FUNCTIONS OF EMBASSY VATICAN

Mr. O'BRIEN. On the question, Mr. Secretary, you used the term "reporting functions." It is somewhat oversimplified. It seems to me that this particular establishment will enhance our information. It will, in my view, and it is most important, function as a better listening post for the United States and particularly the Department of State, is that correct?

Mr. DAM. I agree with that.

Further, I think our further function is that we want to get our point of view across. The Vatican, in its relations with the other 100 plus countries, is influencing what is happening on a wide variety of issues, and we would like to be able to have some influence on what they are trying to do in these various areas, like narcotics, immigration and so forth.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Miller?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask one question.
Mr. SMITH. Yes.

ADVANTAGES OF AN EMBASSY IN THE VATICAN

Mr. MILLER. Forgetting for the moment about any Constitutional implications, forgetting about the functions that you are talking about, you mentioned that we would be able to get our point across. How would we be better off, and why can we not get our point across now? How will the American people be better off by the fact that we would have a full ambassador there?

Mr. DAM. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Wilson, who is a marvelous human being, is giving a lot of energy right now to this job. He is still a part-timer, unpaid, essentially voluntary. He is supported by an absolutely minimal staff now.

We would just be much better able to operate. It would be like any other kind of situation. A part-time employee in the Department of State, a part-time Congressman, a part-time anything else. Moreover, once we have diplomatic relations, then we have access as of right to get information and to give information to the Vatican. Presently the situation is one of friendliness and so forth, but it is not the same as being there as of right.

Mr. MILLER. You are saying that we are not able to get our point across now, and will be able to get our point across after we have a full ambassador there.

Mr. DAM. I would like it to be just a little more nuance than that. I think that Mr. Wilson does a good job, but I think he will be a lot more effective as an ambassador, so I think we can do a better job of getting our point across.

Mr. MILLER. Being more effective, how will that help the people of the United States, the individual citizens? How will that benefit them?

Mr. DAM. The Holy See has diplomatic relations with 107 countries. They are out there every day trying to influence the position of those governments, not on religion, but on a wide range of social issues, for example, narcotics and so forth. We have to know what they are doing, because we have an interest in those issues, and every citizen has an interest in those issues.

We also have a view on those issues, and we would like to try to get our point of view across, so it is taken into account by the Vatican Foreign Office, which is a highly professional group of diplomats who are busy.

Mr. MILLER. And the answer to the question-because we keep coming back to getting our view across-is that we are not able to get our view across now and would be able to if we had a full ambassador there. Is that the answer?

Mr. DAM. That is the answer, certainly much more effectively than we are now. I have to hand it to Mr. Wilson, and given the unusual conditions under which he tries to work, I think he does a good job. It is just not the same as a full-time ambassador and being there as of right, so the answer is yes. However, I don't want to denegrate the good work, the hard work that Mr. Wilson has done.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEPARATION OF EMBASSY VATICAN FROM EMBASSY ROME

Mr. SMITH. I just want to tie this down again, because I am just a little bit fuzzy on it. You don't propose to duplicate the facilities that we have at the chancery in Rome or at the ambassador's residence, which are used for business meetings, social gatherings and all that, do you?

Mr. DAM. I am not sure of the question exactly. I think the answer is no, but there is a building, an office building now, where Mr. Wilson works. Essentially that would remain the building in which he would work as ambassador. Certain things may have to be done to it. That is all part of the plan.

Mr. SMITH. Would it have to be expanded for larger meetings where he is using his backup staff and so forth?

Mr. DAM. That is right.

Mr. SMITH. Would it be at the chancery building in Rome?
Mr. DAM. No, he will meet with his staff at his own office.
Mr. SMITH. His immediate staff?

Mr. DAM. His immediate staff.

Mr. SMITH. But I am talking about his backup.

Mr. DAM. The backup is more of administrative character. I don't think it is a question of having meetings. I think it is more the backup that he would be getting with regard to budget and audit functions and so forth. He doesn't need his own auditor, for example. We can do that.

Mr. SMITH. Social functions would be at the ambassador's residence?

Mr. DAM. This ambassador's residence, yes.

Mr. SMITH. At this ambassador's residence?

Mr. DAM. Yes. He would not use the residence of the ambassador to Italy for that purpose.

Mr. SMITH. He won't have the facilities for a lot of these social functions. There is nothing to keep him from going to the other ambassador's residence, is there?

Mr. DAM. I don't have the square footage before me, but he currently has certain social functions, and it is the intention, that for

that purpose these are two separate operations. We are talking about backup facilities as the kind of things that a large embassy needs every day.

Mr. SMITH. You don't anticipate an expansion of the present facility for that purpose?

Mr. DAM. No.

Mr. SMITH. We have an extensive ambassador's residence there, you know, which we acquired back as a result of World War II. Mr. DAM. That is right.

Mr. SMITH. We certainly have enough facilities in the City of Rome now without adding any.

Mr. DAM. We are not proposing any additional square feet anywhere for this purpose.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much.

We have a substantial list of witnesses here. While you may not need to stay, you probably should have somebody from the Department of State remain in case we have questions.

Mr. DAM. Yes, we will. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Porter.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about your intentions regarding our timeframe today?

Mr. SMITH. I would like to hear as many witnesses as we can. Mr. PORTER. Are we going to go straight ahead, because the Republican members have a luncheon.

Mr. SMITH. At what time?

Mr. PORTER. Noon. It will probably last an hour to an hour and a half.

Mr. SMITH. I think if that is the case, we will have to recess shortly after noon then.

Mr. PORTER. And then come back at 1:30 and go as long as we can?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1984.

REPROGRAMMING REQUEST FOR MISSION TO THE

VATICAN

PUBLIC WITNESS

FRED SCHWENGEL, PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. CAPITOL HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND FORMER MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Mr. SMITH. The first witness is our former colleague from Iowa, Fred Schwengel. Welcome. We are glad to have you today and will be glad to hear whatever you have to say.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I come to you as a citizen and as a former member of Congress who has been involved in some of the questions you have been discussing. We have thought a great deal about that and it reflects on what we are thinking about here.

First I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the committee, for the opportunity to be heard on this very important question. I hope, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, that the many hundreds of really capable, dedicated citizens across the land will have a chance to tell their story before you, and to share their concerns on a very basic important question. At this point, in order to give those people more time, I ask for unanimous consent to revise and extend.

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, we will do that.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. And so I go to the third page and last part of my statement which reads: Now we are confronted with the proposition of sending an official representative of the government to the Vatican or its Holy See or the Catholic Church. This I believe gives special recognition by any government to a denomination and is, therefore, in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. We should not sustain with the Congress this proposition. We have a rich heritage in America, and I want to preserve it. Americans will prosper and benefit from it as indeed the world benefits from the concept of church and state.

President John F. Kennedy, and I knew him rather intimately, because I often talked with him about historic matters, and himself a Catholic, and a staunch admirer of Pope John Paul, insisted that the United States' relations with the Holy See were unconstitutional.

Dr. Maddox, the new leader of Americans United, a very important organization in America, appeared before the Senate Committee and said: "I respectfully submit that this committee would do well to heed President Kennedy's statement."

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. I respectfully urge you to reject an appropriation for the support of an ambassador to the Holy See until all the many

(36)

interested groups and dedicated people across America, dedicated in the field of religion, can be heard. Many religious groups joined America United. I attended one of those meetings recently, in opposing diplomatic ties with the Holy See. They included the National Council of Churches, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the United Methodist Church and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

With deep conviction, I record my opposition to the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican. It is not necessary, it is not desirable, it is fraught with danger to the First Amendment, which has been the guiding compass for our country since its inception.

Mr. Chairman, we are a pluralistic nation, with many religions, many ideas and ideals, churches and denominations. From this comes our moral strength that has no equal in the world.

We dilute this when we single out one church for special attention. Moreover, you endanger the peaceful harmony that now exists in our nation when we accord one church a political preference denied the others, and thus you create another Vietnam or another Beirut with possible bloody clashes of Lebanon and Northern Ireland.

We had similar occurrences in this country during its growth. I am old enough, Mr. Chairman, to state when I lived in Sheffield, Iowa where there was a great antipathy toward churches. I don't know if I was taught this, but I was allowed to believe it, that if I made it to heaven, I wouldn't meet any Catholics there. Oh, I might meet a few Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians and Lutherans. They were some of my boyfriends and girlfriends at school, you see, but I would meet a lot of Baptists and especially German Baptists. That is what I was a member of at that time.

Mr. Chairman, we have a heritage here that we ought to be very jealous of, and we ought to give this whole question a lot of consideration before we send an official to the Holy See. What are you going to say if the World Council of Churches comes to you and wants something like this, wants some recognition? Or the Baptist World Alliance, or comparable organizations? I plead with you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, to withhold appropriations on this until this whole question can be thoroughly discussed and thought about, and share the concern of the thousands of very important people across America who feel deeply on this question and who are a part of our citizenry.

[The statement of Fred Schwengel follows:]