WILL AGREEMENTS BE SIGNED WITH RELIGIOUS GROUPS MAINTAINING FOREIGN MISSIONS?

The CHAIRMAN. Is that a typical example of a religious institution with which you would sign a contract, or would you include any members of the board of foreign missions, or any church? Would you elucidate on that a little further?

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes. Well, in addition to this-this particular one was the only one that we have actually concluded, Mr. Chairman, and that is the reason why I focused on it. I thought you had asked me for

The CHAIRMAN. This article says:

The overseas arm of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America sent President Kennedy and Peace Corps officials a statement urging the Corps to sign no contracts with religious groups.

The article gives the impression that you are going to sign contracts with various religious groups who maintain foreign missions.

Mr. SHRIVER. I think they are under that impression, and it is a perfectly justified impression because a number of religious groups have approached us asking for our support.

I merely mention, Mr. Chairman, we have not concluded any such arrangement. Let me give you an example of one

RELIGIOUS GROUPS WHICH HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN PEACE CORPS

SUPPORT

The CHAIRMAN. I would like you to describe for the information of the committee, one that you anticipate you may conclude, sir.

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, there is the 4-H Club, not a religious organization, but one that has approached us. The IVS-here is an interesting one. The IVS

The CHAIRMAN. What is that?

Mr. SHRIVER. International Voluntary Services. That is an organization which has had contracts for a number of years with the ICA and has done excellent work in various countries of southeast Asia. I am sure members of this committee who have been out there have seen their volunteers at work, the International Voluntary Services. That is an organization, all the members of the board of which are religiously oriented people. They all represent one denomination of the Protestant sect or the Catholic Church.

Senator GORE. What do you mean "religiously oriented"? I am religiously oriented. Do they operate in a religious capacity? Mr. SHRIVER. No, they do not, Senator.

Senator GORE. Excuse me.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. SHRIVER. No, they do not. My point is it is an organization set up by religious denominations, but it does not operate in a religious fashion as you expressed it. They have asked us to approve projects which would send, under their auspices, 22 volunteers to one particular country and 16 to another.

The YWCA has asked us to support work that they would like to conduct in a particular foreign country, neighborhood center work, volunteer social welfare work, and the request for them is for 20 volunteers, and perhaps, for some money. The Unitarian Service Com

mittee has asked us to support them with work in Nigeria. The Ohio Council of Churches has asked us to help them in establishing rural cooperatives. Caritas, which is an exceedingly well-known agency, I believe, in South America, and which operates under the National Catholic Welfare Conference, has asked us for help in Peru and Guatemala.

Those are some of the the World University Service has also asked us for money-but in none of these cases, I repeat, have we agreed to supply any money nor have we entered into a contract with any of them.

QUESTION OF DECIDING ON APPLICATIONS OF RELIGIOUS GROUPS

Now, a typical example of a case where you might say some difficulty arises, or a question arises, is this: We had a presentation from one of the religious organizations explaining that they were operating, already operating, mobile health units in a particular foreign country. They were giving eye examinations, for example, or tuberculosis, chest examinations to the people of that country. This was a health service which was desperately needed in this country, which the government of that country wanted, and which this particular organization was supplying.

They asked us whether we would be willing to supply Peace Corps volunteers to work in those mobile units which are already operated in that country. We have not resolved whether we will or not supply those volunteers, but there is a case of a religious organization, operating a purely humanitarian, nonreligious operation.

We have not resolved whether we will or won't, and we will have to face those questions as we come to them.

The CHAIRMAN. It might help the committee if you would resolve some of these for our information. This is a new program, and we would like to understand what you intend to do.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ICA UNIVERSITY CONTRACT PROGRAM AND THAT CONTEMPLATED BY THE CORPS

How do you distinguish your contracts with universities from the contract program we already have with the ICA, which has been going on for a number of years?

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, Mr. Chairman, the universities have come to us, in this case, for example, in Indiana, asking to open up and develop a completely new type of service.

This would be a service of young people, not high-level experts such as the ICA has generally recruited and sent abroad, who would go into foreign countries and do work at the lower level, at low pay on a volunteer basis, not as a career job but simply for a 2-year hitch, so to speak, to accomplish an objective that has not been even approached by the ICA; namely, the supplying of middle manpower or middle management people.

In the past, I think it is true, Senator, that, in general, the ICA has been requested really to supply high-level expert consultants to foreign countries. In these foreign countries they needed the kind of people who could organize school systems or set up factories or manufacturing plants, and they had a great amount of manpower at the lower level

that was unskilled, but there was a gap in the middle manpower, and that is the kind of a service that we are hoping to supply these countries.

Now, through the aegis of these universities we are hoping to carry this out more effectively or, at least, just as effectively as if we did it ourselves.

RELATIONSHIP OF PEACE CORPS POLICY TO VIEWS OF ARAB STATES

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Shriver, I do not want to take all the time. I want to turn this over to the sponsor of this bill, but there is one further point I would like to have clarified.

I have a letter from the editor of the Minneapolis Star of the State of Minnesota, which is certainly one of the leading and, I think, oneof the finest newspapers in this country. He encloses an editorial entitled "A Peace Corps Problem." I will read the first two paragraphs and ask for your comment.

It says:

The Peace Corps, we are told, will not permit any discrimination against any of its members, or where they serve, on the basis of their race, color, or religion. Admirable as this policy is as an objective, it may serve to deny the benefits of Peace Corps projects to some of the Arab countries of the Middle East.

