THE PEACE CORPS S. 2000 FRIDAY, JUNE 23, 1961 UNITED STATES SENATE, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:30 a.m. in room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Fulbright, Sparkman, Gore, Symington, and Aiken. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE The committee is meeting this morning to hear representatives from organizations and individuals who are interested in presenting testimony on S. 2000, the Peace Corps bill. In view of the large number of witnesses, we will have to ask each witness to limit his oral presentation to 10 minutes. Those scheduled to testify may summarize their statements and, if of reasonable length, the full presentation will be included in the hearing record. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Harry Pollak, International Department, AFL-CIO. Mr. Pollak, will you come forward. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF HARRY H. POLLAK, INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, AFL-CIO Mr. POLLAK. Mr. Chairman, my name is Harry H. Pollak. I am international representative of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, and I appear today as the spokesman for that organization. I am accompanied by Kenneth Meiklejohn, who is an AFL-CIO legislative representative. PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE PROGRAM I am indeed grateful for the opportunity to testify before this body in favor of S. 2000 providing for a Peace Corps. In the words of a distinguished member of this committee and I might add-a proud godfather of the Peace Corps, Senator Hubert Humphrey, it would establish a 71636-61-8 109 genuine people-to-people program in which talented and dedicated young Amer cans will teach basic skills to the people of the underdeveloped areas, with view to assisting them in their struggle against poverty, disease, illiteracy, and hunger, and with a view to promoting understanding of the United States. AFL-CIO COOPERATION WITH PEACE CORPS Let me state at the outset that the AFL-CIO is cooperating fully in making the Peace Corps a success. On the top-level National Advisory Committee for the Peace Corps, which was named by Presi dent Kennedy, are Joseph Beirne, AFL-CIO vice president and presi dent of the Communication Workers of America, and Cornelius J. (Neil) Haggerty, president of the AFL-CIO Building and Construc tion Trades Department. In addition, I have been assigned by AFLCIO President George Meany as a liaison officer between the Peace Corps and the AFL-CIO. A PEACE CORPS BROADLY REPRESENTATIVE OF AMERICAN SOCIETY Before the Peace Corps was established March 1 on a temporary basis by Executive order of the President, American labor spokesmen were urging that a Peace Corps must be broadly representative of American society and that it mobilize the energies of workers, older as well as younger, in the gigantic tasks of assisting the new nations of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, to spark their industrial revolutions. This we reiterate. For a long time, Peace Corps planning emphasized college trained individuals; if that emphasis had been allowed to grow, we would have been developing an elite instead of an across-the-board group of vital skills. In this connection, my observations abroad lead me to feel that the people of the less developed areas are going to take a good look at Americans bearing gifts, despite the best intentions of the donors The leaders of the underdeveloped countries, as we know, are shrewd, sophisticated. They are not primarily interested in providing a wellrounded education in international affairs or a low-cost "grand tour" for young Americans. They want people, pure and simple, who can perform highly desired functions. In addition to the recruits from the offices, farms, and colleges of the United States, the union schoolteacher, the mason, the carpenter, the bricklayer, the electrician, the newspaperman, the printer, the auto mechanic, the machinist-the variety of occupations is great-can truly help. PARTNERSHIP WITH DEMOCRATIC TRADE UNIONS The AFL-CIO also believes that the Peace Corps programs are not solely the concern of governments. Vital institutions in developing societies are the free trade unions. They should be taken into partnership, together with other democratic institutions, such as the cooperatives, in developing Peace Corps projects and programs. There is dubious value, we believe, in directing Peace Corps activities to countries where the trade unions are completely suppressed, as they are in the countries of the Red bloc, or in Spain, or in the Dominican Republic. A free trade union is, in a very real sense, an excellent barometer for democracy. Where it does not exist, freedom does not exist. Sept CTS MUST HAVE REAL MEANING FOR COUNTRIES ASSISTED >rofound revolution of our time, which is shaking the foundald societies, overturning old institutions, poverty is a fuse. see to it that all of our projects, whether Peace Corps or not, le or large scale, have real meaning for the peoples of the we are assisting. They must be translated into conditions nic and social justice for the masses. The building of a new road from town to market, a community development the teaching of English to African workers, the training of ngsters in the operating of a small lathe, are of more than erest to people. GREAT PROMISE AND POTENTIAL OF PEACE CORPS Its The Peace Corps offers a very great promise and potential. romise is that it will provide a new technique, the use of which has een called "middle manpower" to underdeveloped countries; it offers he potential of creating and stimulating other new techniques in implementing our democratic foreign policy objectives. But it ought to be considered frankly experimental in character. There will be mistakes and difficulties not now foreseen. PEACE CORPS RELATIONSHIPS All of us-in the Peace Corps and outside-must not consider it as an isolated commando unit in foreign affairs. It has to be viewed in the larger context of an expanded foreign aid program. It has a special responsibility to develop solid relationships with the trade unions, farmers, business, and university groups of this country. In order to secure a wide range of skills, it should not confuse public relations, although that is essential, with the need to give detailed, specific information of what it is and what it is trying to do. It must also relate to other government agencies active in the international field and work out techniques for friendly coordination of its activities with theirs. These agencies also have a great number of highly dedicated