because FCS headquarters did not consider European countries a priority. In its report to the Congress in September 2001, the Inspector  General citing declines in exports from the United States to Poland,  recommended that the post develop a missionwide strategy that reflects  U.S. priorities and objectives. At the time of our visit in 2002, the FCS post  staff level was 14. Nor did Commerce significantly increase staffing in  Turkey, the other BEM in our study of the TPCC’s 1997 strategy for Central  Europe, where FCS staff levels fluctuated from 13 to 15 staff between fiscal  years 1996 and 2001, and a key position was vacant for more than a year.
section_title: Other Factors Affect Resource Allocations
paragraphs: Other factors, such as foreign policy initiatives; the need to provide  minimum coverage for a broad set of countries; and agency emphasis on  pursuing exports in open, accessible foreign markets, have also affected  the decisions that agencies make regarding resource allocations.
In response to foreign policy initiatives, agencies have reallocated staff  overseas and established offices, as illustrated by the following examples.
In 1994, Congress directed the executive branch to develop an Africa  trade and development policy, and in 2000 Congress enacted the  African Growth and Opportunity Act (P.L. 106—200, title I). The act  offers trade and other economic benefits to sub-Saharan countries that  are committed to certain economic reforms. As a result, the Trade and  Development Agency requested funding for a training initiative in  Nigeria. Moreover, FCS increased its staffing level at its offices in sub- Saharan Africa. For example, FCS opened an office in Ghana in fiscal  year 2000. In fiscal year 2002, FCS expects to increase staffing in Ghana  and plans to open an office in Senegal.
In 1999, TDA and OPIC established the Caspian Finance Center in  Turkey. The center supports two national interests as well as offers  opportunities for U.S. businesses. First, the development of the rich  Caspian Sea energy reserves estimated to be 178 billion barrels or more  of oil would reduce U.S. reliance on more volatile sources of oil; and  second, the transport of oil over a western route through Turkey would  economically benefit this vital U.S. ally. One staff person from both  these agencies shares space with FCS in Ankara to help U.S. companies  identify, evaluate, and finance commercially viable projects in the  region.
In 1999, the executive branch pledged to help stabilize and revitalize  southeastern Europe by developing a strategy for trade and investment  in the region. To support the President’s regional initiative, OPIC and  TDA, with TPCC support, have had full-time regional representatives in  Zagreb since about March 2000, and Commerce has increased its staff  there by one. The office serves as a local point of contact, information,  and support for U.S. investors in the region.
In addition, both FCS and FAS have had to spread their overseas staffing to  cover a broad range of countries. During fiscal years 1998 through 2001,  Commerce’s FCS opened 21 new offices overseas—many in the newly  independent former Soviet states and African countries where export  markets are in the early stages of development. During the same time  period, Agriculture’s FAS opened four offices but closed five offices  overseas, with an overall decline of nearly 7 percent in the total number of  staff located overseas. (App. V contains the number of staff at FCS offices  by country from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2001. App. VI contains the  number of staff at FAS offices by country during the same fiscal years.)
Finally, to meet U.S. exporters’ market preferences and increase exports,  FCS has maintained relatively high staff levels in more mature markets that  have open, accessible, and regularized trading relationships, compared to  the often more difficult TPCC-targeted developing country markets,  according to an FCS official. FCS decreased staff levels in three of the six  G-6 markets between fiscal years 1996 and 2001, but 2001 staffing levels are  higher in each of the G-6 countries than in six of the BEMs. For example,  Argentina, Hong Kong, Poland, South Africa,  South Korea, and  Turkey  each have fewer staff than Italy, the country with the lowest staff level  among the G-6 countries. Moreover, staff levels have increased  dramatically in the United Kingdom and Canada—where the number of  FCS staff grew by 63 percent and 33 percent, respectively.
section_title: TPCC Has Had Modest Success in Coordinating Agency Programs
paragraphs: The TPCC has improved interagency coordination in many areas, but as it  recognized in its May 2002 national export strategy, it has not completed  implementing several of its early initiatives to coordinate export promotion  programs aimed at better delivery of federal export services. The TPCC has  improved the delivery of export services by collocating export finance  services and establishing a network to assist U.S. businesses in addressing  barriers to trade. However, the TPCC did not complete its efforts to clarify  and make more readily available the numerous resources available to  exporters, in part because the TPCC did not consistently meet at the  Cabinet level to address these issues. In October 2001, the committee  reconvened at the cabinet level to readdress these issues, and it is currently  working to alleviate exporters confusion over the export process by (1)  instituting cross-agency staff training, (2) improving the dissemination of  trade information, and (3) improving outreach to new-to-export businesses.  Overall, we found that, for overseas export promotion activities in the  countries we visited, FCS staff serve as focal points in coordinating other  agency efforts.
subsections: section_title: Progress Made
paragraphs: With interagency cooperation, the TPCC achieved some early successes in  coordinating member agencies’ export promotion activities, as the  following examples show.
