the moneys involved in our opinion should be treated as property rights. Since there are sufficient moneys that will be on hand-and that is consistent with the information given us by the Commission itselfwe feel, hope, and trust that the members of the subcommittee will also feel that this proposal certainly warrants your most favorable consideration. I would like to say that I appreciate the time that has been given to me. Mr. KLEIN. Thank you very much, sir. Are there any questions, gentlemen? (No response.) The hearings are now adjourned subject to further call by the Chair. (Thereupon, at 11 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.) WAR CLAIMS AND RETURN OF ENEMY ASSETS MONDAY, JULY 2, 1956 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND FINANCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, The committee met at 11:30 a. m., the Honorable Arthur G. Klein (subcommittee chairman) presiding. Mr. KLEIN. The committee will come to order. The witness scheduled for this morning is Dr. Arthur L. Carson of the National Council of Churches of Christ. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF DR. ARTHUR L. CARSON, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES OF CHRIST, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. EARL FREDERICK ADAMS, ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY Dr. CARSON. My name is Arthur L. Carson. I am accompanied by Dr. Earl Frederick Adams of the local office of the National Council of Churches. I am here representing the division of foreign missions of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U. S. A. This is an organization of Protestant and Orthodox Churches. There are about 30 members of the council and about 50 members in the subdivision of foreign missions. I am really representing the division of foreign missions which has had several consultations, particularly with the Philippine Island Committee made up of the bodies that work in the Philippine Islands, on this bill and previous proposals. We have not had time to prepare any written statements. I might say this much about myself—I have been secretary for education consultations of the Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions since 1953. Prior to that time I was in the Philippine Islands as a missionary of the Presbyterian board and was president of the Philamon University in the southern Philippine Isles, and I was there during the war. Speaking for the division of foreign missions, Mr. Chairman, we have been opposed to this amendment, and in fact to the previous amendment dealing with religious claims, going back as far as 1952, on the ground of discrimination. We feel with regard to funds paid for welfare, education, and medical institutions and work done in the Philippine Isles preferential treatment should not be given to religious organizations. Mr. KLEIN. You would have no objection, would you, if the legislation encompassed all religious organizations in the Philippine Isles? 81964-56-29 Dr. CARSON. As it is now worded we would object to this particular amendment. Mr. KLEIN. If we amended it in such a way as to accomplish the purpose of taking in all religious organizations, even those who may not have filed because of some misapprehension, or lack of knowledge for the necessity of filing, would you then have any objection? Dr. CARSON. That would be an improvement. That is a good question and brings out the point that we have held to in one way or another for this from the beginning, that we feel all agencies, public and private, should have the same treatment, if it is going to be broadened. Under the previous amendment, preferential treatment was given to religious affiliated institutions on two grounds. There were two tests in addition to the test of damage received. One test was they were American affiliated. In other words, as an American Government, we took some special responsibility for American affiliated organizations. The second one was they gave aid and relief to American civilians, or military personnel during the war. Even at that time we would have preferred in our group to have seen the private schools and hospitals included in the aid. You remember there was a war damage bill which gave rehabilitation money to all claimants from the Philippine Islands. Only about 30 percent of the claims could be paid. Claims of 1,000 pesos received preferential treatment and beyond that-and this would include practically all institutional claims-only about 30 percent was paid because there was not enough money. The cost of reconstruction exceeded all our expectations and the amount of damage done exceeded our expectations. The result was that a great many of the public schools have never been rehabilitated. Now, as Americans, we have felt a special responsibility for the public schools, and even as American religious organizations we feel that if there is any broadening of this it would be broadened to include all welfare, educational, and medical institutions. May I anticipate a question which I am sure would be in your minds-how much money would that be? No one knows, of course. Our point there would be to allocate a certain amount of money and if there is not enough money to cover everything-prorate it. The war damage payments did a tremendous lot of good, and of course they went to private claimants as well as to institutions. We are concerned now, I take it, with educational, medical, and welfare institutions in the Philippine Islands. Mr. KLEIN. If you will yield for a minute, the committee staff member advises me that the Philippine war damage legislation did not originate with this committee. Dr. CARSON. That is right. Mr. KLEIN. What you have in mind might necessitate an amendment to that particular act. Now, the thing that I want to point out is that the McCormack bill, as you know, refers only to religious organizations. The groups which were left out, and which would be the beneficiaries of this amendment by Mr. McCormack, of Massachusetts, were unable to prove affiliation with organizations in this country and that is why they were not paid; otherwise, they would have been taken care of. This war damage business that you bring up I am afraid could not come in as an amendment. I am willing, and I am sure the committee would go along, to get out a bill dealing with religious organizations in the Philippine Isles applying to all religious organizations. I think that you have made a good point that it is not fair to limit the terms of the bill in such a way that the benefits would accrue only to a particular religious organization, but I think that we ought to limit this subject to religious organizations. You may proceed now in any way you wish. Dr. CARSON. I was just considering whether it would be worthwhile to go back and trace the history. It is true that this particular amendment, the McCormack amendment, is directed to welfare, medical, and educational institutions related to religious organizations. We would just like to raise the question, why limit it? That may be outside the scope of the bill, but it is pertinent to the bill. If we are going to aid educational, medical, and welfare agencies in the Philippine Islands, why should it be limited to religious organizations? Mr. KLEIN. I think that there may not be any objection to including these other types of agencies which you have referred to, but not in this legislation. This legislation is limited to religious organizations because of the fact they could not qualify under the previous McCormack bill. That is why I would like to have this confined to the religious organizations. I might say that you have a good point and maybe we ought to have some other legislation, either in this committee or in some other committee, but we are talking now about this particular bill, H. R. 6856. And while I do not intend to limit you to that, bear in mind that is the sole purpose of this hearing. Dr. CARSON. I appreciate the chance to make the other point. We will leave it at that. The former amendment to the War Claims Act made three tests, you know, for payment of damages. One was, of course, the fact that damages had been sustained. The second was American affiliation, and the third was the fact that they gave aid and relief to Americans during the war. As I have read this proposed bill, only one of those tests survived, and that is the assumption damage had been done. We could conceivably find an organization that had given no aid or relief to Americans, or might have done the reverse, and would still qualify. The fact of American affiliation drops out completely, so it becomes quite a different kind of bill and differs from the previous amendment. Mr. KLEIN. May I call your attention to page 2 of H. R. 6856, right at the top of the page, where it says, "Any religious organization functioning in the Philippine Islands for reimbursement of expenditures incurred or for payment of the fair value of supplies used by such organization for the purpose of furnishing shelter, food, clothing, hospitalization, medicines and medical services, and other relief ***99 Is not that the same wording used in the previous proposal? Dr. CARSON. The original War Claims Act of 1948, and I call your attention to the fact that those claims have probably all been paid. As a matter of fact, most were paid through the regular Army Claims Service. This appears in this amendment not as a test, but simply |