Arab governments, which regard all Jews as Zionists, supporters of Israel, and, therefore their enemies, in a number of cases have refused to permit U.S. State and Defense Department personnel to serve at American installations within those countries, and thus could be expected to avoid the Peace Corps so long as such a policy prevails.

The editor, Mr. Elston, in his letter says this regarding his editorial: While the editorial does not touch on my personal reaction, I was somewhat concerned about the militant tone that Mr. Williams took in opposing any discrimination against Peace Corps members by the Arab States or by anyone else. I might add that Mr. Elston is referring to comments he says were made in Minneapolis by Franklin H. Williams, special assistant to Mr. Shriver.

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, Mr. Chairman, of course we are not going to have any religious test for becoming a Peace Corps volunteer, or a racial test, or any other kind of test like that which is, in our judgment, undemocratic.

Every American will be able to join the Peace Corps in terms of ability and quality rather than on any such extraneous consideration. We will not send people to countries where these particular people are not wanted but, on the other hand, we won't conclude an agreement with the country where they attempt to set up standards for our operaions which are unsatisfactory to us.

Now, we have said in our literature that we will not permit any propagandizing or proselytizing. If a religious agency comes to us and says, "Well, we insist on the right to proselytize," we say, "Well, we are very sorry, you can't get help from us, we will not enter into an agreement with you."

If a particular foreign country came and said, "We insist that nobody who is a Catholic or nobody who is a Jew or nobody who is a Protestant can come into this country," we would have to reply, "Well, we are sorry we are not able to do business with you.'

The fact of the matter is there have been some indications from responsible Arab officials to the effect that they would not object to people coming

PURPOSE OF THE PEACE CORPS

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question on that point?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Is your purpose in the Peace Corps to get information and assistance to countries, or is it to impose American ideals or ideas on other countries? In other words, if we say that we will impress American philosophy on these countries, then I can understand your refusal to make contracts with certain countries.

But if your purpose is to assist the countries, then why not, in furtherance of that assistance, send people that will be acceptable, and bow to their particular, and probably very deep-seated, beliefs that you and I may not agree with at all. I do not quite follow the philosophy here.

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, the philosophy, Senator, is that we do not enter into agreements with organizations which have standards that are unacceptable to the Congress or to the American people.

For example, if, as I said, a religious organization insists on the right to proselytize, to try to get converts for its group, we will not enter into an agreement with them.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. That is not what I am talking about.

Mr. SHRIVER. In the example of a foreign country, if they say, "We would be happy to have your people irrespective of race or creed, provided they did not propagandize or proselytize," we would consider that proposition very seriously, and might enter into it.

Frankly, Senator, we have not had any request insisting on religious restrictions and, in general, we refrain from making policy decisions based on hypothetical situations. We wait until we have a specific, concrete proposal from a particular country or organization, and then we decide that on the basis of the merits of that case.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Well, that still is not quite what I am trying to get an answer on.

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, the purpose of our organization, Senator, as you very carefully and ably stated it, is to assist foreign countries, but we have to assist them on terms which we are able to meet.

RELATIONSHIP OF PEACE CORPS ASSISTANCE TO RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL ATTITUDES OF OTHER COUNTRIES

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Let us get down to a concrete case. You and I do not agree with the attitude and the position taken by the Arab countries on excluding Jews, and I suppose most people in this country don't agree with that attitude. But is our purpose to assist the people of Arab countries? If so, why not send people who will be acceptable to them? Or is it our purpose to bring compulsion to bear, to have them change their basic attitude to one that conforms with our philosophy, religion, and so forth?

Mr. SHRIVER. Of course, we are not trying to impose our opinions on them, but refraining from sending people there does not constitute, in my judgment, imposing our opinions on them.

In the second place

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Well, you place certain standards which are not standards of help, but are standards of religious and political attitudes.

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, for example, our

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I am just trying to find out what it is you are trying to do here.

Mr. SHRIVER. Of course, it is not quite altogether accurate that all of the Arab countries do not permit Jews to come to those countries. As we all know, there are

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Some of them that do.

Mr. SHRIVER (continuing). A great number of them which do not, and, therefore, we cannot again make generalizations about what we would do in all of the Arab countries.

There are some countries in the Arab group that do permit Jews to come in, and who might, these countries might, make overtures to the Peace Corps.

Let me repeat, we have not had any requests so far from such countries, and we are going, Senator, only where we are asked to go. We are not trying to go anywhere, certainly we are not trying to impose our beliefs on anybody. We are only going where we are asked.

MUTUAL SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT REFERENCE TO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AMERICAN CITIZENS BY AID RECIPIENT COUNTRIES

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Well, suppose some of the Arab countries that have a very low economic level and that do exclude Jews said to the United States, "Please send us some technicians. We don't want Jewish people here because, for one reason or another, we don't like them."

What would you do?

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, if they were discriminating solely on the basis of a person's race or religion, we would certainly be reluctant to enter into such an agreement. In doing that, I think we would be carrying out the sense of the Congress.

In section 108 of the legislation passed by this Congress, there is a phrase saying that—

it is the sense of Congress that any attempt by foreign nations to create distinctions because of their race or religion among American citizens in the granting of commercial or personal access or any other rights otherwise available to United States citizens generally is repugnant to our principles, and in all negotiations between the United States and any foreign state arising as a result of funds appropriated under this title, these principles shall be applied as the President may determine.

So we think what we are doing

Senator HICKENLOOPER. There is no disagreement here with that philosophy in any place.

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, neither do we disagree, but in carrying this out, Senator, we think, in stating the things I have just stated, I think we are carrying out the philosophy of the Congress as expressed there in that section 108 of the Mutual Security and Related Agencies Appropriation Act; at least we are trying to.