« PreviousContinue »
Mr. SHRIVER. No, sir; that is not quite accurate.
On the next page there you will see the number that we intend to have under direct administration, that is a government-to-government type of operation. So that is only part of the projected program on the first page that you are looking at.
Senator LAUSCHE. All right.
PROJECTED CONTRACTS WITH PRIVATE AGENCIES
Now will you identify the private agencies with whom you intend to make contracts?
Mr. SHRIVER. Yes, sir.
I have a list here of some with whom we have gone quite a distance in getting to the point of making a contract.
Senator LauschE. You have 18 such private agencies. Which are they?
Mr. SHRIVER. Well, here are some we are working with, sir; that 18 includes a whole year's operation, but here are some.
The 4-H Club Foundation, the International Voluntary Services, the YWCA, the Experiment in International Living, the Unitarian Service Committee, the Ohio Council of Churches, Caritas, Community Development Foundation, the World University Service, the African Research Foundation, Medico, the Heifer Foundation, the Grail, and several others.
These are ones that we are working with now, Senator, and we have had in addition to these whose projects are fairly advanced in the planning stage, there have been probably a score of additional private voluntary agencies that have approached us to discuss with us the possibility of cooperative action.
Senator Lausche. Each of these 18 private agencies will produce 25 volunteers on an estimate, and the total produced by the 18 will be 450, and you are making a 2-year contract with these private agencies.
Who will select the volunteers that will be assigned to these private agencies for their direction?
Mr. SHRIVER. In some cases, Senator, we will select them. In some cases they will select them in consultation with us, with our selection experts. But in every case the standards of selection will be standards which conform to our requirements.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OBJECTIVES OF PEACE CORPS
Senator LAUSCHE. Are the 18 now rendering the type of aid which your agency contemplates ?
Mr. Shriver. Yes, sir. One of our provisions is that we will not inaugurate a program with an agency which has had less than 2 years of successful experience abroad.
Senator LAUSCHE. If you take the Ohio Council of Churches, its membership consists of various denominations of the Protestant Church, nearly all of whom have been operating in this field.
Do you feel that they are best fit to carry out the objective and work with you, and have you asked them to do the work?
Mr. SHRIVER. No, that is not correct. We feel they are among the ones who have done an excellent job, not necessarily the best.
Also I want to make it clear that some of these organizations have come to us, rather than our going to them, and the Ohio Council of Churches might be one of those. I am not informed on that detail, but a large number of those organizations have come to us, suggesting that they would like to have our help in improving an existing operation or starting a new operation overseas.
Senator LAUSCHE. Now, excepting the proselytizing of a religion, how does your contemplated work differ from that being done by the Methodist missions, the Presbyterian, the Baptist, and others?
Mr. SHRIVER. Well, in one way, Senator: We go at the request, as I said several times already, of the foreign government to do work for that government which they conceive to be necessary at this time.
For example, teachers: They say to us, “We need teachers in the public school system of X country. We need so many teachers of math or science," or whatever it is, and we attempt to supply personnel who are then responsible to the minister of education in that country. So far as I know, there is not any religious organization which supplies their manpower to a foreign government to work in the school system of that government under the discipline and control of the foreign government.
VARIOUS MEANS BY WHICH THE PEACE CORPS PROPOSES TO OPERATE
Senator LAUSCHE. I thought you stated to me in your letter that this is going to be a bypassing of the government, because the United Nations now deals with governments, the mutual aid program deals with governments and never get down to the people, whereas this is a grassroots movement where you will bypass the government and go directly to the people.
Mr. SHRIVER. That is correct in that we will work directly with the people. We will not bypass the government on the way, though. As I have said, the Peace Corps will operate in a country only on the basis of an invitation from the government. There are five different ways, Senator, in which we hope to operate.
One way is on a direct government to government basis; another is through the private voluntary agencies; a third is with universities; a fourth is with the United Nations; and a fifth is in support of other U.S. oversea operations.
But even when we work on a direct government to government basis we supply service at the grassroots level. We are not supplying service way up at the top of the government. We are supplying it in the classroom, the field, or in the hospital.
COMPARISON OF PEACE CORPS WORK WITH THAT OF THE CHURCH MISSIONS
Senator LAUSCHE. Except for the method in which you voluntarily go in or go in by invitation, and except for the relationship that you might or might not have with the government, how does your work differ from that being done by the Methodist Church in these foreign countries?
Mr. SHRIVER. Well, I think those exceptionsSenator LAUSCHE. So you are doing the same thing that the religious organizations are doing, except the means of going in and the relationship with the government is different.
Mr. SHRIVER. Well, you see, some of the work that we are doing is not the same as the religious missions. For example, in Tanganyika, Senator, we are out surveying feeder roads and providing a feeder road system for that country.
So far as I know, I do not know any church that has sent surveyors to build roads in a foreign country as a part of its missionary activity. I may be wrong, but I have never heard of such a service.
. Senator LAUSCHE. The probability is that that is so, because the church would probably be in eleemosynary and cultural work, but not in the manual labor area.
Mr. SHRIVER. So in those respects where we have a request from other countries, for example, to do roadwork, surfacing of roads, that type of work, we might do that. I have never heard of a church doing that.
It is true we do some work that is similar to what churches have done, but we do some they have not done.
Senator LAUSCHE. Is it not a fair inference that inasmuch as you have chosen 18 private agencies that have to be the leaders in this work for you, you found in the private agencies, the religious denominations, the closest resemblance to the work you contemplate doing?
Mr. ÁHRIVER. We find a close relationship but not necessarily the closest. For example, CARE
Senator LAUSCHE. If you admitted this sort of closeness, you would negate the advisability of creating your agency, would you not?
Mr. SHRIVER. No, sir. I do not quite follow that thought.
