13 



have suggested that now that the major negotiations are over, 

 there is going to be an opportunity to divert some staff from our 

 trade policy work into some other areas. I don't believe that. I be- 

 lieve we are going to have, if anything, increased workload there. 



Mr. Penny. It seems to me that in establishing your LATS strat- 

 egy, that prioritizing certain countries and certain disputes would 

 be a very effective use of your resources. We can't solve every prob- 

 lem, but I think we ought to be targeting the most important prob- 

 lems and the markets that represent the greatest opportunities and 

 focus our bilateral efforts in that direction. 



You mention as well some concerns about title I, Public Law 480. 

 You describe it as increasingly unattractive. Do you want to elabo- 

 rate on that? 



Mr. Goldthwait. I think one of our recent accomplishments in 

 title I is graduating a number of countries that have in effect got 

 to the point where they can finance their imports through other 

 programing that we can support, commercial programing. 



Mr. Penny. Is that going to be part of your strategic planning 

 effort as well, to specify those countries and identify them for com- 

 mercial sales? 



Mr. Goldthwait. Yes, very much so. In Egypt, perhaps the 

 prime example, what we have done is reallocated those resources 

 to program countries, many of the emerging democracies. And what 

 we have found is that while they very much welcome the support 

 of the program for a year or two, when they were absolutely des- 

 perate for any way of bringing commodities into their countries, as 

 they have begun to recover a little bit and as their economies have 

 begun to change a little bit, the pressure is off just a bit. 



And while title I should still be attractive to them, they don't un- 

 derstand the concessionality. They are bothered by the discrepancy 

 between purchasing at U.S. domestic prices and purchasing at 

 world market prices. And the cumbersome nature of the require- 

 ments of the program also discourage them. They can't make all of 

 the same choices they could make if they were making a purely 

 commercial purchase. 



Mr. Penny. Given these developments, should we consider 

 downsizing the title I allocation? 



Mr. Goldthwait. I wouldn't say necessarily downsizing. I think 

 perhaps, though, we can look at using the current title I resource 

 in some different ways. 



I don't have a lot of specifics that I can offer yet, but this is one 

 of the areas of concern we are looking into. 



Mr. Penny. I think we would like to help you look into it. We 

 have some ideas about those programs as well and while we will 

 not, at least I don't expect we will process legislation this year, we 

 are at least trying to get something on the table as we review this 

 program next year as part of the farm bill debate. 



Mr. Goldthwait. I have had the opportunity already to meet 

 with your staff on this, and we have exchanged some thoughts. I 

 look forward to that process continuing, because I think over the 

 next month or two, our own ideas may go a little further here. 



Mr. Penny. You see, as we look at basic farm policy, would there 

 be a relationship between the attractiveness of title I and other 

 programs, and a reduction in subsidized neighbors? I mean, what 