The TPCC recommended the establishment of an “advocacy  coordinating network” to develop a system of high-level government  advocacy in coordination with the private sector, for U.S. firms seeking  contracts from other governments. Created in 1993, this advocacy  center is a unit within Commerce and functions as a coordinated,  interagency effort.
The TPCC recommended that the agencies work together to create  “one-stop shops” so that exporters could receive assistance from several  agencies in one location. In 1994, the TPCC established a network of  U.S. Export Assistance Centers that grew to 19 Centers by 1999.  The  Centers are staffed by Commerce, the SBA and, in some cases, the  Eximbank to provide centralized export assistance.
The TPCC recommended that the Eximbank and SBA streamline their  pre-export Working Capital programs to make them more customer  focused and to take advantage of the agencies’ comparative strengths.  In 1994, the agencies began the process of sharing the coverage of their  similar loan programs and established a network of private sector  lenders to support small businesses.
The TPCC recommended that the export promotion agencies create a  country commercial plan that combined disparate TPCC agency  documents into one coordinated country report on commercial  activities. This led to the creation of “country commercial guides” for  prospective exporters or investors to use.
More recently, in 1998, the TPCC developed a coordinated response to  the Asian financial crisis, in response to direction from executive branch  officials.
The TPCC has not completed its original efforts to streamline the  numerous federal export services available to exporters, in part, because  the TPCC did not consistently meet at the cabinet level to address these  issues. From June 1999 through October 2001, the TPCC did not meet at the  cabinet level and, as a result, the TPCC was less active in coordinating  agency efforts. During this period some staff-level working groups  continued to address trade promotion issues and work on publishing the  national export strategy, but they were not able to complete work  implementing the earlier recommendations. Key issues continuing to need  resolution are:  TPCC identified the need to have cross-agency training so that agency  staffs would be knowledgeable enough about the export promotion  programs of the other agencies to explain them to potential exporters.  In 1999, the TPCC requested but did not receive funding from OMB for  such training at overseas posts. At the five overseas posts that we  visited, several of the staff that are responsible for providing U.S. firms  with information on exporting said that they are not fully familiar with  other agencies’ programs. Most FCS domestic and overseas staff  acknowledge the need for training to better understand the needs of  exporters, and FCS is attempting to institute an exchange program to  address this issue. However, cross-agency training has not been  systematically conducted. The national export strategy for 2002,  released in May 2002, renews the 1993 call to improve cross-training  among TPCC agencies in order to provide better service for U.S.  exporters.
The TPCC has recognized that improvements were needed in the  accuracy, acquisition, and dissemination of information available to  exporters. To provide this information, 19 TPCC agencies created  Internet Web sites that identify trade assistance programs and in some  cases export leads. However, according to the TPCC survey and focus  groups, businesses have found these sites to be too numerous, difficult,  and time-consuming to navigate. (See app. III for descriptions of  programs that provide trade leads.) Moreover, some of the overseas FCS  staff told us that some U.S. firms get frustrated when directed to another  agency for assistance. The TPCC’s 2002 national export strategy  addresses this difficulty, stating that a new TPCC task force is working  to simplify and consolidate the various trade information Web sites.
The TPCC was also unable to coordinate training programs for new-to- export firms. Our 2001 report noted that the TPCC was unaware of  duplicative, new-to-export training programs that the U.S. Export  Assistance Centers provided. One of these programs was a new  initiative within the Department of Commerce that had not been  specifically coordinated with the TPCC.
section_title: Recent TPCC Initiatives
paragraphs: In October 2001 the TPCC met and recognized the need to continue work  on problems identified earlier, as well as to examine some new issues. The  TPCC conducted a survey of U.S. businesses and found that the export  process was still confusing to potential exporters. To address these issues,  the TPCC made recommendations in its 2002 strategy, several of which  were similar to those made in the TPCC’s earlier strategies.
section_title: Agency Coordination Was Good at Overseas Posts
paragraphs: TPCC agencies generally coordinated their overseas export promotion  activities through contacts with the FCS. In the countries we visited, FCS  staff served as focal points to coordinate various agencies’ day-to-day  export activities. In addition to supporting Commerce programs, they  worked in support of other U.S. trade agencies, such as TDA, the  Eximbank, and OPIC, as well as visiting trade missions from various states  and visitors from other U.S. agencies. Typical FCS assistance provided to  U.S. government or business visitors included preparing country  commercial briefings, researching market sectors, scheduling and  attending appointments, arranging for transportation and translation  services, and generally assisting in representing U.S. trade interests  overseas. Overseas U.S. business representatives with whom we spoke  cited numerous ways in which FCS and other embassy staff worked  together to overcome the many foreign bureaucratic obstacles they  encountered in trying to export. In the countries we visited, for example,  FCS staff did the following:  FCS staff in Poland coordinated eight visits by TDA officials, three visits  by Department of Commerce officials, a visit by Eximbank officials, one  trade association, two state delegations, and a presidential visit in 2001.  FCS staff in Turkey coordinated the attendance at a security summit of  the President and the secretaries of State and Energy in fiscal year 2000.
FCS staff in Turkey prepared background information on the impact of  proposed Turkish policy on U.S.-developed energy projects for the  administration and edited a paper on telecommunication issues for  Commerce’s Market Access and Compliance Division. They also  assisted TDA and its contractors in arranging meetings with high-level  Turkish officials, providing them with information on potential projects.
Czech Republic FCS staff arranged a trade event in Prague for the  Governor of Pennsylvania that included 36 U.S. firms in 2001.
While we found that the various agencies’ overseas staffs would benefit  from cross-agency training to understand various agencies’ programs, we  also found that these agencies collaborated on issues that affected  exporters, such as market entry, regulation changes, and contract bidding.  As members of the ambassadors’ interagency country teams, commercial  officers shared information about U.S. export activities and became aware  of broader political and economic concerns affecting the export  environment. In the countries that we visited, these teams met at least  weekly. FCS staff, embassy economic officers, agricultural attaches, and  embassy political/military officers were aware of each other’s in-country  activities and felt that they worked well together.
section_title: Agencies Seek to Increase Small- and Medium-sized Enterprises’ Export Participation
paragraphs: The Department of Commerce, SBA, Eximbank, TDA, OPIC, and USAID  have programs that assist small- and medium-sized enterprises (SME).  According to the TPCC, SMEs may have limited resources to address the  complex issues associated with exporting, and U.S. government agencies  can help fill this information gap. These U.S. government agencies can  provide market information, guarantee export loans, identify business  opportunities, fund risk and credit insurance, and advocate on behalf of  U.S. firms.
Commerce and SBA focus on providing help to SMEs as their core  business. Commerce data show that for the five countries we visited, SMEs  represented almost 91 percent of the firms that foreign posts helped during  fiscal year 2001. Commerce’s Advocacy Center coordinates the actions of  TPCC agencies to work on behalf of U.S. firms dealing with foreign  governments, complex bidding rules, and regulatory regimes. From  November 1993 through fiscal year 2002, the Advocacy Center reported  685 successes, of which 173 (25 percent) involved SMEs. The Advocacy  Center valued the contracts won by SMEs at $3.9 billion (about 3 percent).
SBA provides credit and capital assistance, procurement and government  contracting help, and entrepreneurial development assistance to small  business exporters. To promote small business exports, the SBA offers  three export loan guarantee programs: the Export Working Capital  Program, the International Trade Program, and the Export Express Program. According to SBA, in fiscal year 2001 it guaranteed 425 export  loans worth an estimated $167 million, or about 1.8 percent of the total loan  guarantees of $9.1 billion provided by the agency.
The Eximbank provides SMEs with pre-export financing from commercial  lenders through its Export Working Capital Program. According to the  Eximbank, almost 18 percent of the value of its fiscal year 2001 loan  authorizations (more than $1.6 billion) went to SMEs, and almost 80  percent of its overall number of loans in fiscal year 2001 loans benefited  SMEs. Based on Eximbank data, the value of fiscal year 2001 Export  Working Capital loans that benefited SMEs averaged about $1.5 million.  The Eximbank also issued 1,723 export credit insurance policies to small  businesses in fiscal year 2001. These represented 98 percent of Eximbank  insurance policies and totaled more than $900 million.
As for TDA, all consultant contracts for desk studies, definitional missions,  and feasibility studies are with either small- or medium-sized enterprises.  TDA reported that small- and medium-sized business participation in its  programs for fiscal year 2000 amounted to 48 percent of total TDA  obligations.
OPIC programs also involved small business in 40 percent of its fiscal year  2000 programs. According to OPIC, it funded 16 projects involving SMEs in  fiscal year 2000 totaling $265 million.
USAID’s technology transfer programs—the Global Technology Network  and the Eastern Europe Partnership for Environmentally Sustainable  Economies (EcoLinks)—also have SME participation. Both programs  provide trade leads for SMEs, and EcoLinks provides travel and project  grants. (See app. III for a description of agencies’ various export promotion  programs.)
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Our review of the TPCC’s national export strategies indicated that the  strategies have not provided clear and consistent guidance over federal  agencies export promotion programs and that some of the problems  identified remain to be fixed. The TPCC has not used its annual export  strategies to identify specific agencies’ goals and responsibilities or to  examine how agencies’ resources are aligned, and it is not clear whether  export promotion resources are being used most productively. In its 2002  strategy, the recently energized TPCC identified several key areas for  improved agency coordination, some of which address problems initially  recognized in the TPCC’s 1993 strategy, including the need for (1) cross  training agency personnel so they are knowledgeable about other agency  programs, (2) improving exporters’ access to timely and accurate trade  information, and (3) expanding outreach and trade education for new-to- export firms. Without identification in the national export strategy of how  these renewed initiatives are to be accomplished, it is not clear how the  TPCC will overcome the problems experienced previously.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To assist federal agencies in making the best use of federal export  promotion resources and to assist U.S. exporters, we recommend that the  Chairman of the TPCC ensure that its national export strategies  consistently (1) identify agencies’ specific goals within the strategies’ broad  priorities, (2) identify how agencies’ resources are allocated in support of  their specific goals, and (3) analyze progress made in addressing the  recommendations in the committee’s prior annual strategies.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We received written comments on our draft report from the TPCC  Secretariat, which incorporated TPCC member agencies’ input (see app.  VI). The TPCC agreed with the report’s call for the TPCC to provide clear  and consistent strategic guidance from year to year, to identify agency- specific goals and responsibilities, and to report regularly on progress  made toward achieving recommendations. The TPCC noted that it is  committed to providing periodic reports to Congress on the  implementation of its recommendations, including specific agency goals  and associated responsibilities. It expects that the first of such progress  reports will be sent in October to the Senate Banking Committee and the  House International Relations Committee.
The TPCC noted that its 2002 National Export Strategy was based on a  survey of exporters and potential exporters and that regular direct input  from such TPCC customers now provides continuity and consistency in the  TPCC’s strategic approach. It stated that changes in strategic approach will  now be made in response to the changing needs of exporters. We agree that  exporter needs should help define the national export strategy. We also  believe that the TPCC needs to provide leadership to the various federal  agencies involved in export promotion so that the government strategy  better clarifies goals, agency responsibilities, and associated resource  allocations.
The TPCC noted that our draft report was misleading in its reference to the  TPCC’s not completing its implementation of earlier TPCC  recommendations. It stated that it had made progress in establishing  interagency services such as the Trade Information Center and the  Export.gov Web site and that it did not expect its work ever to be  completed. It also noted that training is another area where agencies are  constantly striving to innovate and improve. We believe these areas are  important, and we agree that continuous improvement is desirable. We  commend the TPCC for its recently renewed efforts to implement earlier  TPCC recommendations.
The TPCC also noted that the report’s attention to the “big emerging  markets” detracted from the report’s otherwise valid findings on  consistency and follow-up. According to the TPCC, the world economy, as  well as the economies in these countries, has changed markedly since the  TPCC’s 1994 report. Our purpose in selecting the October 1997 National  Export Strategy’s Central and East European regional strategy for closer  review was to examine how the various export promotion agencies  coordinated their efforts in implementing a TPCC strategy over a 5-year  period—not to review the actual results of export activities. Many of the  export agencies were represented in this region, including USAID.  In  addition, the region included two special offices designed to facilitate  interagency coordination—the Caspian Finance Center in Turkey and the  Southeastern Europe Initiative office in Croatia.
The Department of Commerce also provided written technical comments,  which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.
