Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118570950
label
White House Staff Memoranda - Personnel (3)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118570950
contentType
document
title
White House Staff Memoranda - Personnel (3)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
28
collections
Records of the Office of the Chief of Staff (Reagan Administration)
James Baker's Memorandums
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118570950
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1985-12-31
year
1985
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1981-01-01
year
1981
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
fc0531e91629d212
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Baker, James A.: Files
Folder Title: [ACTION] Action/Peace Corps (2)
Box: 01
To see more digitized collections
visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
BAker, JAmes A. III.
Collection: HODSOLL, FRANCIS (FRANK) S.M.: FILES
Archivist: kdb/bcb
F99-016
File Folder: [Action] Action/Peace Corps [2]
Date 7/9/99
[ACTION] ACTION/ OA 9108 Boxl
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
NO. AND TYPE
1. memo
Frank Hodsell to Ed Meese re: Peace Corps
7/8/81
Separation, 1p.
10/31/20/00
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
P-1 National security classified information [(a)(1) of the PRA].
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-2 Relating to appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA].
F-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA].
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA].
F-2 Release FOIA]. could disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information
[(a)(4) of the PRA].
F-3 Release would violate a Federal statue [(b)(3) of the FOIA].
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President and his advisors, or
F-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information
between such advisors [(a)(5) of the PRA].
[(b)(4) of the FOIA].
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(a)(6) of
F-6 Release FOIA]. would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the
the PRA].
F-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
the FOIA].
F-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions
[(b)(8) of the FOIA].
F-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of
the FOIA].
WITHDRAWAL SHEET
Ronald Reagan Library
Collection: HODSOLL, FRANCIS (FRANK) S.M.: FILES
Archivist: kdb/bcb
F99-016
File Folder: [Action] Action/Peace Corps [2]
Date 7/9/99
OA 9108
DOCUMENT
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
NO. AND TYPE
1. memo
Frank Hodsell to Ed Meese re: Peace Corps
7/8/81
P5
Separation, 1p.
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National security classified information [(a)(1) of the PRA].
F-1 National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA].
P-2 Relating to appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA].
F-2 Release could disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an agency [(b)(2) of the
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA].
FOIA].
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information
F-3 Release would violate a Federal statue [(b)(3) of the FOIA].
[(a)(4) of the PRA].
F-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President and his advisors, or
[(b)(4) of the FOIA].
between such advisors [(a)(5) of the PRA].
F-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(b)(6) of the
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy [(a)(6) of
FOIA].
the PRA].
F-7 Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement purposes [(b)(7) of
the FOIA].
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of gift.
F-8 Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of financial institutions
[(b)(8) of the FOIA].
F-9 Release would disclose geological or geophysical information concerning wells [(b)(9) of
the FOIA].
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 8, 1981
NOTE FROM: FOR FRANK ED MEESE HODSOLL frank
SUBJECT: Peace Corps Separation
Attached is Tom Pauken's memo. I checked
with him today, and he is still of the opinion
that we should acquiesce in the ACTION/Peace
Corps divorce, but would delay the effective
date to October 1, 1982, to allow for an
orderly transition.
While I think the origins of this Congressional
action are highly suspect, I doubt we want
to veto the State Department authorization
for this purpose. For these reasons, I think
we should go with Pauken's suggestion.
If you agree, we can lay on the necessary
actions. JAB agrees.
AGREE
DISAGREE
ATTACHMENT
AGENCY
THE
ACTION
FOR
ACTION
SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20525
OFFICE OF
THE DIRECTOR
June 19, 1981
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Tom Pauken
James A. Baker, Paufen
Tom
Subject: Peace Corps Separation
The Senate, Wednesday, voted 52 to 45 to separate the
Peace enactment. Corps from the ACTION agency effective immediately upon
The companion bill in the House is due to get a Rule next
week and a Floor vote is expected in Mid-July.
Today, Loret Ruppe told a press conference held in
junction with the Peace Corps Conference, that she expects con- the
President is to support Peace Corps autonomy, even though this
in conflict with the President's position.
Because the Senate amendment is in the State Department
authorization, and a veto is unlikely, a way to resolve this
the the separation. That would give all concerned time to absorb
for situation would be to set an effective date of October 1, 1982,
impact. changes and achieve autonomy with the lowest possible budget
It is important to make clear that the separation will
no way hamper ACTION's ability to cooperate with international in
be volunteer organizations and programs. Furthermore, it should
clear that ACTION will continue to be the designated lead
ment. agency for volunteer service and programs for the Federal Govern-
If this is acceptable to the White House, the
the amendments can be offered when the autonomy issue comes necessary up in
House in mid-July.
Draft language is attached.
P.S. The National Peace Corps Conference was not set by
the "previous Administration. " It was organized up by the
Senator Tsongas, Robert Mugabe, Sergeant Shriver, and
present Peace Corps leadership after I had stopped it.
Peace Cardinal Kim as speakers were initiatives of the present
Corps leadership.
PEACE CORPS
VISTA
UNIVERSITY YEAR FOR ACTION
NATIONAL CENTER FOR SERVICE LEARNING
FOSTER GRANDPARENT PROGRAM
RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM
SENIOR COMPANION PROGRAM
Attachment
DRAFT
AMENDMENT TO LANGUAGE OF S. 1193, TITLE VI, "PEACE CORPS AUTONOMY"
Sec. 602. Effective October 1, 1982, the Peace Corps shall
be an independent agency within the executive branch and shall
not be an agency within the ACTION agency or any other department
or agency of the United States. Nothing in this Title shall be
construed to prevent ACTION's participation and cooperation with
international volunteer organizations, programs and services. Further,
nothing in this Title shall be construed to in any way limit ACTION's
designation as the lead agency for volunteer service of the Federal
Government.
Assault on World Hunger Begs for U.S. Attention
1star181
World hunger is one of those is-
priority of his administration. It isn't
lumbering, docile beast waiting to
it was perceived as unfortunate but
sues that only "do-gooders" (read lib-
even an issue.
be led. On the contrary, the Ameri-
part of the inevitable inequity of the
erals) are supposed to be concerned
Recently I asked one of the Reagan
can people have over and over again
human condition which would al-
with. Anyone who thinks that we
people moving into Washington
taken the lead and made things hap-
ways be with us.
can or should actually do something
what he thought about the new ad-
pen that were not in anyone's master
So, too, in the early 1960s the pub-
about the world's starving millions
ministration's interest in world hun-
plan.
lic debate about America's
is either idealistic, foolish or both.
ger. He thought it was a nice idea,
In the early 1950s, the issue of civil
involvement in the war in Vietnam
Nothing wrong with sending a few
but that there were more important
revolved around victory or defeat.
dollars to assuage a guilty con-
rights in the United States was not
priorities for the new administra-
tion to address. Furthermore, he in-
the focus of attention of opinion
The question of the legitimacy of our
science, but unfortunately, that's
about all that can be done.
sisted that Republicans, as opposed
leaders, and it certainly wasn't on
involvement had not been raised,
the list of America's national prior-
except by a very few. It's hard to
As a result of this common percep-
to Democrats, don't generally sub-
scribe to the "Impossible Dream"
ities. There were a few people deeply
imagine now, but two years before
tion that hunger is inevitable, there
theory of government.
concerned about the problem, but
Dr. Martin Luther King spoke out
is little activity or excitement for the
the fact that millions of American
against the war I was thrown off the
creation of programs to end it. On a
But, in fact, the elimination of
citizens were treated as sub-human
payroll at my own civil rights orga-
list of the top ten or 20 policy prior-
death by starvation may no longer
did not really register, or if it did,
nization in 1965 for my opposition to
ities for the United States, it doesn't
be an "impossible dream." In the past
it. A year later that organization
even show up. No one asked a ques-
two years, no fewer than three stud-
came to the same conclusion. And a
tion in last fall's presidential debates
ies by recognized groups of experts
few years later there was national
about world hunger. President Rea-
have stated clearly that it can
consensus.
gan hasn't proposed that the elimi-
bedone. They are not only do-gooder
Now, in the early 1980s, the issue
nation of death by starvation be a
Democrats. Even the Heritage Foun-
of world hunger is in very much the
dation, that fountain of conservative
same place. A small number of con-
Mary King was Deputy Director of
thinking, said recently in a report
cerned and committed people are or-
to the new president, "There is now
ACTION, the U.S. agency housing the
ganizing. Some of them are doing it
the scientific knowledge and institu-
Peace Corps and VISTA.
by working with elected officials;
tional arrangement which makes it
others by speaking out in schools
possible to overcome hunger, not
and churches; and an increasing
only in the United States but
number are taking direct action
throughout the world. This can be
through private organizations, or by
done within the lifetime of people
volunteering for the Peace Corps or
now living, if there is the political
VISTA.
will to do so."
It will require much more. It will
Clearly, if it is to happen, the issue
require the kind of spark that made
of hunger must be included in our
Rosa Parks 25 years ago refuse to sit
national agenda. But remember that
in the back of the bus in Montgom-
this agenda is not necessarily a func-
ery, Ala. It will require the kind of
tion of what those in power say it
indignation finally brought on by
should be. It may or may not be re-
America's involvement in Vietnam.
flected in President Reagan's master
And most definitely, it will require
plan.
a recognition that it is simply not ac-
What, then, would it take to make
ceptable to have a world in which
what is now a possibility into a re-
28 human beings die of starvation
ality? The American public is not a
Starving Cambodian child
each minute, every day.
1
Peace Corps
Washington, D.C. 20525
Nuch Person take Ris to
white Nouse N N.W N you
I udy Call moestA
436-2174 when
you yet Run. Are well
exchange This for
original
ae.
n.w. n.W.gate gate
West Wing
CHRONOLOGY
Feb. 13
Loret M. Ruppe nominated.
Feb. 24
Thomas W. Pauken nominated, name submitted to
Senate.
March 16
Cranston Letter to Loret M. Ruppe
March 17
LMR memo to Powell Moore, Tom Pauken re Cranston letter
March 18
Letter to Cranston from Loret Ruppe and William
Sykes
Mar. 19
Bastian letter to Pam Turner W. copy of 3/18 letter.
March 20
Follow-up letter to Senator Cranston.
make 26
CRanston nate to 6 MR.
April 2
Sen. Percy letter to Friedersdorf and Fielding (2).
April 3
Meeting -- Loret M. Ruppe, Al Cook, Fred Fielding
and
Letter to Fred Fielding from Loret M. Ruppe
Letter to Sen. Percy from Friedersdorf.
Letter to Sen. Percy from Fielding.
Letter to Sen. Percy from Robert M. McNamara.
April 7
Pauken nomination reported, Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.
April 9
Second letter from Robert M. McNamara to Sen. Pell
and Sen. Cranston.
April 15
Carrier Article, Washington Star.
April 16
McGrory Column, Washington Star.
April 22
Star editorial supporting Pauken.
April 24
Dave Scotton met with Fred Fielding.
April 27
Loret M. Ruppe letter to Star editor published.
April 27
Friedersdorf letter to Percy re: cost of separation.
April 28
Loret M. Ruppe confirmation hearing.
May 1
Star published letters from Cranston and Dellenback.
May 2
News Article, Human Events
March 16, 1981
Ms. Loret Ruppe
Director-Designate of the
Peace Corps
806 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, D. C. 20525
Dear Loret,
In anticipation of your confirmation hearing before the Foreign
Relations Committee, I would appreciate it very much if you would
provide me with a description of the history and development of the
policy of separation of the Peace Corps from the intelligence-
gathering functions and agencies of the United States Government and a
description of how that policy of separation has been applied throughout
the history of the Peace Corps with particular reference to Peace
Corps staff and volunteer applicants and distinctions between absolute
bars and case-by-case determinations, including identification of the
units or branches of the Peace Corps that have been and are responsible
for application of the policy and what factors are considered in case-
by-case determinations.
I would also like to know your views on the importance of continuing
this policy and on any changes you propose to consider in it or its
application.
I appreciate very much your assistance and cooperation in this matter,
and request a reply by close of business March 18 if at all possible.
Cordially,
Alan Alay Cranston
March 17, 1981
IDRANDUM FOR POWELL MOORE
TOM PAUKEN
FROM:
Loret Miller Ruppe
SUBJECT:
Attached Letter from Senator Cranston
I have received the attached letter from Senator Crarston
which appears to be part of his effort to hold up Tom's
confirmation process.
I do not want to respond to the Denator's inquiry, but I
will be guided by your suggestions. No doubt I will be
grilled on these issues at my confirmation hearing, but we
will address that at the time. Hopefully Tom's nomination
will have been cleared bnythen. (I don't think a joint
appearance would be helpful if it can be avoided.)
Would you prefer that we simply not acknowledge this
inquiry from Cranston, or should we tell the Senator's
staff that nooresppnssewWillbbef6otbhoming?
Attachment
FARRAND:RUPPE:sss:3/17/81
CC: Subject
Alphabetical
Chron
LaForge
Peace Corps
Honorable Alan Cranston
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Alan:
I appreciated very much your writing to me personally
on March 16. I would like to have responded in the
same manner; however, my current status with Peace
Corps until my confirmation is that of student volunteer.
For that reason and for legal purposes, I have asked
Bill Sykes, Acting Director of Peace Corps, to co-sign
this letter.
I do want to thank you for your interest in Peace
Corps. I look forward to our working together in the
future.
Sincerely yours,
Jose M. Cuppe
Loret M. Ruppe
Director-Designate
Enclosure
Peace Corps
Washingt D.C. 20505
Director
Honorable Alan Cranston
United States Senate
229 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Cranston:
I have received your letter concerning Peace Corps' policy
of maintaining separation between the agency and the intelli-
gence gathering functions of the government.
The current policy evolved from the original rule adopted
by former Director Sargent Shriver. This rule barred any
former CIA employee from ever working for the Peace Corps in
any staff or volunteer capacity. It also barred former employees
of other intelligence agencies from Peace Corps employment or
volunteer service if their intelligence work occurred within
the previous 15 years. With minor modifications, the basic
concepts of separation between the Peace Corps and the intelli-
gence community have been successfully applied for 20 years.
In 1970, former Director Blatchford extended the prohibition
to anyone who had ever had "any CIA connection". This was
presumed to include persons who had engaged in contract work
or other activities with the CIA, but who were not formally
employed by that agency. At the same time, the 15-year
quarantine for persons who had received intelligence training
or engaged in non-CIA intelligence activities was modified to
10 years.
Volunteers
The intelligence policy as it applies to volunteers is
codified in Peace Corps Manual Section 201 which was most
recently revised in May, 1973. Manual Section 201 states that
to be eligible for Peace Corps service, an applicant must:
5. Have no connection with the Central Intelligence
Agency;
a. Any person who has ever had any Central
Intelligence (CIA) connection is auto-
matically disqualified from Peace Corps
service.
Honorable Alon Cranston
United Stat S Senate
page 2
S
Any person with other intelligence training
crivho has done intélligence work within
the past ten years is also disqualified from
Peace Corps service. A person who was
involved in intelligence activity (other
than CIA) more than 10 years ago will be
referred to GC which will determine if
the nature of that activity was sufficient
to warrant disqualification.
C. Any question as to whether an activity
constituted an intelligence activity under
these guidelines will be referred to GC.
The criteria used to determine whether the 10-year bar
sho in a particular case are:
(1) Was applicant's involvement sufficiently extensive
to create the impression of career service which
may not have been terminated?
(2) Was the applicant's previous position in the
intelligence field a prominent one (i.e., would
he or she be likely to be known as an intelligence
official) ?
(3) Did the applicant serve overseas while in the
intelligence field?
(4) What was the nature of the individual's involvement?
(e.g. persons involved in covert action would
probably be permanently barred).
Peace Corps Staff
In July 1975, the intelligence policy as it applies to staff
positions was codified for the first time in an internal regulation,
Manual Section 643 which remains in effect today.
Manual Section 643 was intended to carry forward the then
existing policies and to clarify their application to positions
with ACTION which related to both domestic and international
programs. The regulation contains an absolute prohibition
applicable to persons with previous CIA employment. It continues
the 10-year quarantine for persons having non-CIA intelligence
backgrounds and who were seeking employment in the Peace Corps.
Nonorable Alan Cranstin
United States Senate
paga
Unlike the regulation applicable to volunteer service, Verual
Section 643 makes evp oyee applicants automatically eligible
upon the expiration of 10 years following their last
intelligence involvement. However, as a matter of practice
the Peace Corps would look bavond the 10-year bar if an
applicant's intelligence background was particularly extensive
or involved covert activities.
ACTION Staff
At the time of the merger of Peace Corps and domestic
volunteer programs under the ACTION umbrella, an attempt was
made to apply the intelligence policy to all ACTION positions.
It was quickly realized that this was unnecessary because most
domestic positions had no relationship to the Peace Corps mission.
Its application was then limited to Peace Corps positions and to
positions in ACTION offices having a direct and important
relationship to operations under the Peace Corps Act. Manual
Section 643 applied the policy to ACTION positions as follows:
d. Any person whose application to a position within
ACTION reveals a CIA employment or intelligence
activity within the past ten years, and whose
application refers to a position other than a
position in ACTION's Office of International
Operations, but which position nevertheless has
a direct and important relationship with opera-
tions under the Peace Corps Act, may be barred
from consideration for that position.
With respect to paragraph a., any such application shall be
referred to the General Counsel on a case-by-case basis.
A committee was established by the regulation consisting of
representatives from the General Counsel's Cifice, the Peace
Corps and the domestic programs. The ora eria for determining
eligibility in such cases is the extent and nature of the
non-CIA activity or training and the identification with Peace
Corps operations of the ACTION position being sought.
Under Executive Order 12137, while the Peace Corps enjoys
autonomy from ACTION, the latter still performs many support
services such as recruitment and public affairs, for the Peace
Corps. Thus, the policy contained in Manual Section 643 with
respect to ACTION positions continues to be relevant.
