When the Congress passed title II of the Export Enhancement Act of 1992, it was concerned that the existing federal export promotion programs lacked coordination and an overall strategy. Before 1992, a business desiring to export goods or services faced a bureaucratic labyrinth of federal and state agencies to get information on markets, financing, insurance, methods, and restrictions on exporting. In addition, a business might have noted that there were over a dozen federal agencies with more than 100 export promotion programs. To improve export services, the Congress mandated, in the 1992 act, that the TPCC develop a governmentwide strategic plan that establishes priorities for federal activities supporting U.S. exports, and propose an annual unified federal trade promotion budget that supports the plan. The Congress also directed the Commerce Department to set up centralized export assistance centers. In addition, the act specified that the TPCC, chaired by the Secretary of Commerce, would report annually to the Congress on the national export strategy and its implementation. The first TPCC strategy, issued in 1993, identified impediments to effective delivery of export promotion services and made 65 recommendations to improve export promotion programs. Specifically, the TPCC expected that development of a government strategy would be helped by devising performance measures as a means to reallocate resources and attain a unified budget; establishment of partnerships with the public and private sectors would be assisted by such actions as simplifying federal services, setting up “one-stop shops” for exporters, and streamlining the export working capital programs of the Eximbank and the SBA; and provision of export services for U.S. exporters similar to those received by foreign competitors would help U.S. companies compete on a “level playing field” abroad. The TPCC has subsequently issued four further National Export Strategy reports. In these reports, the TPCC continued to highlight its pursuit of the major themes that emphasized achieving efficient delivery of export services. The later strategies also focused on specific initiatives such as improving trade data, establishing an advocacy network, and eliminating barriers to fair competition such as bribery and corruption. Our past work has focused on several elements of the governmentwide strategy to improve the delivery of export promotion programs. We will highlight the results of our work concerning the three broad and continuing themes of the TPCC strategy and then outline some issues that may be raised in the context of the overall governmentwide strategy. In 1996, we examined the TPCC’s progress toward establishing a governmentwide strategy for promoting exports and toward devising an annual unified federal budget to promote exports that reflects these priorities. At that time, we reported that governmentwide export promotion priorities were being identified in terms of foreign markets, export programs, and export policies and that agencies were exercising flexibility in focusing their efforts. The centerpiece of the strategy was the identification of the “big emerging markets” as priority markets for U.S. goods and services. We also examined whether the TPCC had proposed to the President an annual unified budget, as required by the Export Enhancement Act, that would support the strategic plan and eliminate funding for any areas of overlap and duplication. As we have testified in the past, one of the indicators of whether the unified budget is working would be whether the budget changed the distribution of resources to the various priorities, programs, and agencies. We found that the TPCC had prepared and included in the National Export Strategy budget presentations that displayed each member agency’s historical and prospective export expenditures on export promotion, using tables showing spending from different perspectives. For example, the 1997 National Export Strategy displayed the distribution of federal spending by budget authority and across various trade promotion categories, such as providing information counseling and export services, combating foreign export subsidies, and providing government advocacy. We observed that this step had helped foster a better understanding of federal expenditures for export promotion. However, we emphasized that performance measures would be needed to provide a basis for the allocation of export promotion resources. According to TPCC officials, they recently reviewed TPCC agency strategic plans as a step toward ensuring that the budget priorities are fully aligned with the TPCC’s commercial policy goals. Another major thrust of the TPCC’s efforts was to improve the delivery of federal export promotion services by developing greater cooperation among federal, public, and private entities. One significant effort was the creation of a nationwide network of 19 “one-stop-shops,” called U.S. Export Assistance Centers. The TPCC sought to present exporters with a “seamless” delivery of services rather than a confusing network of federal programs with multiple domestic offices. Another initiative was to help small- and medium-sized businesses by increasing the availability of export working capital and making the Eximbank’s and the SBA’s export working capital programs and procedures more streamlined, consistent, and simple. This “harmonization” initiative was to address exporter and lender concerns about overlap and confusion over federal program parameters and procedures. In creating the