As you requested, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30  days from its issue date.  At that time, we will send copies of this report to  the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and  Entrepreneurship and the Ranking Minority Member of the House  Committee on Small Business and interested congressional committees.  We are also sending copies to the Chairman of the TPCC. We will also make  copies available to others on request. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www/gao/gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please call me  at (202) 512-4128. Key contributors to this assignment were Virginia  Hughes, Patricia Martin, Judith Knepper, Victoria Lin, Ernie E. Jackson, and  Rona Mendelsohn.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business,  as well as the Chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, asked  us to determine if the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee’s (TPCC)  strategies have helped to focus U.S. export promotion efforts. Specifically,  we assessed (1) whether the committee’s strategy has established export  priorities, assessed progress made toward achieving the strategy’s  priorities, and proposed an alignment of federal resources in support of  these priorities; and (2) whether the committee has made progress in  coordinating the various agencies’ export promotion programs. In addition,  we also identified how the various agencies are including small- and  medium-sized businesses in their export promotion programs.
To determine if the committee had established export priorities and  whether federal resources had been aligned in support of these priorities,  we analyzed the TPCC’s and federal agencies’ responsibilities under the  Export Enhancement Act of 1992 and the Export Enhancement Act of 1999.  We also obtained and analyzed the TPCC’s national export strategies for  1993 through 2002 to see if, in an effort to increase exports, the committee  targeted specific markets, identified agencies’ export goals, and reported  on the progress made by agencies in implementing the committee’s  strategy. We also spoke with TPCC member agency officials from the  Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and State; the U.S. Export-Import  Bank; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; the Small Business  Administration; the U.S. Agency for International Development; and the  U.S. Trade and Development Agency; about the usefulness of the strategy  in defining their programs. To determine if the TPCC member agencies  aligned their resources to support the strategy, we obtained and analyzed,  but did not verify the budget and staffing data reported (1) in the national  export strategies and (2) by the Department of Commerce’s International  Trade Administration and the Department of Agriculture’s Foreign  Agricultural Service, the two major agencies with overseas staffs. We  obtained documentation from officials of these agencies in both domestic  and overseas offices regarding the staffing process and resource  allocations. We also obtained and reviewed interagency memorandums as  well as the minutes of TPCC’s meetings and met with TPCC officials and  member agency representatives. To identify other factors affecting  agencies’ resource allocations, we obtained and reviewed documents on  congressional or administration directives, analyzed their impact on  overseas staffing, and spoke with agency officials responsible for staffing  about the impact of these initiatives on resource allocations. In addition,  we analyzed the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture’s staffing  patterns in the mature Group of six (G-6) markets and compared them with  TPCC targeted big emerging markets.
To determine if the TPCC was evaluating member-agencies’ progress in  implementing the broad priorities identified in the national export  strategies, we obtained and analyzed member agency Government and  Performance Results Act submissions, analyzed the performance sections  of the national export strategies from fiscal years 1993 and 2002, and  discussed with TPCC and various member agency officials the reasons that  the TPCC did not evaluate agency performance.
To determine how the committee has coordinated the various agencies’  export promotion programs, we examined agency trade promotion events,  obtained and analyzed TPCC interagency minutes and other  correspondence, and discussed with TPCC officials and member agency  representatives how issues raised within the committee were resolved. We  conducted separate interviews on these matters with key officials from the  Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and State; the U.S. Export-Import  Bank; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; the Small Business  Administration; the U.S. Agency for International Development; the U.S.  Trade and Development Agency; and the U.S. Trade Representative in  Washington, D.C.
To determine how overseas agencies coordinated their efforts to  implement the strategy, we selected five countries in Central and Eastern  Europe identified in the TPCC’s 1997 strategy as a region targeted for  growth. The locations represent markets at various stages of maturity. We  visited Warsaw, Poland; and Ankara and Istanbul, Turkey— two of the  designated big emerging markets; Zagreb, Croatia— a country in the early  stages of making a transition to a market economy; and Prague, Czech  Republic, a country in a more advanced transitional phase. To contrast the  U.S. support provided exporters in a mature market, we also visited Berlin,  Germany, a country with the world’s seventh largest industrial market  economy and the United States’ third largest trading partner. We asked for  copies of the strategy and discussed it with agency officials responsible for  export promotion. We obtained documents from and interviewed officials  representing the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and  State; the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; the U.S. Agency for  International Development; and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.  The documents we obtained included mission and commercial strategic  plans, correspondence between agencies, quarterly reports, e-mails, and  computerized trade lead data showing interagency interactions.