Nonumble Alan Cranston
United States Serate
page 4
I hope this information fully answers your concerns about
the Peace Corps intelligence policy. I believe the continued
separation of Peace Corps and the intelligence functions of
our government is critical to the success, credibility and
safety of our overseas volunteers. If confirmed as Director,
I intend to enforce the policy strictly, as has been done for the
past two decades. It would be premature for me to suggest any
modifications to the existing policy at this time. However,
before considering any changes in the policy, we would seek the
advice of a wide range of people, including members of the
Ongressional Committees with oversight responsibility for the
Peace Corps.
Sincerely,
Local M Puppe
William G. Sykes
Loret M. Ruppe
Acting Director
Director-Designate
981
Ms. Pamela Turner
Special Assistant
for Legislative Affairs
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Pam:
Attached is the letter from Peace Corps to Senator Cranston
in response to his intelligence inquiry.
I very much appreciated the attention you and Powell Moore
gave this matter during our telephone conversation last
evening. As I indicated at that time, it remains vital
that we keep lines of communication open. To that end,
please do not hesitate to contact me or Loret should you
have any questions or concerns about Peace Corps. As
it stands, we remain indebted to you and Powell for your
help and support.
Loret joins me in sending special best wishes to you both.
Sincerely,
Kenneth H. Bastian
Executive Assistant to
the Director-Designate
March 20. 1041
Honorable Alan Cranston
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
DATE
Dear Alan:
In your letter of March 16, 1981, you asked certain ques-
tions concerning Peace Corps policy with respect to the
employment of individuals with babhekground in intellig
In my reply of March 18, 1981 I attempted to respond to
DATE
your questions, which I took to reflect your general con-
cern that our present policies in this area be continued.
As you know I too wish to continue those policies.
SIGNATURE
Your letter appeared aimed at questions of interest to my
confirmation process, and I was therefore dismayed to learnate
that my response has been interpreted as having some
relevance to the President's nomination of Tom Pauken to Here.symbol
Director of ACTION. I can assure you it was not so intended.
I have, however, looked into the matter of Tom's nomination(NATURE
and have concluded that nothing whatsoever in the rules of
either agency concerning intelligence background would prepate
clude his eligibility to serve as Director of ACTION.
RTG. SYMBOL
Lest there be any misunderstanding on this point, I want to
state for the record that I fully support the President's SIGNATURE
nomination of Tom Pauken. I believe that he is fully
qualified to be Director of ACTION and will perform ably inate
that role. I look forward to working with him in meeting
the goals of our respective agencies.
RTG. SYMBOL
Sincerely,
SIGNATURE
DATE
SYMBOL
Loret Miller Ruppe
Director-Designate
SIGNATURE
DATE
LMRUPPE: 3/20/81
CC: Chron, Subject, Bastion
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
ACTION Form A-183 (rev 5/79)
States Seviale
WASHINGTON 11310
March 26, 1981
Ms. Loret Ruppe
Director-Designate of the
Peace Corps
806 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, D. C. 20525
Dear Loiet,
Many thanks for your letter of March 20. Please
rest assured that I did not interpret your letter
of March 16 to be intended to reflect upon Mr.
Pauken's nomination, nor do I believe that the
rules of either the ACTION Agency or the Peace
Corps would legally preclude his eligibility to
serve as Director of the ACTION Agency.
CordialK
Alan Granston
N.C.
JOSEPH JR., DEL.
5.1. HAYAKAWA. CALIF.
JOHN GLENN OHIO
RICHARD G. LUGAR INC.
PAUL SALCANTS MD.
CHARLES MCC MATHIAS JR.. MD.
KANS
Mnited States Senate
April 2, 1981
Mr. Fred Fielding
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. Fielding:
The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations at its business meeting
yesterday morning favorably considered the nomination of Thomas
W. Pauken to be Director of ACTION. However, some Members of
the Committee expressed serious concern over Mr. Pauken's previous
military intelligence experience and the possible problems his
confirmation might create for the safety of Peace Corps volunteers.
I am enclosing for your information a copy of the transcript of
the March 25 nomination hearing and a copy of Senator Cranston's
letter of March 30 to me. A copy of the transcript of the
Committee business meeting of April 1 will be forwarded to you as
soon as it is available. In an effort to resolve the concerns of
these Committee Members, I request your views on the following
issue raised during Mr. Pauken's nomination proceedings:
Under the present ACTION/Peace Corps policy regarding hiring
of personnel who have an intelligence background and taking
into account Mr. Pauken's previous military intelligence
experience, would Mr. Pauken be eligible to hold the position
of Director of ACTION or any career position in ACTION?
I further request that the Peace Corps General Counsel also
provide the Committee with his independent legal judgment on
the question listed above.
2
The Committee intends to fill report on the Pauken nomination
by Monday, April 6. I would, therefore, appreciate receiving
your responses no later than the close of business Friday,
April 3. If you are not able to FOR comply fully with this gusst,
please provide X the Committee ith whate er responses avail-
able by that date. Thank you for your continued cooperation in
this matter.
Sincerely,
nal July
Charles H. Percy
Chairman
CHP:bga
CC: Mr. Max Friedersdorf, Assistant to the President for
Legislative Affairs
Senator Claiborne Pell
Enclosures
CHARLES H. PERCY. ILL., CHAIRMAN
HOWARD BAKER JR.. TENN.
CLAIBORNE MELL R.I.
DEL
JESSE
DG
Meleo Senate
20510
April 2, 1981
Fred Fielding, Esquire
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. Fielding,
With reference to the April 2 letter to you from Chairman Percy,
please also provide the Committee with your views, and the
independent legal judgment of the Peace Corps General Counsel,
on the following issue raised during Mr. Pauken's nomination
proceedings:
Under the present Peace Corps policy and practice regarding
persons with intelligence backgrounds and taking into account
Mr. Pauken's previous military intelligence experience and
association, would he be eligible to hold a position on the
Peace Corps staff or to serve as a Peace Corps volunteer?
Your response in the same time frame as to Chairman Percy's
letter would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Pr.
Claiborne Pell
Alan Cranston
Ranking Minority Member
CC: Honorable Charles Percy
Max Freidersdorf
1009-7
2. Fait
officer.
ongoing
agency:
3. Finally Director of ACTION. Mr. Pauken has vircually
no involver ni with day-to-day PeHce Comps operat The
ACTION offices which provide support services in distate
or influence Pence Corps policy.
When Mr. Panken appeared before the Committee. be testified that
"the Peace Corps should be kept separate from into ligence-related
activities. I strongly support that policy and and in full compliance
with the intelligence policy, as written vis-a-vis ACTION" lewring
record. P. 10). Included in the appendix to the VIEWS of the Majority
are correspondence between Chairman Percy and Fred Fielding.
White House Counsel. Max Friedersdorf. Assista. P: Plant
for Legislative Afairs and Robert McNumara. Ji.. Peace Come Gen-
eral Counsel. Messrs. Fielding's. Friedersdorf's and cor-
respondence indicate. inter alia. that according to ACTION Peace
Corps policy regarding the hiring of personnel who have an intelli-
gence background, Mr. Panken would be eligible If hold the posit on of
Director of ACTION or any career position in A TION.
Consequently. since Mr. Pauken meets the requirements of the
ACTION/Peace Corps regulations pertaining to the service of
ACTION personnel with previous intelligence expe rience. and taking
into account Mr. Panken's strong support for maintaining the sepa-
ration of the Peace Corps from any intelligence-related activities. a
majority of the Members of the Committee have concluded that Mr.
Pauken is qualified to serve as the Director of ACTION.
U.S. SENATE.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS.
Washington,
Mr. MAX FRIEDERSDORF.
Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs. The White House.
Washington. D.C.
DEAR MR. FRIEDERSDORF: The Senate Commitee on For ign Rela-
tions at its business meeting yesterday morning favorably onsidered
the nomination of Thomas W. Pauken to Le Diretcor of ACTION.
However, some Members of the Committee expressed serious concern
over Mr. Panken's previous military intelligence experience and the
possible problems his confirmation might create for the for of Peace
5
enclosing for your information a copy of the
the Man nomination hearing and a copy of Senator
soon as it. is available. In an effort to resolve the concerns of the
letter of March 30 to THC. A copy of the transcript of the
Committee Members, I request your views on the following issu
Committee meeting of April will be forwarded to you as
raised during Mr. Panken's nomination proceedings:
rentlable in 111 flort to resolve the concerns of these
Under the present ACTION/Peace Corps policy regarding hirir
Metuber reque your view 011 the following isnes raised
of personnel who have an intelligence background and taking int
Mr Paul nonimation procedings:
account Mr. Pauken's previous military intelligence experience, wou
con adering making the Peace Corps en
Mr. Pauken be eligible to hold the position of Director of actio
OF any career position in ACTION?
at X FION by Executive Order of the President?
indicated their intentions to introduce legisla-
I further request that the Peace Corps General Counsel also provie
orp 1111 independent agency, devoid of
the Committee with his independent legal judgment on the questio
listed above.
Ino admini trattve or otherwise, with ACTION. Would
Une Vilutini Tatton upport neh legislation?
