Miss BYERLEIN. You mean primarily in Ghana? Miss BYERLEIN. I mean you are not concerned Senator GRUENING. You are dealing with Ghana primarily? Senator GRUENING. Yes. Well, then we would want it only in Ghana. Miss BYERLEIN. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator GRUENING. Does that conclude your testimony? Miss BYERLEIN. Yes, sir. Senator GRUENING. You have not been there yourself in Ghana, have you? Miss BYERLEIN. No, I have not. Senator GRUENING. You have secured this information in what way? Miss BYERLEIN. Well, I am a friend of the doctor's, as I pointed out, since 1946. When he came home last June I visited with him on several occasions, and he proposed that I write a book about the situations in Ghana-not about the doctor, but about situations there. There have been some indications in our own daily press that the head of Ghana, Nkrumah, is antagonistic to any foreign help. Hewell Senator GRUENING. Do you know why? Miss BYERLEIN. Yes, sir, I believe, in my opinion Senator GRUENING. Yes. Miss BYERLEIN. This is my own opinion: He is a demagogue. Senator GRUENING. But he is the head of the government, and we have to deal with him, do we not? Miss BYERLEIN. But his policy is far from Christian. He is a-he calls himself very openly a Christian Marxist. Senator GRUENING. A Christian what? Miss BYERLEIN. Marxist. Senator GRUENING. Marxist? Miss BYERLEIN. And we know the two are really incompatible. Senator GRUENING. Well, do you think that he is opposed to this medical program which is so obviously favorable to his people? Miss BYERLEIN. Oh, no; I think what he could get for the people of Ghana he would be very happy to take. Senator GRUENING. Well, is that not aid of a kind-foreign aid? Miss BYERLEIN. Well, I would personally recommend that this be allocated not through the Government of Ghana. In the first place, it would not be, because it is French Equatorial Africa. But if these people at any time become hostile to us, then we certainly do not want to be continuing to give them aid. Senator GRUENING. Do you think that the people have to suffer the sins of their Government?" Miss BYERLEIN. Well, the people that really Senator GRUENING. That would not apply only to Ghana; that might apply to all countries on earth. Miss BYERLEIN. People suffer for the men they elect. Senator GRUENING. The errors of the people who are in charge? Miss BYERLEIN. It is unfortunate that we have that in this country. Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much. Miss BYERLEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Senator GRUENING. Is there anyone from the State Department here? Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir, there is. Senator GRUENING. Would you be kind enough to come forward, and will you please state your name for the record? Mr. MURPHY. Francis T. Murphy, of the State Department. Senator GRUENING. I was wondering if it would be possible for the State Department to make an inquiry for the benefit of the committee showing what the reception would be in Ghana, which has just become an independent nation, if this bill is passed; whether there would be proper recipients for the surplus property there; whether it would be usefully used or whether it would go into some channels for which it was not intended. That is one of the risks we always take, especially if you have new governments of whose stability and integrity we cannot be assured. Certainly the case for this kind of help has been demonstrated. I think it is very clear. We have surplus property to go to these infant nations that need almost everything and are particularly lacking in the proper health facilities and medical care. But I think we want to be assured that if that property does go there, it would not be appropriated by some individuals who are not entitled to it. And I wonder whether the State Department would also inquire, following my questions to Miss Byerlein, why it is that the Government of Ghana cannot continue to pay this very modest amount, $3,500 a year, to a dedicated medical missionary who apparently is doing such tremendous work? If it cannot do so, we would like to know it and know the reasons why. Do you think that would be possible, Mr. Murphy, to get this information or at least to make the inquiry? Mr. MURPHY. Sir, we will be glad to look into that for you. We will note the questions on the transcript and do our best to provide the answers. (The information requested follows:) Hon. J. L. MCCLELLAN, Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the hearing on donable property in relation to S. 2725 and S. 2732 which took place on June 1, 1960, Senator Gruening asked the representative of this Department to provide him with certain information about (1) the situation in Ghana, and (2) the Algerian refugees in Tunisia and Morocco. It is a pleasure to be able to provide Senator Gruening with the following information. Senator Gruening's questions about Ghana appear on pages 22 and 23 of volume 1 of the report of proceedings. This Department has no reason to doubt that there will be proper recipients in Ghana for the property in question or that it would be put to proper use in that country. Our Government has concluded a number of agreements