Page images

of living, maybe this would be an extreme. But it won't be extreme in the sense that it will be dangerous to health or impossible.

It will be like life 40 years ago or so, maybe on an Indiana farm. You did not have everything exactly the way you have it today, and some of these countries probably do not have it the way they expect to have it 50 years from now. But it won't be



Senator CAPEHART. I understand that they will have to live under the existing circumstances, because you cannot build new hotels or houses for them to live in. But my point is that my general impression is that somehow there is tied to the Peace Corps idea, the notion that we are going to send volunteers who are going to reduce their way of living to that of the people over there. If we do that I think we carry it to an extreme, and I think we may defeat the very purpose that we are trying to accomplish, because I think people have a tendency to advance. Take Africa today, where in the tribes the people look up to the chief, and they wear clothes, you know, that attract people.

I think they want to realize that an American is one who does have a high standard of living, who is educated, who does have nice things, and I think we want to convey that impression. At the same time, I do not think we want to be highhat, but rather to live with them and be friendly with them. But every time I see anything written about this Peace Corps it is on the theory that we are going over there to make a great sacrifice. You even have the word "hardship” in your bill. I do not know whether the people over there particularly appreciate that fact.

Mr. SHRIVER. We have not had any objection to it.

Senator CAPEHART. I do not suppose you have, but it is not too nice a thing to say that we are going over to work under hardships. My point is we ought to be normal and natural, and we ought to send people who are experienced to do a specific job—and let us hope they do it well—and leave an impression of something accomplished.

I know a certain doctor in this town who performed literally thousands of operations for the people of a certain Latin American country, and he did it free of charge. He is a great hero in that country.

Now, I think if this is operated on that basis it can be successful. But I am not so sure the name Peace Corps is a good name for it. Maybe there is a better name, but I just do not know what it is at the moment.

CLAIMS PROVISIONS OF S. 2000 I have a couple of questions here. How would a claim against the United States be handled under this legislation? Is there anything in the legislation about that?

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes, sir, there is. If I can get the relevant statutes here-relevant section, excuse me.

Senator CAPEHART. You can look it up.

Mr. SHRIVER. Here it is. It is on page 16. I am sorry it took me a minute there to get it. On page 16, which is section 10(b), it explains about claims arising abroad against Peace Corps volunteers, for example, or other employees of the Peace Corps.


Senator CAPEHART. It is left entirely to the President of the United States. He can pay up to $15,000 ?

Mr. SHRIVER. That is right. Then on page 8, section (h), the wording of lines 8, 9, and 10 is thatVolunteers shall be deemed employees of the U.S. Government for the purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and any other Federal tort liability statute.

That is another indication, another point, on the subject you bring up about claims against them.


Senator CAPEHART. One other question: Is it possible for an employee to be paid by the Peace Corps and at the same time be drawing pay from other sources ?

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, we have a provision in here in order to attract older people, people who have retired and may be on a pension, whereby they would be able to volunteer and receive a Peace Corps volunteer's compensation without losing the right to receive their pension rights.

Senator CAPEHART. In other words, anyone receiving a pension would continue to do so. But how about a salary or compensation of that nature?

Mr. SHRIVER. We do not cover that explicitly. There have been offers, I might add, by a substantial number of corporations which have indicated to us their desire to have people serve in the Peace Corps as volunteers, who would continue to receive their salary from the corporation. They would like to do that, but obviously, because of existing conflict-of-interest statutes, it is impossible for us to receive that kind of help.

Mr. Kuhn. Senator, if I may just add, there the bill is so framed that if such an arrangement, if we were able to work out such an arrangement, if it seemed desirable, for some sort of outside payments to be made, they could be. In fact, in some situations, volunteers, when they are serving abroad, will receive their allowances, let us say, from the host country, rather than from our Government. This is a way in which some compensation may be received from some other source than the U.S. Government.


Senator CAPEHART. You said a moment ago, I think in answer to Senator Gore's question, that you would not make a contract with an organization like the Friends Society whose membership was made up entirely of those belonging to the Quaker religion, did you not?

? Mr. SHRIVER. Yes. I said, sir, that in the selection of Peace Corps volunteers to work with such a society, we would not allow a religious test to be given to determine whether a volunteer could serve in that Peace Corps project.

Senator CAPEHART. Why do you take that position, when, under our very two-party system of Government, the Democrats who are in power only hire Democrats, and the Republicans do the same when they are in power.

[ocr errors]

Mr. SHRIVER. I do not know what is generally done along those lines, but we have a very fine group of Republicans, we even have some of the most distinguished Republicans

Senator CAPEHART. No political affiliation is necessary to join the Peace Corps ?

Mr. SHRIVER. No, sir. Mrs. Hobby, who was an official, I think, of the Eisenhower administration, is on our National Advisory Board, along with a number of other distinguished Republicans.

Senator CAPEHART. But you do agree with me that when the Democrats are in power, they only hire Democrats, and when the Republicans are in, they only hire Republicans? At least that is the way it should be, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. SHRIVER. Senator Gore, do you want to speak to that? Senator GORE. I might cite Secretary Dillon and Secretary McNamara.

Senator LAUSCHE. It is not that way with me.

Senator CAPEHART. I know in Indiana we at the moment have a Democratic Governor, and he is only hiring Democrats, and I am not criticizing him. We just had a Republican Governor, and we were only hiring Republicans.