Senator LAUSCHE. Well, if you would admit that the Protestant and the Catholic Churches, with 35,000 missionaries, are doing this work, you would pretty well destroy the vitality of your argument that this is a new idea, a vibrating one, a saving one for the country. Is that inference fair?
Mr. SHRIVER. I do not think so; no, sir.
(Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 2:30 p.m. the same day.)
(Present: Senators Fulbright (chairman), Sparkman, Gore, Lausche, Church, Symington, Capehart, and Carlson.)
Senator CHURCH (presiding). The committee will come to order.
I want to say at the outset, Mr. Shriver, that I was here this morning and heard your testimony, and I want to commend you for the excellence of your answers, for your responses to the committee and for your candor, and also to commend your associates for what obviously is a very impressive piece of organizational work, considering how short a time you have had to set this program up, and the difficulties of working without permanent legislative authority to establish the guidelines, and to give, in effect, definite substance to your program,
I think you have done outstanding work in the first 2 or 3 months, and you are certainly to be strongly commended for it.
RELATIONSHIP OF PEACE CORPS POLICY TO VIEWS OF ARAB STATES
One thing that disturbed me somewhat was some of this mornings questioning related to establishing certain conditions. I think that the subject came up with reference to eliminating from the program in certain areas of the world, in Arab countries, citizens of Jewis extraction, and since several members of the committee have commented, I just want to comment on this, too.
It seems to me that in connection with all our foreign aid programs we establish conditions. In our development loan program, we establish the condition of a loan, the length of the term of the loan, and the amount of interest. No one would quarrel with that. Yet that is a condition, wouldn't you think?
Mr. SHRIVER. It definitely is.
Senator CHURCH. And in connection with the administration of the Mutual Security Act, in the grants that we give around the world, we have established practices such as supervision in the field, inspeetion setups to determine that the money is actually spent for projects for which it has been granted. That certainly is a condition of American aid, wouldn't you say?
Mr. SHRIVER. Yes, sir.
Senator CHURCH. And we are just establishing under the new administration a special program for the economic development of Latin America which is based upon the philosophy that we should concentrate the money in countries that have demonstrated a bona fide desire to bring along economic development within those countries, to develop meaningful tax and land reforms and things of that kind That is the philosophy of the program, and certainly that constitutes conditions for extending this special Latin American aid, does it not?
Mr. SHRIVER. Yes, sir.
Senator CHURCH. Well, I think in view of that, the position that you have taken in connection with the nondiscriminatory use of American citizens in the Peace Corps program is but another condition, and it seems to me that the question is not whether we should have conditions, but whether or not the conditions that we do impose are reasonable and accord with our basic principles as a nation.
I cannot think of a condition that is either more reasonable or more in accord with our basic principles as a nation than to utilize fully all our citizens on a nondiscriminatory basis.
So I just wanted you to know that I personally approve of the approach that you are taking in connection with this rather delicate matter, and I commend you for it.
Mr. SHRIVER. Thank you, Senator Church. I am glad you made those statements and drew those analogies to other existing programs. Those comments are certainly germane to this point, and they bear right on it. I think, as I tried to say this morning, we should take these cases as they come along.
Some of these nations are going to be willing to accept the conditions, legitimate conditions, which we feel it necessary to impose and, 'as Senator Humphrey said, there is no reason for us to accept conditions that they impose in return for
Senator CHURCH. If we were to do this it would take the program out of our hands and place it in the hands of the other countries.
Mr. SHRIVER. That is right.
CERTAIN COUNTRIES VIEWED AS INELIGIBLE FOR PEACE CORPS PROGRAMS:
EXAMPLE OF CUBA
Senator Church. That brings me to the series of questions which the testimony until now has not clarified for me.
You have indicated that no Peace Corps program will be established in any country that does not ask for it.
Mr. SHRIVER. Yes, sir.
Senator CHURCH. So the first requisite for the establishment of a Peace Corps program is that the host country asks for it?
Mr. SHRIVER. That is right.
Senator CHURCH. Now suppose that Fidel Castro were to ask for the establishment of a Peace Corps program in Cuba, operators for the tractors or something of that kind. [Laughter.]
Would you regard Cuba as eligible for this program? I do not want to put you on a spot, but I would like to get at the basis for these determinations.
Would you regard Cuba today, under existing circumstances, or the Dominican Republic, for that matter, as eligible for the Peace Corps program!
Mr. SHRIVER. Well, Senator, our Peace Corps is an agency of the State Department and, therefore, we are under the direction of the Secretary of State as well, of course, as the President of the United States.
Senator CHURCH. So before establishing a program in any country the approval of the Secretary of State and of the President is first obtained ? Mr. SHRIVER. Oh, definitely.
When we get a project to this point where we think it has the possibilities of a viable program, it is then discussed with the appropriate officials of the State Department. Copies of it, as I explained this morning, are given to the desk officers, both in State and in ICA and informational copies go to the Assistant Secretaries of State and over to the USIA people, so that we do not actually conclude an agreement with any country until it has been well processed and gone over here.
In the case of Cuba specifically I would be quite surprised if we undertook a program or contracted to undertake a program in a country that did not have diplomatic relations with us.
Senator CHURCH. I would, too. I think we would place those two countries in a special category.
RELATIONSHIP OF PEACE CORPS TO COMMUNIST BLOC COUNTRIES; ITS
EXEMPTION FROM THE BATTLE ACT PROVISIONS
But what about Poland, for instance? Suppose the Gomulka Government in Poland were to ask for a Peace Corps program. We maintain diplomatic relations with Poland, though it is a Communist country. Is there anything in the present law or anything in the bill now before the committee that would prevent the Peace Corps from establishing a program in Poland!