with the Government of Ghana which have involved some aspects of assistance, e.g., technical assistance under the auspices of the International Cooperation Administration, surplus commodity sales pursuant to Public Law 480, and an investment guarantee agreement. These arrangements and agreements have been scrupulously honored by the Government of Ghana. In the 3 years since that Government achieved its independence we have had no occasion to question the good faith of the Government of Ghana in fulfilling its international obligations nor do we know of any reports of unauthorized diversion of U.S. assistance. The Government of Ghana has up to now established a record of considerable political and economic stability. Its financial affairs have been responsibly managed, and it has demonstrated particular respect for the rights of private foreign investors. As a result of testimony by one of the witnesses to the effect that a salary of $3,500 per year which the British authorities had paid a doctor working in Ghana was discontinued by the Government of Ghana, Senator Gruening requested information on this point. The testimony of this witness is the only information available to the Department about this matter. It is our view that the witness' statement should not be construed as an indication that the Government of Ghana is unwilling or unable to pay the doctor for services rendered. Since the Government of Ghana apparently now reimburses the doctor on the basis of individual cases treated, it is likely that there has simply been a change in the method of compensating the doctor. In other words, instead of paying the doctor an annual lump-sum fee, as was apparently the system of the former Gold Coast Government, it appears that the Government of Ghana has decided to reimburse him on a case-by-case basis. There is nothing in the testimony of the witness to sustain a conclusion that the doctor is now receiving less financial support from the Government of Ghana than he did from the British authorities. The questions Senator Gruening asked about the Algerian refugees in Tunisia and Morocco appear on pages 41 and 42 of volume 1 of the report of proceedings. We understand that the Algerian refugees wish to go back to Algeria when the Algerian question has been settled and the fighting has stopped. They hope to reestablish their homes, which in many cases have been destroyed, and to resume their lives in Algeria. These refugees are not regarded as permanent exiles because they would like to return to their native country. There is, at present, no basis on which to perdict when they will be able to do so. Our information indicates that there are at least 125,000 Algerian refugees in Morocco and not less than 160,000 in Tunisia. This population consists mainly of women, children, and old men. I trust the foregoing details will meet your requirements. However, if you wish any further assistance or information, please do not hesitate to call upon us. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM B. MACOMBER, Jr., Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much. Were you going to testify also? Mr. MURPHY. We had not intended to, Senator. Our views are reflected in the letter which I believe was turned over to Mr. Shriver by the ICA representative this morning. We join in that letter.3 Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. Our next witness is Mr. A. W. Patterson, of the American Friends Service Committee, Philadelphia, Pa. Will you come forward, please? you have some associates with you? Do Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir. I have Mr. G. E. Blackford of Church World Service and Mr. Edward Kinney of the Catholic Relief Services, National Catholic Welfare Conference. Senator GRUENING. Why do you not all come forward and sit side by side? Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Blackford is going to testify first. Mr. BLACKFORD. Thank you. Senator GRUENING. Would you give your name and connection for the record, please? 3 See letter to Senator McClellan dated June 1, 1960, p. 164. STATEMENT OF GILBERT E. BLACKFORD, CHURCH WORLD SERVICE, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, NEW YORK, N.Y. Mr. BLACKFORD. Senator, my name is Gilbert E. Blackford. I am director of public relations and special activities for Church World Service, the Protestant interdenominational agency through which cooperative relief work is carried on in the interest of our constituent communions in the various areas of human need throughout the world. The two bills which are being considered here today-it is really one bill; I am associating Senator Humphrey's bill with it-except for slight but important variations in language and provisions-are basically identical in purpose and motivation. They seek to make excess U.S. property located in foreign areas more readily available for health and/or educational activities in such areas. As Senator Hart said, in introducing S. 2732 last September for himself and Mr. Bartlett, there is— no finer purpose to which to put the oversea portion of this mounting surplus than to make it available for educational and medical work overseas. At little *** cost to the taxpayer, appreciable assistance could be