men and women whose advice the Peace Corps should seek and whose experience it should share. Abroad, the Peace Corps should not simply accept each and every request for help. Its envoys ought to be able to say no to projects that have no real validity, or that contradict or interfere with other programs established under our foreign aid programs. TRAINING FOR RECRUITS Peace Corps recruits, whatever their skills or backgrounds, should not be considered social and political robots. They should be prepared to discuss with all the basic nature of American democracy, its emphasis on freedom, individual and national, its abhorrence of totalitarianism, red and black, and its fundamental belief in economic, political, and social justice. It will be essential to provide really effective training for Peace Corps recruits in the culture of other societies, and particularly to give them knowledge and understanding of trade unions and other democratic institutions, which-very often-are the locomotives of change. A Peace Corps recruit, with all the good will in the world, cannot be a match for the Communist heckler unless he thoroughly understands the meaning of freedom and democracy. ROLE OF PEACE CORPS American labor, with its long history of international cooperation, knows full well that a Peace Corps is not a universal patent medicine that can cure everything that ails our ravaged world. Obviously, it cannot bring freedom to millions who are enslaved behind the Iron Curtain. It will not by itself solve the enormous problems of hunger and disease that afflict so many of the world's peoples; the hard problems—in Berlin, Laos, Cuba, Moscow, or elsewhere will still be with us. But the Peace Corps can help. Properly administered along the lines I have indicated, it can express to the peoples of the world some of the finest aspects of our American heritage. REEMPLOYMENT AND VOTING RIGHTS; RECRUITMENT EMPHASIS The AFL-CIO believes that S. 2000, the bill before the committee, is a good bill. We are particularly gratified to know that the Peace Corps recruit will be considered on a par in certain vital respects with the military serviceman and that similar reemployment and voting rights are being sought for the former as now provided for the latter. We also believe that there should be a greater emphasis on recruitment of the older worker and the retired worker. Among such workers there is a pool of industrial skills which very often lies unused. A good percentage of the mail on the Peace Corps at AFLCIO headquarters has come from older workers. NEW DIRECTION IN FOREIGN POLICY TECHNIQUES After realistically examining its limitations, as well as its potentials, the AFL-CIO has concluded that the Peace Corps is in fact a new direction in foreign policy techniques which is needed for the struggle to eradicate the age-old blights of poverty, illiteracy, and disease. It is also a new method of harnessing the skills of our people in a common effort. If it is organized properly and administered intelligently, it should live up to its promise of utility and effectiveness. It will be on trial, but we believe it will succeed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. INITIAL SIZE OF PEACE CORPS PROGRAM The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Pollak. I noted, Mr. Pollak, that in your statement on page 3 you said: But it ought to be considered frankly experimental in character. There will be mistakes and difficulties not now foreseen. I think that is a very sound statement with regard to any new program. What do you say about the size of this program initially? I am not referring to its ultimate size, but do you think the program will be too large in starting out with $40 million in the first year, before they have undergone this period of mistakes and difficulties not now foreseen? Mr. POLLAK. Mr. Chairman, no, sir. I believe that it is starting out on a modest level. We forget sometimes, I think, that other countries, such as the Soviet Union, have already, in one particular factory, for example, in Bhilai, India, nearly 1,000 technicians, many of whom will be on the same basis as our Peace Corps recruits. I think that the modest number suggested for the end of this year, between 500 and 1,000, is an example of the general experimental character of the program. If the 500 to 1,000 people who are sent over by the Peace Corps do not provide the kind of program, and resolve the kind of purposes which the Peace Corps has in mind, they can then modify their program later on. COMPARATIVE COST OF PEACE CORPS AND EXCHANGE PROGRAM The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the cost of this program per person is a reasonable cost? Mr. POLLAK. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. The estimated cost of $9,000 per person? Mr. POLLAK. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. How do you think this compares with the cost of sending a teacher abroad under the existing exchange program? Mr. POLLAK. Well, my understanding is that it is roughly about half the cost of the ordinary exchange The CHAIRMAN. Teacher exchange? Mr. POLLAK. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That it is about half? Mr. POLLAK. The Peace Corps program is about half. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think maybe it is time that the record should show some figures-these were supplied to me yesterday by the Department of State on the cost of sending a U.S. teacher to an underdeveloped country under existing law. Using Turkey as an example of a country in what is termed the average low-expense area, which means it is relatively near, the transportation costs are not too great, and living conditions are not extreme, the cost of the teacher, including a stipend of $5,500, is $7,950. This is for a qualified teacher. To send a student to the same area costs $2,666. I may say that these figures are exclusive of overhead. If you use the comparable figure in making a calculation including that item, it would be $6,280, rather than $9,000 which, for the Peace Corps, includes the overhead. The cost for sending a teacher to an average high-expense area, using India as an example, where transportation is high-that is, it is $2,100 in this case-plus a stipend of $5,500 and other expenses, amounts to $9,150. And the average cost in a high-expense area for a student, using Indonesia as an example, is $3,778. I thought the record ought to show that the experience under the existing exchange program, which has been carried on by the Government for some years, is as I have set it forth. Senator Sparkman, do you have any questions? |