The Foreign Service Journal, May 2009

M A Y 2 0 0 9 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 31 vere difficulties just keeping up with what it is already asked to do. New Mandates Mean New Resource Demands The other rub is twofold — the statutory mandate and money. The agency’s authorizing legislation (7 U.S. Code 5692) says the administrator of FAS is “authorized to exercise such functions and perform such duties related to foreign agriculture ... as may be re- quired by law or prescribed by the Secretary of Agricul- ture.” In the next section of the code (5693), Congress prescribes four functions for FAS: information-gathering, market development and technical assistance, plus opera- tion of programs authorized under various export promo- tion authorities. However, in accordance with the intent of Congress since 1954, as expressed in both appropriations and report language, all these activities are limited to creating or ex- panding opportunities for U.S. agricultural exports. (Oddly, trade policy and market-access duties carried out since 1934 are not mentioned in the statute, though congres- sional staffers have made clear to FAS’s leadership that they are top priorities.) This creates problems for an agency being told to shift away frompure export promotion, its mandate since Secre- tary Ezra Taft Benson swept away the old FAS a half-century ago. Aside from the predictable reluctance of dyed-in-the- wool marketers to accept a new philosophy, FAS does not yet enjoy full support for a change in its responsibilities. Congress may well balk at the request to appropriate funds for activities related to national security, global climate change and global food security. Thus, although Sec. Vil- sack has the authority to direct FAS to carry out new mis- sions as long as they relate to foreign agriculture, the funding will not be there if Congress does not agree. When this is coupled with the fact that the Foreign Agri- cultural Service is already understaffed by 200 full-time equivalents (22 percent of its authorized strength), is now experiencing its third hiring freeze since the mid-1990s, is cutting three more overseas officer slots, was forced this year to curtail all overseas travel by headquarters staff, and began the first bureaucratic steps needed to implement agencywide furloughs this fiscal year, one rapidly concludes that FAS is at a crossroads. Its headquarters is already grossly understaffed, and if the overseas offices are cut to the bone in order to cover costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, we won’t have the muscle to execute any new mandates coming our way. Is it 1934 all over again? We can only hope so. The Foreign Agricul- tural Service emerged from the 1930s with broader recognition of its contri- butions to the nation’s economic pros- perity and deeper appreciation of its additional roles in diplomacy and security affairs. The late 20th-century FAS was forged duringWorldWar II, challenged by the need to promote prosperity and international consensus during the ColdWar, and now confronts the need to adapt to a new set of demands. Perhaps the 21st-century Foreign Agricultural Service will be reforged by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, by the need to restore prosperity, and by the need to confront cli- mate change and global food security. We’ve done it be- fore. And we can do it again — if given the chance. ■ F O C U S FAS does not yet enjoy the full support of Congress for a change in its responsibilities.