Ed Royce: “I would just like to share that in the report the GAO determined that the Foreign Agricultural Service overstated the…”

“I would just like to share that in the report the GAO determined that the Foreign Agricultural Service overstated the program's economic input, used a faulty methodology, which is inconsistent with Office of Management and Budget cost benefit guidelines. The GAO also determined that the evidence contained within the relevant studies which estimate MAP's impact on specific markets is inconclusive. In fact, for every targeted market in which MAP funds demonstrated a positive effect, the studies found other target markets in which there was no discernible effect at all. So various studies commissioned by Congress, commissioned by the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee have determined the economic benefits of the MAP program to be overstated, to be inconclusive, and to be speculative. But even if one does believe the flawed studies used by the proponents, one has all the more reasons to support the amendment. Because if MAP works, then corporations and trade associations ought to be spending their own money on their advertising budgets. The taxpayers should not be spending it.”