Why do you become so holy here, when you say you won't permit the Friends Church, for example, to participate in this program, when you know that they, of course, only have members of their own faith? Why do you take that position?

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, I thank you, Senator, for indicating that this gives me some sort of holiness.

Senator CAPEHART. I rather think it is sort of a holy attitude.

Senator LAUSCHE. Is it because they are the deep advocates of peace that you will not take a member of the Friends Church?

Mr. SHRIVER. I am afraid that is not exactly what I said.
Senator LAUSCHE. Well, it pretty nearly sounds that way.
Senator SYMINGTON. Not to me.

Senator CAPEHART. What he said was that they would not make a contract with the Friends Church unless it would agree to take qualified individuals of other faiths.

Mr. SHRIVER. That is right, because as we say no religious test can be given for holding public office, we say no religious test can be exacted for membership in the Peace Corps.

Senator CAPEHART. My thought was that, under our system of Government, when one party is in, they hire members of their party, and when the other party is in, they throw them out and hire members of their own party. That is the standard practice in the United States. I believe this is the only way you can have party responsibility.

Mr. SHRIVER. Then you think we should hire

Senator CAPEHART. In this instance, why shouldn't you make a contract with a church organization, when you know that all their members would be members of that given denomination? I do not see any harm in doing it myself.

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, it is one of-as one of my associates has pointed out, Civil Service and Foreign Service rules bar political discrimination in the employment of people to serve under civil service conditions or in the Foreign Service. We would not want to inaugurate a new system.


Senator CAPEHART. Are they going to be given civil service status?

Mr. SHRIVER. Not the volunteers, but a large number of the people, for example, right here at this desk who are working at Peace Corps headquarters will come under civil service.

Senator CAPEHART. You mean they will be brought in now and given civil service status?

Mr. SHRIVER. They already have it.
Senator CAPEHART. Yes.

Mr. SHRIVER. I would not want to have this run by the Republican Party or by the Democratic Party restricting volunteers to members of that one particular political affiliation.

Senator CAPEHART. Well, are you going to give the volunteers civil service status?

Mr. SHRIVER. No, sir.


Senator CAPEHART. Are they going to have any status whatsoever?

Mr. SHRIVER. They are going to-some people claim we are giving them too much status.

Senator CAPEHART. In what way?

Mr. SHRIVER. For example, we are asking in this statute that the term of service in the Peace Corps will be considered against civil service retirement credit if, after fulfilling their service in the Peace Corps, Peace Corps volunteers join the Federal Government.

Senator CAPEHART. That was my question: Are they going to be given status of some kind? You say they won't be civil service employees, but they will, if and when they retire, be given civil service retirement pay; is that it?

Mr. SHRIVER. That would be—the service in the Peace Corps would be added to their service with the Federal Government, provided they go to work with the Federal Government.

Senator CAPEHART. Later.
Mr. SHRIVER. That is right.

Senator CAPEHART. Either prior or later experience would be added to their time?

Senator GORE. Would the Senator yield?
Senator CAPEHART. Yes.
Senator GORE. We do the same for service in the Armed Forces.
Senator CAPEHART. I have no objection to it at all.

Senator GORE. What I was trying to point out is that this is somewhat on a comparative basis with service in the Armed Forces. This is not a compensatory service. It is a volunteer service, and if they later become Government employees, subject to civil service rights, then their service in either this organization or the Armed Forces can be added to the term of their service.

Senator CAPEHART. Yes. My question concerned what status they were going to have. You say they will not be civil service employees, but if they previously served in the Government, or serve in the Government after their voluntary service is over, then the time that they are volunteers will be added to their record ?

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes, sir,
Senator CAPEHART. For retirement purposes.
Mr. SHRIVER. Yes, sir.



Senator CAPEHART. Just for the record, I think it might be pointed out that the Friends, since the Quakers have been mentioned here, do not discriminate against other religions in projects run by them.

It struck me rather funny that you said that you would not make contract with anyone unless they would agree to hire people of different political faiths and denominations, et cetera. Having been in the Senate for 17 years and in politics a little longer than that, I have observed that politics observes the rule that when a given party is in power they hire members of their party, and vice versa. I am in favor of this because I do not see how you can maintain discipline and responsibility unless you operate on that basis. This will probably end up being operated on that basis as well, so there is no use arguing about it.

I have no further questions.


The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from Missouri.

Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Shriver, I congratulate you on your presentation. It is as able a presentation as I have heard. I especially congratulate you on the way you are approaching this presentation and recommendation with facts and figures, and a businesslike knowledge of what you plan to do with the money.

I would hope that some of the other witnesses who have appeared before this committee in recent weeks would read your testimony. Along these lines, this morning one of the Senators volunteered this presentation was not a new idea. I do not agree with that. I think it is a new idea and a fine challenging new idea.

Anybody who wants to take a map and see where and how the relative position of the free world has slipped in the last 8 or 10 years, who has done any traveling, and observed the position we have in the world today as against the Communists, should be interested in any new idea.

This proposed new plan will be criticized. You have a very difficult management problem. People will go out of their way to find trouble with what you do, and give illustrations of inefficiency. But that does not detract a bit from the fact that this is a great new adventure on the part of this country. I cannot imagine anybody I would rather see take a crack at it than you, based on the presentation you have made here this morning and this afternoon.



I notice some figures and facts that Senator Schoeppel put in the record yesterday about contracts. You plan to take a great deal of care in the giving of contracts to people who, in turn, would make a profit out of those contracts, do you not?


« PreviousContinue »