To determine whether U.S. agencies are including small- and medium-sized  businesses in their export promotion programs, we obtained documents  from the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and State; the Small  Business Administration, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; the  U.S. Agency for International Development; the U.S. Trade and  Development Agency, and the Eximbank. The documents we obtained  included agency annual reports, reports to Congress, agency performance  plans, and data provided by these agencies outlining the nature and degree  of small- and medium-sized enterprises participation in their programs. We  also obtained documents identifying the use of databases and programs by  small- and medium-sized businesses. We did not verify the data. We also  obtained and discussed with key officials of the U.S. Agency for  International Development reports on small business participation in its  Global Technology Network and EcoLinks programs. Because we focused  primarily on export promotion programs related to commercial exports,  we did not examine in detail small business participation in Agriculture  programs. In addition, we interviewed key agency officials representing  Commerce, the Eximbank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation,  and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency at headquarters and at posts  in the five countries in Central and Eastern Europe about the participation  in agency programs by small- and medium-sized businesses.
We performed our work from September 2001 through May 2002 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: U.S. Agencies’ Trade Promotion Services
paragraphs: Each of the nine major trade promotion agencies offers specific services  that, together with other agencies, provide the exporter with help  throughout the export process. As shown in table 1, more than one agency  may be active in providing these general types of export services. Federal  agencies provide export training for potential new exporters; information  on promising markets and export processes, as well as specific trade leads;  opportunities to participate in trade events that match buyers and sellers;  export finance and insurance for exports and investments in risky markets;  and government-to-government advocacy on behalf of specific companies  encountering trade barriers or bidding (as the sole U.S. bidder) on foreign  government procurements. The Department of Commerce’s Foreign  Commercial Service (FCS) offices serve as focal points for other export  agencies operating overseas.
subsections: section_title: Export Training
paragraphs: Both Commerce and SBA assist potential exporters with export training  classes and one-on-one export counseling. Commerce and SBA staff at the  19 U.S. Export Assistance Centers sponsor export training, often assisted  by other agencies, like the Export-Import Bank (Eximbank), as well as  state and private sector trade organizations. The training introduces  potential exporters to general information about foreign markets, assists in  the development of sound market plans, explains possible funding sources, and sometimes provides opportunities to participate in agency-led trade  missions. The following example illustrates such training.
section_title: Developing Market Information
paragraphs: The departments of Commerce and Agriculture, TDA, and USAID are the  major providers of trade information and specific trade leads. Commerce  provides industry analysis and policy support at headquarters, as well as  support in foreign markets through its Foreign Commercial Service (FCS)  and Trade Development unit. FCS staff routinely provide at no charge  general research services, such as industry sector analyses and specific  market insights to customers. They also provide a range of fee-for-service  products, including customized (flexible) market research, international  company profiles, and Commerce’s Gold Key service, which matches  qualified buyers with U.S. firms. Trade Development staff provide market  reports and seminars and regular one-on-one market counseling, and they  manage the Trade Information Center’s 1-800-USATRADE hotline and Web- based information service.
A small U.S. manufacturer of cooling and heating system parts used  Commerce’s Gold Key service to meet with potential buyers in Poland.  Following the initial sale, a U.S. Export Assistance Center continued to  provide the firm additional trade leads generated through the market  research produced by FCS staff in Poland. The firm went on to make  additional sales in Poland.
Exporters can also find a broad range of trade-related information at the  federal government’s Export.gov Web site in addition to two Commerce   Web sites. Subscription-based STAT-USA provides a broad range of  information, including trade leads, market information, as well as access to  the National Trade Data Bank. The annual fee for this service is $175, with  quarterly subscriptions also available. Commerce’s BUYUSA program  matches U.S. sellers with foreign buyers and provides U.S. firms the option  of publishing on the site the firm’s electronic catalog of available products.  The basic service costs $400, with the enhanced catalog service ranging  between $1,075 and $2,000. Currently, about 3,400 U.S. and 19,000 foreign  firms are registered at BUYUSA. According to one Commerce official,  BUYUSA permits small businesses to gain low-cost access to prescreened  foreign buyers.
USAID funds two programs that seek to link U.S. small- and medium-sized  exporters with business opportunities in USAID-specific sectors. The  Global Technology Network (GTN) links U.S. agribusiness, environment  and energy, health, and information technology firms with opportunities  that support USAID development goals in Africa, Asia and the Near East,  Central and Southeast Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean. GTN automatically notifies (at no charge) registered U.S. firms of qualified  business opportunities. These business opportunities include direct  purchases, agent/distributor agreements, joint ventures, and franchise  agreements. According to USAID, the GTN program generated 44  transactions totaling about $10 million in fiscal year 2001, and for the first 6  months in fiscal year 2002, 38 transactions valued at $30.1 million.
