TABLE 5-c.-Bilateral agreements authorized by title I, Public Law 480, as amended-Status of collections and program allocations on June 30, 1958 (agreements signed during the period Jan. 1-Dec. 31, 1957) 600 266 0 0 6,750 100 5, 422 197 99 Colombia. 13, 140 0 381 101 1,751 930 6, 008 46 7,413 0 236 Ecuador. 4, 100 0 10 2, 063 1,284 100 752 18 Finland. 1, 747 0 80 3,655 3,580 50 0 160 0 75 2 0 0 France. 70 0 4, 595 0 260 1,283 0 6 3, 052 66 0 Greece. 1,470 320 19,800 3, 322 5, 475 11,003 1,500 745 300 56 Iceland. 10, 900 0 2,900 2,785 0 1,789 841 1,000 1,678 154 6 771 150 Israel.. 0 0 41,000 10, 362 75 20, 066 10, 571 26 14, 238 0 Korea.. 10, 250 (1) (2) 18, 900 14,500 0 4,249 6, 150 151 1 3,500 0 0 Mexico. 28, 200 1,566 600 300 13, 128 13, 506 48 13,600 7,725 Pakistan. 1, 459 0 0 65, 400 0 900 43, 601 21, 799 33 2, 950 30, 800 Peru 16, 400 0 3,900 1,619 5,000 0 500 1, 105 1, 177 30 1,857 12, 700 0 Philippines. 264 0 30 10,300 1,802 80 7,031 1,466 14 5, 200 750 Poland.. 234 65,000 574 66, 938 22, 512 2,100 0 0 50 214 0 0 454 Thailand. 2,100 1,660 0 0 0 538 1,626 264 62, 313 1,050 200 2 68 0 0 0 380 (1) (2) NOTE.-Amounts are rounded to the nearest thousand and will not necessarily add to totals similarly rounded. TABLE 5-d.-Bilateral agreements authorized by title I, Public Law 480, as amended-Status of collections and program allocations on June 30, 1958 (agreements signed prior to Jan. 1, 1957, which generated local currency equivalent to more than U.S. $100,000 during the period January-June 1958) [In thousands of equivalent U.S. dollars] 1 Excess; deduct. NOTE.-Amounts are rounded to the nearest thousand and will not necessarily add to totals similarly rounded. Sales account TABLE 5-e. · Bilateral agreements authorized by title 1, Public Law 480, as amended Status of collections and program allocations on June 30, 1958 (agreements signed prior to Jan. 1, 1957, which generated local currency equivalent to less than U, S.$100,000 during the period January-June 1958 (dormant accounts)) [In thousands of equivalent U.S. dollars) 140 Austria. 28, 200 13, 622 11, 709 2,868 10 5, 375 0 Brazil. 6,971 0 2,000 200 11 33 41, 220 35, 949 3, 762 1,509 4 1, 147 955 0 Chile 1,998 0 0 1, 171 5,000 4, 425 483 92 2 170 186 30 Colombia. 170 10 10 16,900 14,516 1,368 1,016 6 1,016 410 66 0 Ecuador. (1) (2) 891 4,000 3, 110 316 575 14 575 238 77 0 Egypt. 0 19, 600 4,246 14, 921 434 2 13.600 750 26 545 Finland. 0 474 141 23.940 21, 602 455 1,883 8 France 9,630 250 205 17.747 2,050 1, 242 808 (2) 660 0 148 Germany. (3) 0 1,200 1,060 137 3 0 0 0 20 Greece. 20 20, 400 20, 100 300 (2) 28 0 16 0 Indonesia. 0 175 80 96, 700 3,588 83,548 9, 564 10 77,400 587 269 13 Iran. 2,708 12, 135 12, 400 7,370 5,045 1 15 Israel. 3,889 664 194 0 0 250 34 51, 640 38, 475 13, 167 12 500 0 414 3, 100 400 100 Japan. 8, 651 85,000 82,378 985 1,636 Pakistan. 16,900 11, 210 5, 690 0 2,500 0 0 87 Paraguay 3,000 2,756 141 103 3 103 100 41 Peru. 13, 530 9, 452 650 3,428 25 2, 609 315 191 31 Portugal. 7,100 5,027 2,068 5 0 300 1,645 0 Spain 15 104, 822 44, 759 55, 504 4, 559 4 55, 295 600 Taiwan 15,319 4, 200 0 1, 453 9,800 8, 174 1, 146 480 5 700 690 0 236 Thailand. 3,835 2,500 1, 223 776 501 20 1,000 97 5 0 Turkey. 61 52 61 United Kingdom. Yugoslavia. 0 0 0 15 0 123, 160 2, 217 118,447 2, 497 2 66, 667 0 2,000 0 31, 077 0 0 21, 199 NOTE.-Amounts are rounded to the nearest thousand and will not necessarily add to totals similarly rounded. Mrs. KELLY. In line with Mr. Bentley's questioning, why is the priority established that way? I should think the director would have the right to establish the priority in line with benefit to the United States, first, rather than the trade. I don't see why that is so tightly determined as you say in lines of priority, and why this use of counterpart funds would be at the very end of the priority list. Mr. HUGHES. Let me state it this way, Mrs. Kelly. The Treasury Department is the governmentwide manager of all foreign currencies that are