given to step up humanitarian and educational work in other countries. Church World Service is in wholehearted accord with this sentiment and with the parallel sentiment which led Senator Humphrey to introduce S. 2725 and Church World Service is happy to be in support of these bills, with some specific reservations. May I call the attention of the committee to two sentences in the proposed measures. They are, in S. 2725 (Mr. Humphrey's bill), the sentence beginning on page 2, line 23: The head of such agency designated by the President may impose, and make appropriate provision for the enforcement of terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions on the use of property donated under this section and the sentence in S. 2732 (the bill introduced by Senator Hart for himself and Senator Bartlett), the sentence beginning on page 2, line 21: Such property shall be allocated, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President or his designee, on the basis of needs and utilization, for transfer to nonprofit or tax-supported medical institutions, hospitals, clinics, health centers, schools, colleges, and universities. These two sentences are obviously identical in purpose and easily reconciled. They may not, however, give sufficient discretion to the President or his designee and we suggest that there be added to the intended provision such language as would allow them-meaning the President and his designee-to vary the "terms, conditions, reservations, and restrictions" or the "regulations prescribed by the President or his designee" in specific cases of considered donations in accordance with their judgment of the specific circumstances concerning such donations. It would be unfortunate, and yet quite possible-inasmuch as blanket regulations are prone to be applied unyieldingly to all situations concerned that interpretation of these provisions should prevent discretion by the responsible U.S. agency concerned to ease or constrict the "terms, etc." or "regulations, etc." as might be advisable in specific areas of application. Conditions vary in different areas and as my agency, Church World Service, and our companion agencies in the voluntary field have so often experienced, "hard-and-fast" regulations—a single criterion for all cases can often lead to difficult and unfortunate situations. I would like now to speak, on behalf of Church World Service, of the suggested preferential donation policy set forth in S. 2732 on page 3, line 1: (c) The head of the executive agency concerned, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President or his designee shall give preference to organizations directly or indirectly founded, sponsored, or supported by American citizens in making donations under this section in any foreign country. This priority of donation to American-related organizations seems unfortunate. In most countries a major portion of American citizen-supported medical or educational institutions are sponsored or operated through Christian religious groups, in most cases in conjunction with indigenous Christian organizations. These indigenous Christian organizations often-particularly in the East-represent a minority, and many times a very small minority, of the total populations of an area. To give such minorities a priority in donation might lead to serious misinterpretation by the mass of nationals concerned of the basic motivations of these measures. Such possible misinterpretation would not only injure the understanding by the recipient people of the motivation of the United States in this donation program, but it also could be highly injurious to the best interests of the Christian communities concerned. For this reason, and because the time to avoid possibility for bad public relations resulting from any venture is at the outset, Church World Service trusts-and I know that Lutheran World Relief, which will file a statement with the committee at another time, is of similar view that the committee will give sincere consideration to the elimination of any such priority stipulations. We believe that such donations as might be made under these bills should be administered through a responsible department of the Government of the recipient area working in close cooperation, as is provided for, with a responsible agency of the United States and that their cooperative judgment should be the discretionary factor in determining final criteria for donations. I would like to take one or two more moments of the committee's time to suggest what we believe would be an extremely valuable extension of the excess property donation program. Both of the measures under consideration here are concerned only with excess property located in foreign lands, a more ready availability of which to medical, educational, or other worthy projects undeniably would be helpful. There are carried on overseas many and widespread programs by voluntary relief agencies in the United States. An availability to such agencies of excess property held within the United States for oversea use in foreign assistance programs would be equally, if not more, helpful, much easier and much more efficiently utilized by the American agencies than the foreign excess property, valuable as it |