USAID’s Eastern European Partnership for Environmentally Sustainable  Economies (EcoLinks) program addresses environmental issues in the  regions of Europe and Eurasia. The region is struggling to balance  economic and environmental concerns. EcoLinks is a form of technical  assistance that focuses on technology transfer by promoting partnerships  between businesses, municipalities, and associations within the region and  between the region and the United States. Its program focuses on three  interrelated sets of activities: (1) partnership grants, (2) technology  transfer and investment, and (3) an information technology initiative.  EcoLinks program grants fund (1) initial matchmaking meetings between  prospective partners and (2) project grants that test the viability of  potential environmental projects. According to USAID data, EcoLinks  generated four deals totaling $0.4 million in fiscal year 2001. An example of  an EcoLinks grant follows.
An EcoLinks grant helped rebuild a Croatian meat processing  wastewater treatment plant destroyed by war. A small U.S. water  management firm assisted plant managers in restoring the facility. The  new plan will reduce water consumption by 30 percent and has already  reduced the amount of waste produced in processing and cut the plant’s  operating costs by 20 percent.
TDA also provides market information to U.S. exporters and investors. It  provides TDA grants for feasibility studies, whose contractors are primarily  small- and medium-sized U.S. businesses. TDA also sponsors conferences  that familiarize foreign decision makers with U.S. goods and services, build  business relationships, and encourage and assist U.S. firms in exporting to  developing and middle-income countries. To illustrate:  A TDA contractor organized a “Building Infrastructure for Tourism  Development” conference in May 2002 in Istanbul, Turkey. The  conference focused on the Eurasian region and, according to the  meeting subcontractor, the conference drew approximately 300 people,  including about 50 U.S. firms and 75 to 100 foreign firms.
Like Commerce, the Department of Agriculture provides full range of  information and services to agricultural exporters, including market  information, trade leads, and other help, including a Web-based training  module, to agricultural exporters.
section_title: Trade Events
paragraphs: Trade events bring buyers and sellers together or provide them with  information (including but not limited to trade missions, trade fairs, catalog  shows, reverse trade missions, and seminars). Two units in Commerce’s  International Trade Administration—the U.S. and Foreign Commercial  Service and Trade Development—share responsibility in coordinating trade  events. Other federal agencies also organize trade events that focus on  specific sectors. For example, Agriculture sponsors trade missions for  agricultural products; Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and  USAID have sponsored events related to energy and the environmental  technology sectors; and the SBA organizes a few trade missions annually  for small businesses. Trade events are also sponsored by other federal  agencies, including Eximbank, TDA, the Departments of State and  Transportation, and states. For all of these other entities, Commerce  provides essential support in doing market research and arranging foreign  business community contacts for the associated trade events. Based on a  cursory review of world trade events data maintained by Commerce, we  found that Commerce sponsors the large majority of all trade events.
Of the four Central and Eastern European countries in which we did field  work (Croatia, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Turkey), Poland had the  most trade events (23) during fiscal years 1996 through 2000. In contrast,  Germany, a more mature European market, was the destination for 164  trade events during the same time period.
section_title: Trade Finance for Major Projects
paragraphs: Major infrastructure projects require years of negotiation with foreign  governments, are costly, and are risky because their returns are generated  from revenues from operations that can be affected by economic or  political turmoil. Three agencies, Eximbank, OPIC, and TDA, work on  separate aspects of trade finance in markets where commercial funding is  not readily available.
The Eximbank provides U.S. firms with financing and insurance for exports  in markets where commercial financing is limited or unavailable due to  risk. The Eximbank has an export working capital program that provides  loans for and guarantees lenders financing of pre-export production of  goods. It also provides project finance for exporters or project sponsors  that need financing for exports to large foreign infrastructure projects,  such as oil and gas refineries. Exporters’ goods must contain over 50  percent U.S. content.
OPIC is a self-sustaining agency that provides loans and guarantees to  investors in overseas developing markets. OPIC’s political risk insurance  and loans help U.S. businesses of all sizes invest and compete in developing  nations worldwide. Specifically, OPIC insures investments overseas against  a broad range of political risks, finances businesses overseas through loans  and loan guaranties, finances private investment funds that provide equity  to businesses overseas, and advocates in the interests of the American  business community overseas.