nationwide network of one-stop shops, representatives of the Department of Commerce and the SBA—two federal agencies with extensive export promotion field networks—were combined and, in some cases, the Eximbank representatives were included as well. These export assistance centers were designed to (1) provide exporters with information on all U.S. government export promotion and export finance services, (2) assist exporters in identifying which federal programs may be of greatest assistance, and (3) help exporters make contact with those federal programs. We reviewed the implementation of the first four export assistance centers and reported to the Congress in July 1996 on both the benefits realized as well as the opportunities for improving their operations. In general, we found that staff and customers of the four centers we visited believed that colocating agency staff helped U.S. firms gain access to and become more knowledgeable about a broader range of federal export services. We also identified specific initiatives at the centers that demonstrated the potential benefits that can be derived through working more closely with federal and nonfederal partner organizations. In addition, we identified steps that were needed to improve the delivery of services. For example, we found that the export assistance centers’ Directors did not have (1) the ability to affect interagency cooperation and teamwork and (2) adequate authority over center expenditures and an export assistance centerwide accounting system that would enable them to accurately identify and allocate costs and better manage expenditures. Moreover, we found that the assistance centers did not have an integrated client tracking system. According to the TPCC, one of the greatest obstacles to increased U.S. exports faced by small- and medium-sized businesses is the lack of sufficient working capital—capital that is used to finance the manufacture or purchase of goods and services. Since the Eximbank and the SBA have programs designed to increase the availability of export working capital for businesses, the TPCC recommended that the Eximbank and the SBA harmonize their programs and procedures to make them more streamlined, consistent, and simple. In February 1997, we reported that the Eximbank and the SBA had made progress in harmonizing certain aspects of their respective programs, including the loan guarantee coverage, the application form, and initial loan application fee. We also noted that each agency had taken other steps to improve program delivery, such as providing staff with export financing training, conducting seminars that were attended by lenders, and developing partnerships with both the private and public sectors. These partnerships include programs in which (1) exporters can have working capital guarantees processed and approved by a network of private sector lenders located in various states and (2) federal resources are leveraged through coguarantee agreements with state agencies. In addition, we had identified eight states that provided export working capital guarantees for small businesses during fiscal year 1996. Although the Eximbank and SBA programs were still not fully standardized at the time our report was issued, the steps toward harmonization and other program initiatives had helped to simplify the lending process, increase the number and value of loans guaranteed, and expand the number of exporters and lenders who participate in the programs. Our past work has also highlighted another potential opportunity to develop partnerships with public and private sector entities by sharing investment risk. In 1993, the TPCC recommended raising OPIC’s project limits for loans, guarantees, or insurance to better meet the rising demand by U.S. firms to finance major capital projects overseas. The increase in OPIC insurance cover from $100 million to $200 million (as well as its project financing limits) and the private sector’s willingness to have greater involvement in some emerging markets had created opportunities for OPIC to further reduce the risk in its insurance program by sharing the risk with other private or public partners. In recent work, we identified three potential options for sharing project risks. For example, OPIC could, on a case-by-case basis, share the risk of losses by reinsuring or coinsuring projects with the private insurers and sharing project risk with investors. Under the reinsurance scenario, OPIC could insure part of its high- and medium-risk portfolio with private sector insurance companies at mutually acceptable rates. OPIC could also coinsure projects with private or other public insurers. A third option could involve sharing project risk with investors by offering less then the 20-year standard insurance cover, as is the practice with other public insurers. In commenting on our report, OPIC officials told us that while reinsurance, coinsurance, and greater risk-sharing may be good risk mitigation strategies, they cautioned that they should maintain flexibility about when to use them so that OPIC can continue meeting U.S. foreign policy objectives and the needs of the customers. According to the TPCC, the competition for major procurements by foreign countries is fierce. Major foreign competitor nations, which have subsidized export programs, have become increasingly aggressive in helping their firms expand exports. In particular, the TPCC noted that the availability and competitiveness of export financing often played a decisive role in the export success of U.S. companies.