owed to or owned by the United States. The problem arises when we project money for a building today, say an estimated million dollars, of which the majority of it would be in foreign currencies. It normally takes us a year, a year and a half, sometimes 2 years, to perfect the plans for a building. So if we ask the Treasury Department to reserve a currency because we are getting ready to build a building in a country, they are quite properly reluctant to reserve such currency when there is another Government activity which could use those currencies then and now. Mrs. KELLY. At that moment? Mr. HUGHES. At that moment, rather than reserve them for payments on a building which may be spread out over 3 or 4 years, especially with a depreciating currency or a very soft currency. It poses a considerable problem for the Treasury Department. That is why they are reluctant to reserve currencies for the buildings program when they can be used almost immediately for other Government activity. Mrs. KELLY. If I remember the hearings-correct me if I state this incorrectly-after the plans are agreed to on a building, you do not pay any part of that-you pay it in installments of a third, a third, a third. Mr. HUGHES. That is right. Mrs. KELLY. Do you pay anything on the downpayment? Mr. HUGHES. No. The contractor, very much like in the United States, starts to work and we make progress payments against the contract amount as the work is completed. It may be 10 percent at one point, 20 percent at another, and so on, and when the completion is certified we pay in full. Mrs. KELLY. You have to acquire the land? Mr. HUGHES. Yes. Mrs. KELLY. You pay for the land immediately? Mr. HUGHES. Yes. Mrs. KELLY. Then why isn't that paid for immediately out of the amount allocated in foreign currency? Mr. HUGHES. The land? Mrs. KELLY. Yes. Mr. HUGHES. We do. Mrs. KELLY. Right away you can use the foreign currency for the land payment? Mr. HUGHES. Yes. Mrs. KELLY. Is that always done? Mr. HUGHES. Yes. Mr. FARBSTEIN. That is, provided the foreign currencies that are presently located have not been used up by priorities; is that correct? Mr. HUGHES. That is correct. Mr. FARBSTEIN. If they have been used up by priorities, then we pay for the land in American currency. Mr. HUGHES. Not necessarily. We may be negotiating with a private owner; you may find he will accept some other currency other than the currency of that particular country, so you have an opportunity in this program to use a wide range of currencies. Mr. FARBSTEIN. You are able to enter into triangularization of currencies. Mr. HUGHES. Yes. Mr. FARBSTEIN. That is very interesting and very helpful. I can readily see it would facilitate the passage of the bill if the members could be convinced that we are not using hard, American currency for the purposes. Mr. HUGHES. In the acquisition of a site we seldom use anything other than foreign currency. Mrs. KELLY. Could you give us a breakdown percentage of that? I mean in a number of contracts in the past year, a certain amount of foreign currency was used to purchase the sites. Mr. HUGHES. I believe I can, Mrs. Kelly. Mrs. KELLY. If it is not too difficult. Mr. HUGHES. I shall be very happy to try. Mrs. KELLY. It would be helpful to state 50 percent was used in foreign currency Mr. HUGHES. As a percentage, for example, since 1952, in the total operation of this program, we have used about 70 percent of the total cost in foreign currencies and about 30 percent in dollars, including the administrative costs of this program. But I would be very happy to try to arrange a schedule that would be helpful to you, showing in say, a representative group of projects in the last few years, where you have acquired a site, let a contract for building, the percentage of it or the amounts that have been paid in dollars and in other currencies. Mrs. KELLY. I think that would be excellent to add right at this point. Mr. HUGHES. I would be very pleased to do that. |