Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

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

might be. This is particularly true because the widespread feeding, vocational training, self-help, and social service programs carried on in so many countries abroad by the American agencies are to great extent originated, planned, and controlled from the United States. Availability of such excess property-that is, the excess property held within the United States-would be closely and productively integrated with existing programs so as to achieve maximum overall benefits in the concerned oversea areas of acute human need. Thank you, sir.

Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much, Mr. Blackford.

Would you think, that in view of your very valid point that conditions should be flexible and should be varied from one country to the other, that the judgment as to how they should be varied might not well be left to the American Ambassador to each of these countries? Mr. BLACKFORD. Yes, sir; or his representatives; yes, sir.

Senator GRUENING. Well, he would be in a position perhaps to judge as well as anyone what the needs are and how this would be applied. Mr. BLACKFORD. I only have the fear, Senator Gruening, that we would get an inflexible thing, interpretation, in the execution. And some little thing in the law might possibly be written in.

Senator GRUENING. Well, that would be an administrative matter. I do not think there is any problem about adding a little language along the lines which you suggest to indicate that whatever the regulations are, they should be flexible and varying, depending on local conditions.

Mr. BLACKFORD. Yes, sir.

We have in many of our programs run up against this thing, which is quite understandable, because any head of a department is forced to carry out the interpretation of the law as it is set. And these things have in the past led to many difficult situations.

Senator GRUENING. Is your organization financed by voluntary contributions?

Mr. BLACKFORD. Yes, sir. It is the Overseas Relief Agency of the Protestant churches, entirely voluntarily financed.

Senator GRUENING. Can you give me any approximate idea of how much you spend annually in this field?

Mr. BLACKFORD. The Church World Service budget is not a criterion. It runs about $7 or $8 million. The Protestant organizations concerned raise about $11 or $12 million in one effort alone. I think that the total expenditures probably run well in excess of $50 million a year.

Senator GRUENING. Well, I was thinking of this

Mr. BLACKFORD. This covers all fields.

Senator GRUENING. This agency in particular, which is apparently a unified service of all the churches involved?

Mr. BLACKFORD. Yes, sir. It is a cooperative agency.

Senator GRUENING. And you raise about $8 million?

Mr. BLACKFORD. In what is called the one great hour of sharing efforts and comparable efforts of the Protestant churches concerned there is raised about $12 million $11.5 million.

Senator GRUENING. Is this all destined for expenditure abroad?
Mr. BLACKFORD. This is all for oversea relief; yes, sir.

Senator GRUENING. There is no corresponding fund or organization for relief where it may be needed in the 50 States?

Mr. BLACKFORD. Well, ours is oversea relief. That portion of the work falls within the scope of what is known as home missions. Senator GRUENING. In other words, there is another agency? Mr. BLACKFORD. Oh, yes.

Senator GRUENING. Which takes care of our domestic relief?

Mr. BLACKFORD. Yes. American Indians, migrant families, and so forth; yes, sir.

Senator GRUENING. Have you any idea of how much money is available?

Mr. BLACKFORD. I do not know. But it is a very large amount of money.

Senator GRUENING. You do not know whether it approximately equals the amount that is raised for expenditure overseas?

Mr. BLACKFORD. I cannot tell you.

Senator GRUENING. Would it not be possible to get that figure for the record?

Mr. BLACKFORD. Yes, I think so.

Senator GRUENING. I would appreciate it if you would send that to the committee.

Mr. BLACKFORD. I will be happy to send it to you.
Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much.

Mr. BLACK FORD. Thank you, sir.

(The material referred to follows:)

Hon. ERNEST GRUENING,

JUNE 3, 1960.

Chairman, Donable Property Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Government Operations, The Capitol, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR SENATOR GRUENING: Following the opportunity you so generously gave me to testify on behalf of Church World Service before the Donable Property Subcommittee last Wednesday you asked if I could give to you an estimate of contributions by Protestant churches in America for assistance to needy persons in America.

You sought, I believe, to arrive at an approximate comparison of the amounts spent by Protestant churches for oversea assistance as against the amounts used for international assistance.

In attempting to get these facts for you, some interesting figures have evolved. In 1958, about 50 church bodies (Protestant) gave for all benevolences $473,911,895.

Of this in cash, some $10-$12 million was for direct oversea relief and rehabilitation, including refugee assistance, resettlement, etc.

A probable additional $20-$25 million was expended through foreign missions activities for various types of assistance quite definitely differentiated from "missionary" activities as popularly interpreted.

Combining the $11 million in cash contributed for direct oversea relief work, the above $20-$25 million for related activity and other work carried on in the same and similar categories, the oversea expenditures could reasonably approximate, as I suggested in answer to your questions, an easy $40 million. For internal assistance, a crude estimate but as reasonably reliable as is possible of contributions for social welfare, hospitals, homes for aged, homes for children and other child welfare (these activities including work among the migrants, among Indians and other underprivileged groups and areas in America) would be $40-$50 million.

These totals do not include benevolences for all Protestant bodies, which total something over 200 in all. The reports of the 50 (approximately) quoted above from which the above figures are taken, however, would be appreciably higher but not mathematically so because the extra 150 are, in most cases, splinter groups with small constituencies and resources.

May I thank you and your committee for your courtesy in allowing us to testify before you Wednesday and to thank you personally for your interest in our work.

Sincerely yours,

G. E. BLACKFORD.

Senator GRUENING. Mr. Kinney, do you want to testify?
Mr. KINNEY. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD M. KINNEY, CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES, NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mr. KINNEY. Mr. Chairman, my name is Edward M. Kinney. I am here today representing Catholic Relief Services-National Čatholic Welfare Conference, the official oversea relief agency of the Catholic Church in America.

We are delighted to speak in support of the bills sponsored by Senator Humphrey and Senators Hart and Bartlett aimed at the amending of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to enable the donation of U.S. Government surplus property for the purposes of education and public health in foreign countries. We are confident that the laudable purposes of these bills will translate themselves, in time, into increased good will for the people of America.

In this connection, we have noted that in the amendment introduced by Senators Hart and Bartlett there exists the requirement that preference be given to organizations directly or indirectly founded, sponsored, or supported by the American people.

It has been our belief for some time that our Government's huge reserves of usable surplus in storage at major disposal depots, both here and abroad, could well be used for purposes of self-help, education, or health project and this objective might well be best achieved through utilizing as channels for such donations America's voluntary oversea relief agencies registered with and approved by the Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid of the International Cooperation Administration.

The voluntary oversea relief agencies have already been and continue to be of substantial assistance in the distribution of America's food surplus to the needy overseas. Use of these existing channels for the disposal of surplus materiel would serve to bulwark these vast feeding programs and to supplement them with the type and kind of materiel and equipment which could serve as the basis for the type of community projects which could help to hasten the day when millions of our fellowmen overseas will be able to find gainful employment and enter the commercial markets as consumers.

As Senator Hart pointed out in his introductory remarks when presenting the amendment he sponsors, appreciable assistance could thus be given to both humanitarian and educational work in other countries at little or no cost to the American taxpayer.

In the far-flung programs of America's voluntary oversea relief agencies there are mountains of unmet needs. There are thousands of clinics and other medical facilities which could be assisted. There are tens of thousands of schools at all educational levels which could be served and there are hundreds of community projects which today could be helping to transform the economic life of entire communi

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »