Next will be Mr. Andrew Rice, representing Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo. Come around in front, Mr. Rice. STATEMENT OF ANDREW E. RICE, REPRESENTING COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION Mr. RICE. Mr. Chairman, I have with me Mr. Frank Land, one of my associates. Senator SPARKMAN. Very good, sir. Mr. RICE. For the record, sir, I should like to file my brief statement, and with the committee's permission, I should also like to file a supplementary statement for the record. This is because the director of the project, Dr. Maurice Albertson's father died suddenly, and he was not able to present the statement he had prepared. Senator SPARKMAN. You may proceed. Your statement will be printed in the record, as you wish. Mr. RICE. Thank you. My name is Andrew E. Rice. I am speaking here on behalf of the Colorado State University Foundation, and I want to emphasize that in no sense do I speak for the Department of State where I am presently employed. STUDY BY COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION The Colorado State University Research Foundation has recently completed a major study of the Peace Corps. This study, as members of the committee are aware, was commissioned by the U.S. Government because this committee in last year's Mutual Security Act wrote in a provision calling for a study of the advisability and practicability of what was then called a point 4 youth corps. The report of this study has been made available to the committee, I believe, but since it is a rather substantial document, I thought it would be helpful to briefly outline its main points. I should also like to point out that our findings are based on an extensive collection of data, both in the United States and overseas. We have consulted dozens of experts, held many meetings, held hundreds of interviews, and sent out thousands of questionnaires. The committee set a limit of $10,000 on the amount available for this study. The university spent nearly $50,000. I draw this to the attention of the committee because I believe there is a very thorough, careful, comprehensive research report here which covers practically every major question which the committee will be considering in determining its action on the legislation before it. I would also like to make clear that this study was carried out independently of the work done by the administration under Mr. Sargent Shriver. Our relationships with Mr. Shriver and his associates were cordial and cooperative, but our study was independently carried out, and its conclusions are its own and not those of the administration. RESULTS OF THE STUDY Nevertheless, I think it is quite important that the results of our study, in general, buttressed the conclusions which Mr. Shriver and his associates in the Peace Corps have reached in their own planning on this new venture. We have found that the Peace Corps, in the language of the legislation authorizing our study, is both advisable and practicable, and we do recommend that it be established by law as an agency of the U.S. Government. Chapter 14 of our report summarizes our conclusions and recom mendations. I will not repeat them all now. I will simply call attention to the fact that this chapter outlines the major purposes which we believe the Peace Corps can serve. It recapitulates the data we have collected on the size of the Corps and the cost of the Corps, and it also sets forth the basic principles on which we believe the Peace Corps must be organized if it is to operate most successfully. SOME RECOMMENDATIONS NOT REFLECTED IN S. 2000 At this time, I am only going to draw attention to certain of these basic principles which, it seems to us, have not been fully reflected in the planning which the administration has carried out on the Peace Corps. I emphasize these points now, because they are, perhaps, more controversial, but I do again want to point out that in most particulars we find ourselves in strong agreement with what is being done by the administration. RECOMMENDED ESTABLISHMENT OF BINATIONAL COMMISSIONS Now, these points on which we feel there is some difference of opinion or some difference in emphasis are these: 1. We believe that the Peace Corps must be mutually planned and carried out by the United States and the host country in which it operates. I am sure that, in principle, this point of view is respected throughout the Government and throughout the Peace Corps administration. But we believe that this has not been adequately emphasized in the planning that has gone on to date, and we have recommended in our report that serious consideration be given to the creation within each host country of a binational commission similar to the Fulbright binational commissions or foundations which exist in most of the countries of the world today, which will actually plan and administer the Peace Corps projects undertaken in that country. RECOMMENDATION THAT PEACE CORPS ONLY RARELY UNDERTAKE DIRECT OPERATION OF PROGRAMS 2. We believe that the Peace Corps must make the widest possible use of the private and other governmental agencies in its work, and that it should not, except in unusual circumstances, undertake direct operation of programs itself. There are many reasons for this conclusion, and it is one on which there was a great difference of opinion among those we consulted. However, this represents the majority opinion. It was generally felt there were already too many operating agencies overseas of the U.S. Government, and to add still another was an unnecessary element in increasing confusion. Rather, we emphasize that when Government-operated programs are desired, Peace Corps personnel should be assigned to existing Government agencies, the ICA in the present case or under the new organization, the AID, or that arrangements be made with private nongovernmental organizations or with local or State governments to undertake projects directly under contract. We emphasize strongly the use of nongovernmental organizations, both because they are the groups which have had most experience, because they can operate more flexibly often than the Government, because politically they are more acceptable in many underdeveloped areas, because they have a unique capacity to build nongovernmental institutions in other countries which, we believe, are a very important goal of our foreign aid program, and because we can help build the constituency for foreign operations generally inside the United States. RECOMMENDATION THAT PEACE CORPS PROGRAM BE RELATED TO TOTAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM OF HOST COUNTRY 3. We believe that the Peace Corps program must be related closely to the total development program of each country in which it operates. It must play its part as a constituent element in this coordinated approach, and we regret that the administration has decided that, for the present, at least, the Peace Corps is to be outside the new Agency for International Development. We believe that in time it should be placed within this overall operating agency, although without losing its separate mission or separate identity. POINTS OF AGREEMENTS WITH ADMINISTRATION POSITION Now, on the other points which our report emphasizes, such as the importance of careful selection, orientation and training, the importance of the volunteers living and working side by side with counterparts in the host country, the importance of having a built-in careful research program on the Peace Corps from the very beginning, on these points we find ourselves in agreement with the administration position. This, Mr. Chairman, is a very, very brief summary of this extensive document, and I shall be glad to answer any questions which the committee may have to put to me. Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you. (The prepared statement of Mr. Rice follows:) STATEMENT OF ANDREW E. RICE, FORMER RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION, FORT COLLINS, COLO. My name is Andrew E. Rice and I am appearing today on behalf of the Colorado State University Research Foundation of Fort Collins, Colo. I want to emphasize that in no sense do I speak for the Department of State where I am presently employed. The Colorado State University Research Foundation has recently completed a major study of the Peace Corps, a study undertaken in conformity with an amendment to last year's Mutual Security Act proposed by the late Senator Richard Neuberger and written into the legislation by this committee. The report of our study has already been made available to the committee, but because of its length and detail, I believe it would be useful for me briefly to highlight its major findings. 71636-61-10 These findings, it is important to note, are based on an extensive examination of data collected both in the United States and overseas. Dozens of memorandums and papers, hundreds of interviews, and thousands of questionnaires were utilized in drawing together the substance of the report. It is truly a document based on careful research. It should also be noted that the research was initiated prior to the action taken by the present administration to establish a Peace Corps on a pilot basis and that it was carried through to completion independently of this action. It is particularly significant, therefore, that the Colorado study has reached conclusions which in most respects buttress the views held by Mr. Shriver and his associates in the Peace Corps. We have found the idea of a Peace Corps— in the language of the legislation authorizing our study-to be both advisable and practicable. We recommend that it be established by law as an agency of the U.S. Government. Chapter 14 of our report summarizes our conclusions and recommendations. It outlines the several purposes which we believe the Peace Corps can serve in fostering the welfare of the people of the United States. It recapitulates the figures as to cost and size the latter based on data drawn from thousands of student questionnaires. It also sets forth the fundamental principles on which Peace Corps operations should be based. I want to draw special attention to certain of these which current administration policy may not be taking into full account. (1) The Peace Corps, our report maintains, can be most successful if it emphasizes as early and as widely as possible that it is a program mutually planned and carried out by the United States and the host country. As one probably useful instrument to this end, we suggest the creation of United States-host country binational boards-patterned after the Fulbright program— composed of both governmental and private people and responsible for planning and administering the program in each country. (2) The Peace Corps normally should make the widest possible use of exist ing private and governmental agencies for carrying out its program, rather than undertaking programs directly on its own. In particular, the use of nongovernmental organizations should be encouraged in order to take advantage of their experience, flexibility, political acceptability overseas, institutionbuilding capacity, and "constituency"-enlarging potential. (3) The Peace Corps must be closely related to the total development plan for an underdeveloped country. It should play its role as a constituent element in a coordinated approach and for this purpose in due course should become an integral, though clearly identifiable, part of the new Agency for International Development. On other points, such as the absolute necessity for careful selection, training, and orientation of Peace Corps volunteers; the importance of the volunteers living and working abroad side by side with host country counterparts; and the urgency of building in effective research and evaluation from the very beginning of this new program—the administration and the Colorado report are in essential agreement. I shall be glad to answer questions in detail about our findings and about the extensive research which lies behind them. IDENTIFYING A QUALITY OF RECIPROCITY WITH THE PROGRAM Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Aiken. Senator AIKEN. Yes. I notice in the conclusion and recommendations contained in the general study made by the Colorado State University Research Foundation, this is said: A quality of reciprocity should be identified with the program as early as possible so the Peace Corps is not wholly a one-way flow of personnel. Just what do you mean by that? Mr. RICE. It is a very difficult question to answer, sir, but part of our research was to send three of our colleagues around the world. They visited 10 countries for about 2 weeks each, and talked with a large number of governmental and nongovernmental people. This was, in fact, the first discovery of what the reaction of other countries was to the Peace Corps idea, and antedated the Presidential action, and they found this attitude widely reflected among those with whom they consulted, that they liked the idea of the Peace Corps, the Peace Corps was generally found very acceptable, but that they regretted that it was conceived of as wholly a one-way flow of personnel. However, when pressed as to what they meant by a two-way flow, they were not entirely clear. They did feel, however, that, in general, under the Peace Corps there could be arrangements by which young nationals of the recipient countries could come to this country to participate in training programs for Americans going abroad or, perhaps, to work with Americans on domestic Peace Corps-type programs, if such things were developed, or that in some cases, where a joint project is being planned in a country, the host country nationals should come to this country and be jointly trained with the Americans who are going to work with them. This is not a very complete answer to your question, sir, but it represents an attitude of mind. Senator AIKEN. I think I get the idea. If we do something for them, they would feel better if they could reciprocate in some way on their part. Mr. RICE. Yes, sir. Senator AIKEN. That is a very laudable desire. MERGING PEACE CORPS INTO AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT The other question I have is relative to another recommendation in the report: The Peace Corps should eventually become a part of the overall foreign aid Agency for International Development. If it should eventually become part of the overall foreign aid Agency for International Development, why delay? Why start with the program by having it set up as a separate agency? Mr. RICE. Feelings were very mixed on this point, as you well know, sir, and this, perhaps, represents a compromise statementSenator AIKEN. I can believe that. Mr. RICE. Of varying points of view without our own staff. It was, I think, argued that the Peace Corps was new enough that it needed to have a certain flexibility, a certain immunity, too much traditional redtape in order to get going, and this was the argument for its temporary aloofness from the total aid program. But in the long run, the advantages of working side by side as a constituent element of a total program, outweigh these temporary assets. Senator AIKEN. That is all the questioning I have. ESSENTIALITY OF CAREFUL SELECTION OF PEACE CORPS PERSONNEL Senator SYMINGTON. As I understand it, you are for the Peace Corps; is that right? |