The Committee intends to file its report on the Pauken nominatio
1979 cutive Order instred by President Carter established
by Monday, April 6. I would, therefore, appreciate receiving your re
7001 attionomons agency within ACTION. This
sponses no later than the close of business Friday, April 3. If you are
intended to Trengthen the visibility and inde
not able to comply fully with this request, please provide the Com
Peace Coro while. in 111 effort at greater economy,
mittee with whatever responses are available by that date. Thank you
for your continued cooperation in thismafter.
support efflees by Peace Corps and action.
Sincerely,
upport provided for by the 1979 Executive
tenificam avings for the Peace Corps? If SO, please
CHARLES H. PERCY,
aving as compared with the probable costs that would
Chairman.
Enclosures.
incurred by the Peace Corps had it been a completely inde-
from action.
THE WHITE House,
Committee intends to tile its report on the Pauken nomination
Washington, April 3. 1981.
Hon. CHARLES II. Percy,
G would. therefore, ampreciate receiving your re-
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
than the clase of business Friday. April %. If you are
comply tilly with this request, please provide the Com-
DEAR SENATOR PERCY: Your letter concerning the President's momi-
whates (1) response are available by that date. Thank you
ceived. nation of Thomas W. Pauken for Director of action has been re-
continued cooperation in this matter.
mocrely
The Administration opposes the separation of the Peace Corps
and ACTION.
CHARLES 11. PEROY,
Chairman.
We have no knowledge of any comparable costs between an Execu-
tive Order issued two years ago and speculation on what costs might
have been had the agencies been separated. However, we will request
the Office of Management and Budget to review the question.
U.S. SENATE,
Mr. Pauken's nomination was submitted to the Senate on Febru
COMMITTEE 11\ FOREIGN RELATIONS,
ary 24, 1981, and we are hopeful that the Senate will takeup his
Washington, D.C., April 1981.
confirmation at the earliest possible date.
With regard,
MAX L. Friedersdore,
ington, D.C.
Assistant to the President.
M. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
THEY ve-ferday morning favorably considered the
THE WHITE House,
il' Parken to be Director of ACTION. How-
Washington, pril 1981.
Hon. CUARLES II. Percy,
of Phe Committee expressed serious concern over
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
military intelligence experience and the DOSSI
to confirmation micht create for the safety of Peace
DEAR SENATOR PERCY: By letter dated April 2, 1981, you requested
THE for your information a coby of the
that supply to your Committee my views on the issue of whether
head and a copy of Senator
Thomas W. Pauken, the President's nominee for Director, ACTION,
of the Transerint of the
would The eligible to hold the position of Director of action or
Voril will bis forwarded to you as
any career position in ACTION" in light of his prior military CN-
perience By 21 separate letter received this Tternoon, Senaters PAIL
Peace Corps
Honorable Fred
Counsel to the President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Fred:
To follow up on our conversation of this morning I wish to restate my position
regarding Tom Pauken's nomination and the relationship of the Director of
ACTION to the Peace Corps. As Director of the Peace Corps, my primary concern
has to be maintaining the safety of our volunteers and staff overseas.
As you know qualifications for the Director of ACTION are determined by the
President who nominates him and by the Senate which must confirm his nomina-
tion. As such, that position is not covered by the intelligence policy
guidelines of the Peace Corps.
As I have indicated earlier, I believe Tom is qualified to be the Director of
ACTION. In addition, two Senate committees have already approved his nomination.
With respect to the hypothetical question of his eligibility to serve as an
employee of ACTION pursuant to existing intelligence policy, this is a legal
determination. I must therefore rely on legal opinions as to the answer to that
question. If your office has answered that question in the affirmative, I will
of course accept that opinion.
This issue has developed because of the publicity surrounding Mr. Pauken's con-
firmation hearings which imply some possibility that the Peace Corps will be
used for intelligence purposes. I believe this is an unfair, unwarranted con-
clusion based on Mr. Pauken's record. His intelligence involvement was over
ten years ago in the military--not as a civilian intelligence operative--and he
testified that he has had no contact with military intelligence since 1969.
Any implication that based on this background he will turn the Peace Corps into
an intelligence-gathering agency is totally without merit and outside the scope
of the ACTION Director's authority.
As Director of the Peace Corps, I intend to make absolutely clear that Peace
Corps personnel are not in the intellit Ince business. I intend to reaffirm the
understanding with various intelligence agencies of that policy. In this way
we will continue our efforts to minimize any risk to Peace Corps Volunteers in
the field,
2
The suggestion has been mude that total autonomy of the Potte Corps would
resolve these problems. This is an issue we have considered from a cost-
efficiency perspective and that of any remaining perception of the Peace
Corps as E part of ACTION. This issue may warrent further consideration
within the councils of the Administration.
I hope this clarifies my position on the matters we discussed this morning,
and I look forward to dealing with many other serious issues the Foace Corps
will face in the years ahead.
Sincerely,
Fores 172. Puppe
Loret Miller Ruppe
Director-Des gnate
THE WHITE HOUSE
Honorable Charles H. Percy
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Percy:
By letter dated April 2, 1981, you requested that I supply to
your Committee my views on the issue of whether Thomas W.
Pauken, the President's nominee for Director, ACTION, would
"be eligible to hold the position of Director of ACTION or
any career position in ACTION" in light of his prior military
experience. By a separate letter received this afternoon, Senators
Pell and Cranston asked me to expand my response to also cover
the question of whether Mr. Pauken would "be eligible to
hold a position on the Peace Corps staff or to serve as a
Peace Corps volunteer". Given time constraints, I am taking
the liberty of responding to both requests in this letter. I
have also asked Mrs. Loret Ruppe to advise the General Counsel
of the Peace Corps of your additional request for his
independent legal opinion on these issues.
In order to respond, and to place the issue of Mr. Pauken's
"intelligence background" in the proper context, it is appropriate
to examine (1) ACTION/Peace Corps intelligence policy, (2)
the nature of the relationship between Peace Corps and
ACTION, and (3) the facts of Mr. Pauken's military experience.
In 1975, ACTION published Order 300.5, an internal policy
statement. It has no force of law and is not binding on the
President in making this nomination, or on the Senate in the
exercise of its constitutional power to advise and consent
on the appointment by the President of officers of the
United States. However, even if Order 300.5 applied to this
case, I un of the opinion that Mr. Pauken would qualify for.
appoint: nt to any position in ACTION. The policy of Order
300.5 clearly states that former intelligence activity will
never automatically disqualify a candidate for any post in
ACTION. Only if the applicant had worked for the CIA or
engaged in intelligence activity within the past ten years,
is a detormination required as to the appropriateness of
ACTION
employment
Since
Mr. Pauken's activity ceased in 1969
300.5
would
not
application
for
Order 300.5 could also not apply to Mr. Paul
seeking to be a Peace Corps olunteer. He was
employee and was not engaged in any intelligence activity
for the past 10 years. By letter to Senator Cranston dated
March 18, 1981, William. G. Sykes and Lorez Reppe State that
form (4) enumerated criteria are used, apparently by the
Peace Corps, to determine whether the ten-year ban should be
extended in a particular case of a Peace Corps applicant. We
have been unable to locate any previously existing public
source for these four tests and believe that the application
of unpublished criteria to evaluate an individual's job
eligibility raises serious questions of fairness. Even if,
however, these crit were applied hype 10
Mr. Pauken, I belic be eligible ent in
the Peace Corps. With respect to the first criterion,
Mr. Pauken's involvement was clearly limited in time and
responsibility. As his testimony before your Committee,
makes clear, he was not a career intelligence employee, but
worked in low-level intelligence in a combat area, solely to
aid U.S. forces as a military assignment. Mr. Pauken was a
Lieutenant in the U.S. Army; he was not in a "prominent"
position in intelligence, as criterion 2 asks. It is true
that Mr. Pauken served overseas, as criterion 3 asks, but
this service was not in some underdeveloped neutral country;
rather, he served in the military in an allied country,
assisting South Vietnam in its fight for survival. Finally,
criterion 4 asks for the nature of the applicant's involvement.
Mr. Pauken's was extremely limited in time and scope.
Of course, Thomas W. Pauken is not seeking to be a Peace
Corps volunteer. He is, rather, applying to be the Director
of ACTION. As such, he would have an extremely limited role
with respect to the Peace Corps. The Peace Corps Director
prepares and implements its budget, and directs and controls
the operation of the Peace Corps and such support functions
as are necessary to carry out the responsibilinies delegated
by Executive Order 12137 (Márch 16, 1979). Policy matters,
including program development and implementation, planning,
volunteer selection and placement, legal support, congressional
liaison, development of education activities, program evalu-
ation, and services to volunteers and their families, remain
the sole responsibility of the Peace Corps Director. As you
yourself have stated, Mr. Pauken will have vir cally no.,
*I believe it to be irrelevant that Mr. Pauken remained in the
inactive Reserves for a brief period thereafter; during this period
he was not engaged in intelligence activity.
3
since
he
It should be noted that the Peace Corps does not totally
exclude former intelligence personnel from its employ.
Since 1975, by Order 300.5, it has been public knowledge
that the Peace Corps stands ready to employ persons who
have worked for a non-CIA intelligence agency more than 10
years before their application. This public position of the
Peace Corps has not, to our knowledge, hampered the Peace
Corps in the performance of its basic functions, nor has it
jeopardized the safety of any Peace Corps volunteer.
In my opinion, Order 300.5 is a sensible solution to the
question of when former intelligence employees should be
allowed to work for ACTION and the Peace Corps. Thomas
Pauken cualifies under any reading of Order 300.5; his
prior service to his country in a time of need is evidence
of his capacity to lead ACTION, and not a reason to deny
him this opportunity for further public service. It is the
President's desire that he have that opportunity, and we
respectfully urge his confirmation at the earliest date.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this subject for
your Committee.
Sincerely,
Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
CC: Honorable Claiborne Pell
Honorable Alan Cranston
Honorable Max L. Friedersdorf
Mr. Thomas W. Pauken
Peace Corps
April 1981
Honorable Charles H. Percy
Chairman
Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In a letter dated April 2, 1981, to Mr. Fred Fielding,
Counsel to the President, you requested that the Peace
Corps General Counsel provide the Committee with a legal
opinion on whether under the current ACTION/Peace Corps
policy regarding the hiring of personnel who have an
intelligence background, Mr. Pauken, the ACTION Director-
Designate, would be eligible to hold the position of
Director of ACTION or any career position in ACTION.
Eligibility for Position of Director of ACTION:
The Peace Corps intelligence policy, as set forth in
MS 643 (ACTION Order No. 300.5), dated July 21, 1975, has
neither a statutory nor a formal regulatory basis. Rather,
it is an internal policy which has been formulated by the
Peace Corps and applied to volunteers, Peace Corps employees,
and to those ACTION employees whose positions have "a direct
and important relationship with operations under the Peace
Corps Act".
Since the policy is an internal one, it is not legally
binding on the President, nor is it applicable to individuals
nominated by the President for positions which require the
advice and consent of the Senate. Consequently, the policy
would have no application to Mr. Pauken's nomination, and,
therefore, would not be a bar to his holding the position of
Director of ACTION.
Eligibility for Any Other Position in ACTION:
As a preface to the discussion which follows, I wish to
point out that I am relying solely on the transcript of the
hearing on Mr. Pauken's nomination to be Director of the
ACTION agency, which the Committee held on Wednesday, March 25,
Honorable Charles H. Percy
April 3, 1991
Washington, D.C.
Page Two
1981, for the factual predicate for by opinion. I assume
that the formation contained in chat transcript is not
only accurate, but also complete. have not had access
to any other documents, such as Mr. Pauken's military
record (Tr. 48), I assume information in that record
neither contradicts nor qualifies the information con-
tained in the transcript.
The relevant provision of the Peace Corps intelligence
policy which applies to positions within ACTION is found
in MS 643.4.d, which states:
"Any person whose application to a position within
ACTION reveals a CIA employment or intelligence
activity within the past ten years, and whose
application refers to a position
which.
has a direct and important relationship under the
Peace Corps Act, may be barred from consideration
for that position."
In such cases, a committee is formed comprised of Peace Corps
General Counsel (representing the Peace Corps Director), the
ACTION General Counsel, and the designee of the Associate
Director for Domestic Operations. The committee examines the
nature and circumstances of the applicant's intelligence
activity and the directness and importance of whatever rela-
tionship the position applied for within ACTION has to oper-
ations under the Peace Corps Act. The committee then makes
a recommendation to the Deputy Director of ACTION as to
whether the applicant should be barred from consideration
for the position.
Before applying this policy and the underlying criteria
to Mr. Pauken's situation, it is important to point out that
this case is unique. After discussions with my staff, and
with ACTION General Counsel, I have confirmed that on no
occasion previous to this have we had a situation involving
inactive reserve status. Consequently, it is not settled
whether such status should be included for purposes of the
ten-year rule. If that status is not included for purposes
of consideration under MS 643.4.d, then Mr. Pauken would
automatically be cleared for a position within ACTION, since
his intelligence activity occurred more than ten years ago.
However, assuming without deciding that such status is to
be included, then an examination of the nature and circum-
stances of the intelligence activity is necessary.
Mr. Pauken's military record indicates that on December
29, 1969, he received special orders assigning him to a
reserve unit; on January 4, 1970, he was separated from
Honorable Charles E. Torcy
April 3, 1981
Weshington, D.C.
Page Three
on March 10, 1972, he signed an election to be
Counsferri to the USAR Control Group Standby upon expira-
of the Ready Reserve obligation; and on February 14,
19 3, he received a notice of discharge from Standby Service
effective February 28, 1973. (Tr. 57, 59; See also Tr. 47-48).
During this period of time, Department of Army records show
Mr. Pauken's military intelligence MOS continued, that is,
as a military intelligence officer. (Tr. 57).
Regarding the nature of this inactive reserve status,
Mr. Pauken has testified that after his discharge he in fact
had no connection or involvement with the military or intel-
ligence. (Tr. 9, 32-33, 58, 60-61). At the Committee's
hearing on his nomination, Mr. Pauken testified:
I never went to a meeting, never talked with
anyone from the military, never had any connection
with military intelligence after the day I was dis-
charged or got out in Oakland. " (Tr. 58).
This uncontradicted statement clearly indicates that Mr.
Pauken was involved in no military intelligence activities
during the period of time he would have fallen within the
ten-year provision. The circumstances surrounding his
inactive reserve status also clearly indicate that it was
purely an administrative classification evidencing a con-
tinuing legal obligation without any actual involvement
with the military. Consequently, in my opinion, Mr. Pauken
would not be barred from consideration for a postion within
ACTION under the current Peace Corps intelligence policy.
Sincerely,
Robert M. McNamara
Jr.
General Counsel
Peace Corps
April 9, 1061
The Honorable Clairorn Pell
Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Fell:
On Friday, April 3, 1981, I was informed that you had
sent a letter to Mr. Fred Fielding, Counsel to the President,
in which you asked us to expand our responses to the questions
submitted by the Chairman of the Committee to include mether
"Under the present Peace Corps policy and practice regarding
persons with intelligence backgrounds and taking into account
Mr. Pauken's previous military experience and association he
would be eligible to hold a position on the Peace Corps staff
or to serve as a Peace Corps volunteer." My response to this
question has been delayed because I wished to see a copy of
the letter itself.
As I am sure you are well aware, the application of the
Peace Corps intelligence policy to those wishing to serve
either as volunteers or as Peace Corps staff members is much
stricter than those wishing to serve in certain staff positions
in the ACTION Agency. The primary reason for this dichotomy
is the heightened concern for the safety and security of the
volunteers and staff overseas, especially in countries where
even the suspicion-albeit totally unfounded--of participation
in intelligence activities could seriously jeopardize not only
the lives of these persons but also the credibility and vitality
of our programs.
Our concern in this area has increased in recent years as
terrorist and guerrilla organizations have looked upon hostage-
taking as a standard operating procedure to effect short-term
domestic and international political gains. The possibility
and the fear that our volunteers or staff could be used as
pawns in such a situation is not speculative. In recent times
two of our volunteers have been held hostage: one for three
years and another for ten days. Consequently, since most of
our volunteers operate outside of capital cities oftentimes at
great distances in rural villages, the Peace Corps has strictly
applied the intelligence policy and has, if at all, erred on
the side of extreme caution.
page
al
As a preface to the discussion which follows, I to
point out that I am relying lely on 55
the
hearing on Mr. Pauken's nomination to be Director of the ACTION
Agency, which the Committee held on Wednesday, March 25, 1981,
for the factual predicate for my opinion. I assume that the
information contained in that transcript is not only accurate,
but also complete. I have not had access to any other
documents, such as Mr. Pauken's military record (Tr. 43). I
assume information in that record neither contradicts nor
qualifies the information contained in the transcript.
The hearing transcript provides the following information
regarding Mr. Pauken's military service:
1. Upon enlisting in the Army, he requested an assign-
ment to international affairs and was assigned to
Special Intelligence (Tr. 54-56);
2. From June 1967 to December 1968, he received intelli-
gence and language training (Tr. 9, 41);
3. His first assignment in Vietnam was a Province Intelli-
gence Officer in the Delta (Tr. 9, 41). He described
his primary duties as "nothing other than low-level
order of battle collection of information (Tr. 42), and
he was primarily involved "with analyzing a particular
religious sect that is in the Delta known as Hoa Hao,
which is an off-shoot of the Buddhist sect.' (Tr. 43-
50).
4. An efficiency evaluation report covering the period
of November 1, 1968 to May 31, 1969 described his
principal duties as "team chief in a unilateral
clandestine intelligence collection operation" (Tr. 49).
5. An efficiency evaluation report covering the period
of June 1, 1969 to August 22, 1969 described his
principal duties as "team chief of an intelligence
collection team engaged in covert intelligence
operations, directly responsible for developing and
directing team operations in direct support of the
counter-insurgency effort in the Four Cord (?) (sic)
tactical zone in the Republic of Vietnam" (Tr. 49).
page
3
6.
5
"simultaresusly
I
intelligence
programs
(Tr.
50).
7. His did not include the knowing interrogation
of Viethamese, Viet Cong soldiers or civilians
(Tr. 43-44).
8. He carried out these activities in the Delta at times
in civilian clothes and at other times in uniform. He
did not, however, have any type of cover (Tr. 45).
9. He later served as a Senior Analyst for the Office of
Strategic Research and Analysis in Saigon. In this
capacity he "prepared a number of studies on everything
from communist revolutionary strategy towards South
Vietnam and did a major study on Truong Chinh, who was
a leading North Vietnamese revolutionary theorist"
(Tr. 45-46). He also conducted "studies on the rela-
tionship between the North Vietnamese and the Viet
Cong" (Tr. 46).
10. He testified that, to his knowledge, he did not communi-
cate with intelligence personnel from any other intelli-
gence agency, including the CIA (Tr. 47).
11. The citation accompanying the Joint Service Commenda-
tion Medal that he was awarded stated that his "analyses
provided the Commander, United States Military Assistance
Command, Vietnam, of the United States Embassy and
other agencies throughout the intelligence community with
intelligence information of great value in the counter-
insurgency effort in Vietnam" (Tr. 51). Mr. Pauken
testified, however, that he was unaware that the reports
were passed on to other agencies. (Tr. 44, 46, 51-52).
12. An efficiency report covering the period of August 23,
1969 to December 27, 1969, indicates he "contributed to
the success of several joint classified projects under-
taken with other intelligence agencies in the Saigon
area" (Tr. 53).
13. On December 29, 1969, he received special orders
assigning him to a reserve unit; on January 4, 1970, he
was separated from active duty; on March 10, 1972, he
signed an election to be transferred to the USAR Control
Group Standby upon expiration of the Ready Reserve
obligation; and on February 14, 1973, he received a
notice of discharge from Standby Service effective
February 28, 1973. (Tr. 57, 59; see also Tr. 47-48).
page
During this period
Department
show Mr. Pauken's
intelligence
continued 19 a mili intelligence off
14. Regarding the nature of this inactive reserve us,
Mr. Pauken has testified that after his discharge he
in fact had no conne tion or involvement del the
military or intellig nce (Tr. 9, 32-33, 59, 60-61).
At the Committee's hearing on his nomination, he
testified:
11
I never went to a meeting, never talked
with anyone from the military, never had any
connection with military intelligence after the
day I discharged or got out in Oakland. (fr. 58).
Eligibility for Service as a Peace Corps Volunteer:
The intelligence policy as it applies to volunteers is
codified in Peace Corps Manual Section 201. II.B., which
was most recently revised in May 1973. Manual Section 201.
II.B. states that to be eligible for Peace Corps service,
an applicant must:
5. Have no connection with the Central Intelligence Agency;
a. Any person who has ever had a Central Intelligence
Agency connection is automatically disqualified
from Peace Corps service.
b. Any person with other intelligence training or who
has done intelligence work within the past ten
years is also disqualified from Peace Corps service.
A person who was involved in intelligence activity
(other than CIA) more than 10 years ago will be
referred to General Counsel which will determine if
the nature of that activity was sufficient to warrant
disqualification.
C. Any question as to whether an activity constituted an
intelligence activity under these guidelines will be
referred to General Counsel.
In determining whether the nature of intelligence activity
was sufficient to warrant disqualification under the provisions
of Manual Section 201.II.B.5.b., the Office of General Counsel
uses the following criteria to determine whether the 10-year bar
should be extended in a particular case:
1. Was the applicant's involvement sufficiently extensive
to create the impression of career service which may not
have been terminated?
3.
LE the applicant's previous position in the intelligence
field a prominent one (i.e., would he or she be likely
to be known as an intelligence official) ?
3. Did the applicant serve overseas while in the
intelligence field?
4. What was the nature of the individual's involvement
(e.g., was the person involved in covert action, which
would probably be a permanent bar) ?
The first issue to be resolved is whether Mr. Pauken falls
within the 10-year bar by virtue of the fact that he was on
inactive reserve status as a military intelligence officer until
1973. As I indicated in my letter to the Chairman dated April 3,
1981, this Office has never specifically ruled on the issue of
whether inactive reserve status should be included for purposes
of the 10-year rule. Manual Section 201.11.B.5.b. requires that
the individual not have been involved in intelligence training or
in intelligence work for 10 years prior to his acceptance to the
Peace Corps. Mr. Pauken's uncontradicted statement (see No. 14
above) clearly indicates that he was involved in no military
intelligence training or activities during the period of time
which would have fallen within the 10-year provision. The cir-
cumstances surrounding his inactive reserve status also clearly
indicate that this status was an administrative classification
evidencing a continuing legal obligation without any actual
involvement with the military. Consequently, he would not be
barred automatically by the 10-year rule,
The second and more important question was whether his
activities as a military intelligence officer in Vietnam were
sufficient to warrant disqualification as a Peace Corps volun-
teer, despite the fact that it occurred more than ten years ago.
Regarding the first criterion, it is my opinion that Mr. Pauken's
military service was not sufficiently extensive to create the
impression of career service. Although he technically served for
a period of six years, two of those years were in training in the
States prior to going to Vietnam and only approximately eleven
months were served as an intelligence officer. Although he was
on inactive reserve status as a military intelligence officer,
once he was discharged in Oakland, he had no further connection
with the military or with any intelligence agency. In fact, it
is clear from his biographical data that Mr. Pauken once again
became a private citizen and engaged in activities totally un-
related to the military of to the intelligence fields.
that
As a
Analyst
with the Strategic Research Analysis, it is not only likely
but certein that he was known to the North Vietnamese intelligence
and coumter-intelligence divisions and that this information
could have been routinely passed on at least to Soviet intelligence
if not also to other sympathetic hostile intelligence services.
For this reason, not only is there a strong possibility that
the credibility of the Peace Corps program in the country to
which he might be assigned would be jeopardized, but also, and
more importently, his own safety as a volunteer could be threat-
ened--especially in those countries undergoing a degree of
political instability-- should he be accepted as a volunteer.
Regarding the third criterion, he Sid serve overseas,
albeit in a'military capacity, and in C country where the U.S.
military forces were engaged. His presence overseas and his
contact with host country nationals in his capacity as an in-
telligence officer increases the likelihood of his notoriety.
With respect to the fourth criterion, the exact nature of
Mr. Pauken's intelligence activity in Vietnam is unclear at **
best. Mr. Pauken's testimony regarding his primary responsi-
bilities are contradicted by the evaluation reports which
indicate that he was involved in and responsible for clandestine
and covert operations. Without attempting to reconcile the
apparent contradictions, even the remote possibility that such
information would surface could be devastating to virtually any
Peace Corps program. Consequently, in my opinion, he should be
disqualified from serving as a volunteer under this criterion as
well.
Conclusions drawn from the application of these criteria
must of necessity rest to a certain degree on speculation. It
is very possible that no one would remember or learn that he was
a military intelligence officer or that, at least according to
Department of Army records, he was involved in clandestine and
covert intelligence operations. However, the genuine risk to
the safety of Mr. Pauken as a volunteer, to other volunteers,
and to the viability of Peace Corps country programs far out-
weighs the equally speculative gain of accepting him for
volunteer service.
Eligibility for a Position on the Peace Corps Staff:
The intelligence policy as it applies to Peace Corps staff
positions is codified in Manual Section 643, para. 4 which
states in part:
7
b.
Any person to has had any Ce ligence
Agency (CIA) emloyment shall be
considera-
tions for positions in Peace Corps crerations over-
seas and in ACTION's Office of International
Operations (now Peace Corps/Mashing on).
C. Any person whose application reveals intelligence
activity (other than CIA) within the past 10 years
shall be barred from consideration for positions
in Peace Corps operations overseas and in ACTION'S
Office of International Operations (now Peace Corps/
Washington).
You will note that, unlike the regulations applicable to
volunteer service, Manual Section 643 appears to rake employee
applicants automatically eligible for Peace Corps staff positions
upon the expiration of 10 years following their last intelligence
involvement. However, as a matter of practice, the Peace Corps
looks behind the 10-year bar if an applicant's intelligence
background was particularly extensive or involved covert
activities. Because the same concerns regarding the health and
safety of volunteers and Peace Corps programs apply equally to
a staff position, there is no logical reason to differentiate
between volunteers and staff. While this is currently the
policy and practice of the Office of General Counsel and has
been since I became the General Counsel, in candor I must admit
that, in the three years prior to my accepting this appointment,
the application of this policy and practice has been inconsistent.
In my opinion, for the reasons set forth above where I
discuss the application of the various criteria used to determine
the eligibility of applicants for Peace Corps volunteer service,
Mr. Pauken would be barred from serving in a position as a Peace
Corps staff member in any overseas position, in any Peace Corps/
Washington policy position, in any country desk officer position,
and in any position which would likely require him to travel
overseas as part of his official responsibilities.
He would be clearly barred from any overseas position since
any allegation arising from the fact that he had been a high
level intelligence officer in Vietnam and allegedly conducted
clandestine covert operations in that country would be the death
knell to any Peace Corps program in which he served and would
jeopardize the safety of volunteers in that country. Similarly,
were he to serve in a policymaking position, a country desk
position, or a position requiring overseas travel, such allegations
could have the same impact on the Peace Corps' credibility
and integrity. I would again point out that this analysis rest
on a highly speculative set of probabilities, but the grave-risks
page 8
to the is who serve in the Peace Corps and to the Peace
Corps inself arrent a high degree of caution in the application
of this policy.
liave attempted to apply the policy without reference to
the I vilicity which has surrounded Mr. Pauken's nomination.
However, because of the extensive publicity which his nomination
has reseived, the perception of Mr. Pauken's intelligence
involvement has taken on a substance of its own. Thus, unfa
as = fight pupear, we would be forced to take this publicity
into 118 Mr. Pauken to apply for a position with the
Peace orns the near future.
Sincerely,
Robert M. MoNamara, Jr.
General Counsel
CC: The Honorable Charles H. Percy
Chairman
Conformity, Bureaucracy
Peace
of
The
Peace
an
oΓ-
told
me
be
done
cans
ideals
good
10
office
Ce-
realized As Jack a former
the
rules
and
leste
Peace Corps director said, Foreign
the
insistence
that
the corps the temptation
policy and concerns for the gross na-
we conform."
nonal product and economic devel-
to use its worker. BS pies, which he
A trainee in Ecuador felt the vol-
opment are not part of our charter.
said remained ad ngerous possibil.
unicers were so overwhelmed with
Butsharing and service are And ser-
ity an era when people think we
vice and teaching and learning and
the technical information they were
are not good intelligence."
expected to memorize that it was det-
sharing - this adds up to my concept
Thus it IS with prehension that
of love. It's built into the Peace
rimental to their effectiveness The
Inote Reagan's and the
Corps."
person in their group that developed
Senate Foreign Relations Commit-
the friendships and worked
tee pprove. of Mr Pauken to di-
It this same concept of love that
hordest at learning the language
led me, and thousands of others, to
for
and interacting genuinely with his
of
sign up for the Peace Corps and to
foreign counterparts was returned
the USTA He is a
prepare to "help others help them-
home after flunking his final tech-
former
selves."
officer
nical exam.
involved in covert in
It is also what led to my eventual
Vietnam.
A volunteer in Malawi reported in
rejection.
the New York Times that the corps
When there are many qualified
A month before my scheduled
overseas "seemed to be a staid, ill-
candidates available why appoint
departure for Nepal I attended a
managed bureaucracy" that has
someone whose background violates
week-long "Center for Assessment
"moved away from its original man-
the Peace Corps charter. who will in-
and Training" in which my compe-
dates and expectations." He added
vite criticism and perhaps retribu-
tence, sensitivity maturity, and mo-
that a third of his group felt their
tivation were to be assessed and
jobs were poorly defined or unnec-
tion from sensitive foreign
evaluated. I was also questioned
nationals and who may alienate, as
essary, and that in the drive to build
about my loyalty to the Peace Corps
a large program that reflects well on
unteers? well as endanger the lives of our vol-
as an institution, at which time I ad-
the country staff and impresses
mitted that if I was told to do some-
Washington, "the volunteer loses."
Not that this in itself will cause
thing that harmed the people I was
This conclusion was expanded on
the demise of the Peace Corps as we
there to help, I would not do it (of
by another volunteer in The Gam.
know it. But if the individual volun.
course).
bia, who voiced the discontent of
teer is to follow through on the
I explained that I was joining be-
several in his group that the country
personal commitment to love and
cause of a desire to love and serve
staff couldn't be trusted and seemed
serve others, and if we as a people
others, and that I shouldn't be ex-
intent on treating them "like pup-
are to remain true to the values that
pected to compromise that if the
pets." Disillusionment expressed it-
established us as a - those of
Peace Corps was true to its stated
self in everything from a lack of
freedom and social and economic
goals My assessor answered with the
motivation for their work to indis-
justice then the Peace Corps, as a
statement, "Honesty is not an end in
creet often multiple sexual affairs,
service organization must remain
itself." and though I rated highly in
drug use and alcoholism.
free from insistence on
the four areas listed. I was "deselec-
Clearly what is needed is a re-
conformity the administration
ted" because of my "inflexibility."
foreign policy objectives.
newed emphasis ón the idealism of
the volunteers. Over ten years ago
Idealism Endangered
When we can pursue conflict and
a former volunteer commented that
It seems the volunteer is expected
defend our national security" inter-
"Many of us feel the Peace Corps is
to sacrifice idealism and commit-
ests in other ways, why use our only
moving gradually, yet perceptibly,
ment 10 serve others and agree to
from the concept of a people-to-
organization? hope for true peace as a paramilitary
COI form to Peace Corps design
people organization to that of a
(w) atever it is) and serve their un-
government-to-government agen-
When our country is already con-
def ned interests I've always felt
cy."
sumed by its bureaucracy why de.
thi authoritarian style. in its
stroy the idealism of the volunteer,
mil lest forms, is what identifies a
Independence Essential
using their altruistic motives and
but sucracy. Although authori-
The idealism and independence 0:
concern to serve interests other
tar anism in any form is inappropri-
the volunteers. and the autonomy of
than what the intended?
ate for a volunteer service or-
the Peace Corps as an organization
gan zation, the time is upon us with
was described as essential by former
the Senate's confirmation of Thomas
THE WASHINGTON STAR
director Richard Celeste in testimo-
ny before a Senate committee. For 18
I avid Carrier, a 1979 graduate of
years the Peace Corps has remained
Wednesday, April 15, 1981
the University of Maryland, is a for-
separate from the short-term policy
me. Peace Corps trainee.
interests of our foreign relations
In Peace Corps
Life is a bit
due
to
Pauken
6t
stickier
-
at
ACT
did about
which helps the pror 3: with
assigned 10
VISTA and the poor abrived with the
Cranston say
T7
Peace Corps.
military rec
IS
That's because Ronald Bengan has
chosen as its new boss a perso D who
induction application was
could not under the even get
not the
a job at the Peace Corps much less
himself be
put
direct it.
he was engaged in
que
Manual Section 643 IS quite spe-
gence
48L
cific: body who hasserved the
sible
for
such
CIA or Intelligence activity within
team opera ons of
utio
the past ten years is auf matically
the counter- ins effort
ami
barred. Applications from people
Pauken comple hisservice
1U;
whose intelligence service is more
to his country is being held against
nax
than ten years old must be reviewed
him.
apu
on a case-by-case basis.
To conservative ublicans, of
12
According to Peace Corps General
course, such stalwart efforts in a
2
Counsel Robert McNamara, Thomas
cause that so many of Pauken's con-
J
W. Pauken. Reagan's choice, would
temporaries refused to join are ad-
not be eligible.
mirable
For them, there is an
]
A secret poll conducted by the AC-
appealing symmetry in replacing
TION Employees Union shows that
Sam Brown, the leader of Vietnam
by a margin of two to one, the work-
resistance, with someone who vol-
ers favor opposition to the man they
unteered for the fray.
undoubtedly will have live with.
For Peace Corps volunteers, how-
ever, it is something else. They have
Filibuster Hinted
labored from the beginning under
They realize how little ice their
the shadow of suspicion that under
views cut in the Senate, which will
the guise of digging sewers. teaching
vote on the confirmation upon re-
English and planting fields, they
turn from recess. Several Democrat-
were doing the work of the CIA.
ic liberal senators. including Peace
At the request of Cranston, vol-
Corps alumni Paul Tsongas and
unteers submitted instances where
Christopher Dodd, have joined Mi-
they had been held at gunpoint,
nority Whip Alan Cranston in hint-
thrown in jail or threatened with
ing at a filibuster, but little hope
beating by exercised locais. The Em-
is held out for any kind of a show.
ployees Union has aken the position
The Senate, after choking. swal-
that the, "wall of separation" be-
lowed alarming Alexander Haig and
tween spying and the Peace Corps
his know-nothing deputy. William
has been breached by the ap-
Clark.
point ment. and that the health and
And the Republicans are claiming
safety of the volunteers is imperiled.
that Ernest Lefever, the enemy of
A minority at ACTION favors
human rights for head of the depart-
Pauken all the same. on grounds that
ment by that name, is a sure thing.
the agency needs a full-time advo-
Only one Republican has spoken out
cate, and that Panken proved his
against Pauken: Rudy Boschwitz of
clout at the White House by talking
Minnesota, which is second to Cali-
Deputy Chief of Staff James Baker
fornia as a source of Peace Corps
out of chopping off the domestic arm
volunteers.
of ACTION entirely. Pauken emerg-
Chairman Charles Percy of the
ed from a widely publicized meeting
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
in mid-March as the rescuer of the
sought escape from the turmoil by
doomed program.
inquiring of the White House if
plans were afoot to divorce the Peace
Others Skeptical
Corps from ACTION. hose employ-
Others are skeptical and suspect
ECS would not be endange by hav-
a bit cí stagecraft. Parken
DSEI-
ing a former intellig nce officer in
vative. former leader of
Re-
charge.
was
Percy received
Patter,
who
IS
said
DE
hepresident's pet;le
fences
with
the
the
in that not a trial
000 minstion
as under
Parken wid the sensions he
=
did not feel that the anne
as
a
military
( ] connection of Perce Corps
Vietnam when he a
with intelligence activities could be
unsuccessful ca: didate for public Oi-
as serious a problem as an actual
lice in Texas
connection.
-I was not =
Ful-
but the voluntuers are a special
eign Relations Committee. which
fervent. lot and they feel that the
voted his nominstion
ace
Corps
and
die
to seven.
at
the
i
=
G
S
The ACTION Nominee
Mr Parken enlived in the 67,
ind
when
a
his
C
military
to
he
ayar
C-
S5
to
which
n
n
itles
S,
ns
a
wide
n
but
Ind D Center b n Dallas.
which, in the pois tmos here of the
But, ait Mr. Pauken Wd Army er
Vistnam years, was feighted with con-
of
ficer
whos
and
notations of spying and worse. That C ota-
rv
whose ry specialty intellig
tion is excessive, but it has generated ost
And ACTION is the parent ency for the
of the oppositi n to Mr. Pauken.
Peace Corps That combination has erated
Mr. Pauken was grilled by Sen. Alan Cran-
a fierce P to Mr. Parken, although
ston at the C nfi. ation hearing bef re the
his nomination has been approved by both
Foreign Relations Committee. The word "CO-
the Labor and Human Resources mittee
vert" was the prime spice in that stew. But
and the Foreign Relations Committ of the
Mr. Pauken repeatedly testified that his 1968
Senate. A floor vote could CUR xt week.
Vietnam service involved basic military in-
There are two layers to what has become,
telligence work - from operational order-of-
both publicly and behind the scenes, a bitter
battle analysis to broader studies involving
dispute. There is the fear that the Peace Corps
the relationship between the North Vietnam-
could be compromised by as is head
ese and the Viet Cong. Senator C ston's
a person with an intelligence background.
persistent scratching at Mr. Pauken's service
There is no statutory restriction, b t it has
in Vietnam finally led the nominee to say,
been a longtime Peace Corps regular n that
"Senator, I must say that it is extremely ironic
no person who has served in the CIA or the
that some ne with a military backgr und
does not have a distinction made for him ver-
mitelligence field nerally could
ed as a corpsman within 10 years of having
sus someone with a professional intelligence
so served. The concern is legi ate has
background
I have no apologies for my
guided the Peace Corps sin it W tab-
service there (in Vie* am)
I really think
lished der President Kennedy: Th
must
that this is an important distinction that
he
even
CC
tion
n eds to he made."
a
us
tween
Peace Corps ctivities Ld U.S. unce-
Mr. Pauken is right. He left active duty in
bathering ctivities.
1969, which more than covers the agency 10-
A legiti Tate concern, however, I the
year-connection regulation. It strikes us as
Pauken nomin seems to been
strained to think that 2 stint in military intel-
raised to a level of absolutism, not
at
ligence could be construed as violating the
ing that Mr. Pauken isa, reside
ince
traditional separation of the P ace Corps and
and not a Peace Corps applicant. Be that,
intelligence-gathering.
the opposition to the former lant's
The tone of the opposition to his nomina-
nomination has taken on a rancor sug-
tion has a taint of soldier-baiting to it - of
gests rather more than the principle of sep-
stereotyping that does a disservice to the men
aration between the Peace Co , and
and women who honorably served their na-
intelligence.
tion during the Vietnam era.
Our Dec tive Economy
The big econ ic WS of the week is that
quarter growth will not be duplicated
the Gross National Product grew at a 65 per
in rediately. Commerce Secretary Malcolm
it annual rale, after allowing for inflation,
Baldrige sounded glum, forecasting "a couple
in the first quarter of the year. It was the most
of flat quarters." The administration, which
robust three months of economic growth in
took office January 20, says most of the
almost three years. The news contrasted with
growth took place in that month, and is not
the gloom pervading 8 1 of the recent statis-
trying to take credit for it.
..
tics - numbers that tell of substantial unem-
There are, of course, 0 her reasons for the
inflation. fantastic
administration to mouthing in
Peace Corps
Star
melington, D.C.
Edictr:
have reviewed with great interest articles which
aggeered on successive days in your Comment Section concerning the
Peace Corps. am compelled to offer to your readers information
which casts different light on some of the suggestions made in
the -.0 articles or which provides data not included in the lis-
cussions b: by'Mr. Carrier or Ms. McGrory.
First, the Director of ACTION is not the Director of the
Peace Corps. As Director-Designate of the Peace Corps, I clearly
understand that I report to the President and that I determine the
policy and practices of the Peace Corps and hire its personnel.
The Peace Corps is autonomous from ACTION and has been since an
Executive Order was issued effecting autonomy in May, 1979. The
Peace Corps does buy certain services from ACTION, including account-
ing, health services, recruitment, communications and general ser-
vices. We have a separate personnel system, budget system, general
counsel, program offices, planning and policy unit, placement office
and volunteer support unit. We have volunteers in sixty-one coun-
tries and there is a Peace Corps office in most of these countries.
Peaue Corps policy is not subject to the approval of or review by
the ACTION agency. That right is reserved for the President of the
United States. I can state unequivocally that the Peace Corps is
not now and will not become an instrument for intelligence activities
of any kind or at any level during my tenure as Peace Corps Director.
Mr. Carrier suggests that it is inappropriate to screen
and select Peace Corps Volunters before they are sent overseas.
This is, of course, ludicrous! Not everyone can live and work effec-
tively in a different culture. Not everyone can effectively repre-
sent the American people in the villages and countryside of Asia
and Africa and the Caribbean and the South Pacific and Central
America and South America. ""nflexibility" is not a characteristic
we look for in volunteers because we do not send Americans overseas
to impose their wills and views on our friends. We send them to
help with skilled penpower needs, to represent the American people
and to bring back to America in increased understanding of a people
and a culture different from our own.
a
a
in
Suc
CBSE
that
may
rele
new
Peace Corps peration, ai
Jessary
pt has
been made to factor the effects of pussible shift, such as
major sorga inations or space eallocations, into the
The analysis involved nation CT three ffices that account for
$8.3 million (30 percent, of the total 1991 of $29 million for jointly
supported services: accounting, administrative services, and computer services.
Within those operations, the minimal assumptions duplication of
management- evel personnel nentioned above were made. Tmese additional
personnel were issued slightly the sa' ary for 1981
and provided with roughly agency-average of space, furniture, phone
services, etc. All of these assumptions appear to be conservative given the
likely grade of these staff. Staff-level personnel and associated space and
equipment were issued divided between the agencies.
On a base of 150 staff, this methodology led to a conclusion that 26 senior
staff would be duplicated resulting in an increase of roughly $1 million in
operating costs on the base of $8.3 million for 1981. This would represent an
11 percent increase for these three offices. Substantial uncertainty is
introduced in attempting to project total costs from this sample estimate. A
simple linear projection of the savings to the full $29 million joint services
budget would indicate an increase of $3 million. This figure is likely to be
too large, however, because Peace Corps does not buy the same level of services
in all areas. While it buys significant recruitment and health services from
ACTION, Peace Corps would not duplicate positions from the Office of Policy and
Plenning since it already has its own independent offices. Therefore, the
$3 million figure should be viewed as an outside estimate for dditional
operating costs.
APR 20 1001
7/2/187
Peace Corps
70525
18, 1981
Editor
The Washington Star
Washington, D.C.
Dear Editor:
I have reviewed with great interest articles which
appeared on successive days in your Comment Section concerning the
Peace Corps. I am compelled to offer to your readers information
which casts a different light on some of the suggestions made in
the two articles or which provides data not included in the dis-
cussions by' Mr. Carrier or Ms. McGrory.
First, the Director of ACTION is not the Director of the
Peace Corps. As Director-Designate of the Peace Corps, I clearly
understand that I report to the President and that I determine the
policy and practices of the Peace Corps and hire its personnel.
The Peace Corps is autonomous from ACTION and has been since an
Executive Order was issued effecting autonomy in May, 1979. The
Peace Corps does buy certain services from ACTION, including account-
ing, health services, recruitment, communications and general ser-
vices. We have a separate personnel system, budget system, general
counsel, program offices, planning and policy unit, placement office
and volunteer support unit. We have volunteers in sixty-one coun-
tries and there is a Peace Corps office in most of these countries.
Peace Corps policy is not subject to the approval of or review by
the ACTION agency. That right is reserved for the President of the
United States. I can state unequivocally that the Peace Corps is
not now and will not become an instrument for intelligence activities
of any kind or at any level during my tenure as Peace Corps Director.
Mr. Carrier suggests that it is inappropriate to screen
and select Peace Corps Volunteers before they are sent overseas.
This is, of course, ludicrous! Not everyone can live and work effec-
tively in a different culture. Not everyone can effectively repre-
sent the American people in the villages and countryside of Asia
and Africa and the Caribbean and the South Pácific and Central
America and South America. "Inflexibility" is not a characteristic
we look for in volunteers because we do not send Americans overseas
to impose their wills and views on our friends. We send them to
help with skilled manpower needs, to represent the American people
and to bring back to America an increased understanding of a people
and a culture different from our own.