TDA provides planning assistance for foreign development projects that  might offer sales opportunities for U.S. exporters. TDA’s primary tool for  such projects, feasibility studies, evaluates the technical, legal, economic,  environmental, and financial aspects of a potential project. In developing  markets, for example, TDA approaches foreign governments or  municipalities considering privatizing national assets such as energy plants  or constructing an airport terminal and offers to have a small U.S. firm  study the feasibility of the project or to provide technical assistance such  as air controller training. If the foreign government or municipality agrees  to the project, it may use U.S. firms or equipment. If the market holds risk of repayment and commercial financing is scarce, OPIC may provide the  U.S. firm with loans or insurance, while the Eximbank may provide loans  or guarantees for the equipment used in the project. An example follows.
In 1997, the U.S. government supported building the Baku-Ceyhan oil  pipeline from Azerbaijan through Turkey to a Black Sea port and on to  lucrative markets in Western Europe. In 1998, TDA provided grant  money to assist the Turkish government with the legal and financial  negotiations of the deal. FCS staff in Turkey have continued to advocate  for U.S. companies bidding on the Turkish portion of the project, and  the Eximbank is now considering a guarantee covering U.S. goods and  services for part of the project.
section_title: Advocacy
paragraphs: Operating since November 1993, Commerce’s Advocacy Center assists U.S.  firms when they encounter difficulty in winning foreign government  procurements. The center coordinates the actions of the relevant U.S.  agencies in a specific procurement. Top-level U.S. government officials  work with their foreign counterparts to ensure a level playing field during  all phases of the procurement process, and the Advocacy Center  coordinates the timing of the actions, which may be official contacts via  letters, telephone calls, or personal visits by one or more high-level U.S.  official(s). Examples of problems that the center addresses include:  foreign firms’ pursuit of contracts using assistance from their home  governments to persuade foreign government officials to buy their  equipment or services;  unfair treatment by government decisionmakers, preventing firms from  having a chance to compete; and  bidding offers that may be tied up in bureaucratic red tape, resulting in  lost opportunities and providing an unfair advantage to a competitor.
In considering requests for assistance from a U.S. firm, the Advocacy  Center confirms that the international transaction is in the national  interest, that the U.S. content of the potential procurement is at least 50  percent, and that the firm is the only U.S. bidder. When more than one U.S.  firm is bidding on the procurement, U.S. officials will advocate with the  foreign government for U.S. participation but not for any one U.S. firm.
Advocacy Center officials advocate for both large and small U.S.  businesses, and a Commerce publication states that when large U.S. firms  win a procurement bid, their U.S. suppliers—often small- and medium- sized businesses—also benefit. For example, the Advocacy Center has  worked with the Boeing Corporation in its successful efforts to win  contracts in Cyprus, Morocco, and South Africa. According to Commerce,  Boeing has in excess of 500 suppliers covering all 50 states.
According to Commerce, the center re-committed itself in July 2002 to  expand its support of small and medium-sized businesses.  The efforts of  center managers with responsibility for these businesses will be  coordinated by a Small Business Advocate and Advisor to the Director.   The center has also launched a plan for extended outreach and will work to  define the target market to which advocacy services can be realistically and  effectively offered.
section_title: Budgets of Export Promotion Agencies in Constant 2001 Dollars (in Millions, Fiscal Years 1996 through 2001)
subsections: section_title: U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service HQ
paragraphs: (117) (126) (185) (183) (209) (206) (245)
U.S. Agency for International Development  Total Budget for Export Promotion Activities  (excluding OPIC and USAID programs)
section_title: FCS Overseas Staff by Country, Fiscal Years 1996 through 2001
paragraphs: #Offices #Staff#Offices #Staff#Offices #Staff#Offices #Staff#Offices #Staff#Offices 1 #Offices #Staff#Offices #Staff#Offices #Staff#Offices #Staff#Offices #Staff#Offices 1 #Offices #Staff#Offices #Staff#Offices #Staff#Offices #Staff#Offices #Staff#Offices Countries in Big Emerging Markets as defined in TPCC’s 1994 National Export Strategy.
section_title: FAS Overseas Staff by Country, Fiscal Years 1996 through 2001
paragraphs: Countries in Big Emerging Markets as defined in TPCC’s 1994 National Export Strategy.
section_title: Comments from the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to  support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve  the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American  people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and  policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help  Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s  commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,  integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs