U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

45–008 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–551 

ENHANCING THE PEACE CORPS EXPERIENCE: S. 

732, THE PEACE CORPS VOLUNTEER EMPOWERMENT ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE, 

PEACE CORPS AND NARCOTICS AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 25, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Staff Director 

KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE, PEACE 

CORPS AND NARCOTICS AFFAIRS 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator From Tennessee ................................................. 3 

Dodd, Hon. Christopher, U.S. Senator From Connecticut ................................... 1 

Fiol, Nicole, applicant to the Peace Corps, Bayamon, Puerto Rico ..................... 73 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 75 

Kotz, David, inspector general, Peace Corps, Washington, DC ........................... 41 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 44 

Ludlam, Chuck, volunteer, Senegal, Peace Corps, Washington, DC; accompanied by Paula Hirschoff, volunteer, Senegal, Peace Corps, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 60

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 63 

Quigley, Kevin, president, National Peace Corps Association, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 68

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 70 

Raftery, Kate, country director, Eastern Caribbean, Peace Corps, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 66

Schneider, Hon. Mark L., former director of the Peace Corps; senior vice 

president and special advisor on Latin America, International Crisis Group, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 35 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 38 

Tschetter, Hon. Ronald A., director, Peace Corps, Washington, DC ................... 4 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 7 

(III)

(1) 

ENHANCING THE PEACE CORPS EXPERIENCE: 

S. 732, THE PEACE CORPS VOLUNTEER EMPOWERMENT ACT 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2007 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE, 

PEACE CORPS, AND NARCOTICS AFFAIRS, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher J. Dodd 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Dodd, Coleman, and Corker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER DODD, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator DODD. The committee will come to order. 

Let me thank all of you for being here this morning, than the Director, as well, for coming out. 

I’m pleased to convene the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Affairs. I’d like to welcome my 

ranking member, Senator Bob Corker, from Tennessee, who’s with 

us, who’s joined me this morning’s hearing to receive testimony and 

ask questions on a very important topic, one very important to me, 

personally: The Peace Corps. 

Since its establishment in 1961, the Peace Corps has been held 

in high regard by the United States Congress and the American 

people and, I might add, the global community, as well. That has 

been the case because it has always been a nonpartisan and apolitical institution, able to stay out of political maelstrom of the moment, at home and abroad; and that remains the case today, and 

we’re all grateful for that. 

The mission of the Peace Corps has always been clear and 

straightforward; namely, to promote world peace and friendship. 

Central to that mission of the Peace Corps has been the volunteer, 

187,000 of us who have served in more than 139 countries since 

1961, and the 7,700 who are currently serving in more than 70 nations around the world. 

I have the honor and privilege of being a member of the Peace 

Corps alumni, having served as a volunteer in the Dominican Republic from 1966 to 1968. Peace Corps service, for me, was a lifechanging experience that cemented my belief and commitment to 

public service. I’m certain that many of the witnesses who will tesVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
2 

tify this morning, a number of them with Peace Corps experiences 

of their own, share my belief that the volunteer experience has had 

a profound impact on our lives and our life decisions to follow, and 

not to mention one’s world view. 

Since 1961, successive generations of Peace Corps volunteers 

have been challenged to strive to accomplish three goals: To help 

others help themselves; to help others understand our country; and 

to help America understand others around the world. I’m convinced 

that today, more than ever before, the importance and necessity for 

Peace Corps to promote global understanding and friendship could 

not be greater. Bad policy choices and neglected opportunities have 

tarnished our Nation’s reputation and weakened our alliances at a 

moment in history when both are critical to promoting and protecting our national interests and security. 

In order to ensure that the Peace Corps is well prepared to carry 

out its mission in the 21st century, I believe it’s vitally important, 

from time to time, to assess how effectively Peace Corps management and staff are recruiting, training, and serving the volunteers 

as they carry out the core mission of the Agency. It also means exploring ideas and suggestions for changing the way that the Peace 

Corps operates that will enhance the ability of volunteers to carry 

out the goals they charged within statute. And it means finding 

ways to expand the reach of the Peace Corps at home and abroad 

by providing additional resources and doubling the number of volunteers, to give it more firepower to do so. S. 732, The Peace Corps 

Volunteer Empowerment Act, which I introduced on March 1 after 

extensive consultation with volunteer and returned-volunteer communities, is an effort to begin that brainstorming process. 

Let me mention the key provisions of this legislation: 

It designates a small portion of the annual Peace Corps budget 

for use as seed moneys for active Peace Corps volunteers for demonstration projects on their sites. It authorizes $10 million in additional annual appropriations, to 

be distributed by Peace Corps’s grants, to return to Peace Corps 

volunteers interested in undertaking the third-goal projects in their 

local communities. 

It would authorize active Peace Corps volunteers to accept, under 

very carefully defined circumstances, private donations to support 

their development projects. 

It would establish mechanisms for more volunteer input into the 

Peace Corps operations, including staffing decisions, site selection, 

language training, and country programs. 

It would bring the Peace Corps into the digital age by establishing Web sites and e-mail links for use by volunteers in country. 

It would authorize active recruitment from 185,000 returned 

Peace Corps volunteer—from the Peace Corps volunteer community 

for second tours as volunteers and as participants in third-goal activities in the United States. 

It would remove certain medical, healthcare, and other impediments that discourage older individuals from becoming Peace Corps 

volunteers. 

It would create more transparency in the medical screening and 

appeals process, require a report on costs associated with extending 

postservice health coverage from 1 month to 6 months, protect cerVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
3 

tain rights of Peace Corps volunteers with respect to termination 

of service and whistleblower protection, and, most important of all, 

include annual authorizations for fiscal year 2008–2011, consistent 

with the goal of doubling the number of volunteers to 15,000 by 

2011. 

This bill set out a very ambitious list of issues to begin to explore 

ways to strengthen the volunteer experience. I stress the word 

‘‘begin,’’ because this bill is meant to be the jumping-off point for 

discussing how the Peace Corps can do better, not finish the line. 

I am somewhat disappointed, I must say, that the testimony of 

our distinguished friend, the Director of the Peace Corps, does not 

seem to reflect that understanding. I would also have to say that 

I believe that no matter how well an agency or program is functioning, there should always be an open mind as to how it can be 

made more effective. I hope, over the course of this morning’s hearing, that is the mindset that we will all adopt. 

I want to welcome and thank, of course, all of our witnesses who 

are here this morning: Director Ron Tschetter; former Peace Corps 

Director and return volunteer Mark Schneider; Peace Corps Inspector General David Kotz. I want to welcome all of you. 

I would also like to offer special recognition and thanks to Chuck 

Ludlam and his wife, Paula Hirschoff, who are currently on their 

second tour as volunteers in Senegal, and who, on their own time 

and expense, have come from Senegal to testify this morning. Their 

input into the development of this bill has been very helpful, and 

I look forward to hearing your testimony this morning. 

With that, let me turn to my colleague, the ranking member of 

this committee, Senator Corker, for any opening comment you’d 

like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, I’ll be somewhat more informal, 

but I want to say to you that it’s an honor for me to serve on this 

committee with you, and I certainly appreciate the background that 

you bring here to the Senate, having been a Peace Corps volunteer, 

and certainly applaud you for that, and was asking, earlier, if you 

think that’s what may have ended up bringing you to the U.S. Senate. My guess is, it probably had some effect. I know that, in my 

own life, going out to another country and offering assistance certainly inspired me and, I think, caused me to ultimately end up 

here in the Senate. 

And I want to, certainly, welcome Mr. Tschetter, who I know is 

here for the same reason, certainly as a volunteer many, many 

years ago. 

Our State has about 73 volunteers for the Peace Corps right now, 

one of which is Marty Landis, who I worked with as a community 

activist years ago, and we did a lot of great things here in our city, 

in Tennessee, and certainly is doing great things overseas now. 

And I just want to thank you for the focus that you have brought 

to the Peace Corps. I know that—all of us know—it’s one of those 

prized organizations that has so many wonderful volunteers that 

seem to represent our country so well. And, while I know that Senator Dodd has brought forth some legislation—and I like the way 

4 

he characterized it, as a discussion point—I also know that there’s 

always a balance that needs to exist between running an organization well, management objectives, and certainly, at the same time, 

taking into account the many people that make the organization so 

great. 

I actually enjoyed your testimony. I read it extensively over the 

last day or so, and certainly this morning. And what I liked about 

it was the fact that—so many of the hearings that we have here 

in Foreign Relations, there’s a lot of diplomacy, a lot of talk that 

sometimes doesn’t mean a great deal because people are being so 

nice to each other. You were pretty clairvoyant in some of the criticisms that you brought forth. And I actually look forward to hearing your testimony today. 

My sense is that there is a tremendous respect by members of 

our committee for the Peace Corps. I think that we all want to do 

the right thing. And I think this testimony today will help us do 

that. 

So, welcome. We look forward to your testimony. 

Senator DODD. Mr. Director, thank you, welcome, nice to have 

you with us, be glad to receive your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RONALD A. TSCHETTER, DIRECTOR, 

PEACE CORPS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Chairman Dodd, thank you for your commitment 

to the Agency, for your commitment to grow the Agency, to keep 

it relevant in the 21st century, and your dedication to the quality 

of the volunteer experience. 

As a fellow returned volunteer, I share those goals, and I had exactly the same experience as you had. It was a life-changing experience that has certainly impacted my wife and me for the last 40 

years subsequent to our service. 

So, I’m pleased to be able to share with you my opinions, and I 

would add that this is an opportunity not only to differ with those 

opinions, but also to share with you the succinct perspectives that 

I have as the Peace Corps is moving forward. 

And I’d also ask that my written statement be submitted for the 

record. 

Senator DODD. All testimony will be included. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Thank you. 

I’m pleased to report that the Peace Corps is doing very well. 

There are currently 7,749 volunteers serving in the 73 countries. 

As of September 30 of this year, we anticipate that this number 

could reach 8,000, which would be a 31- to a 32-year high. 

In the 20 countries that I’ve been privileged to visit in the last 

10 months, I can see that our volunteers are fulfilling their assignments. They are resilient, they are creative, and they are passionate about what they are doing. 

This year alone, 250 volunteers have extended into a third year, 

the highest number of extensions in 4 years. In 2006, a new program opened in Cambodia. I was privileged and honored to be 

there to swear in the first group, to see their excitement, but, more 

importantly, to feel the warmth and the appreciation of the senior 

leadership of that country for the entrance of the Peace Corps. 

5 

This fall, we will reopen in Ethiopia. That’s our 10th PEPFAR 

country. Additionally, over 20 percent of our volunteers are working in 15 predominantly Muslim countries. As we speak, we have 

just completed assessments in Sierra Leone and Liberia, and today, 

our assessment team is in Rwanda. 

I would also like to add that increasing the diversity of the Peace 

Corps is a very high priority. Currently, 16 percent of our volunteers are from ethnic minority groups. This is an all-time high. 

However, we are striving to increase that percentage even further. 

There are several new initiatives underway that I unveiled earlier this year, and I’d like to spend just a moment to share with 

you what they are. 

First of all, I would like to see the number of 50-plus volunteers 

increased, as I believe they represent an incredible opportunity for 

the Peace Corps, for America, and for service around the world. All 

three of our regions have identified pilot posts to make recommendations to better support the needs of 50-plus volunteers. 

Another initiative is to measure our successes and our quantifiable impact in the world. To this end, I recently established the Office of Strategic Information, Research, and Planning. 

Finally, I believe that the Peace Corps is the gold standard of 

voluntarism. As I have traveled the globe—and we all know that 

there are many, many opportunities to volunteer around the 

world—I have found nothing that compares to what the Peace 

Corps does. And so, as we assist our interested host countries 

around the world in promoting voluntarism among their own people, it’s a legacy that we can leave behind, as well. 

From my perspective, as a returned Peace Corps volunteer, 

former chairman of the National Peace Corps Association, and current Peace Corps director, it’s evident to me that those consulted 

in the bill S. 732 believe that there are parts of the Peace Corps 

that need fixing. I’m here to tell you that the Agency is thriving. 

In our recent volunteer survey, 74 percent of our volunteers reported that their service was personally rewarding, 84 percent 

would recommend service to others, and 95 percent said that they 

have been successful in helping people from other cultures better 

understand Americans. That is our second goal. 

With that being said, I also realize that we can improve. And I 

do agree with you, Senator Dodd, that the initiatives in your bill 

are ways of improving. And I would like to encourage all of us to 

work together to make the Peace Corps better. 

By the way, many elements of S. 732 are already underway. For 

example, this legislation would allow volunteers to raise funds to 

use seed funding for demonstration projects. This provision is 

against the Agency’s basic philosophy of helping others help themselves. The Agency already has a proven vehicle to allow volunteers 

to accept funds, through our Office of Private Sector Initiatives and 

the Peace Corps Partnership Program. 

Another point I’d like to raise is mandating that each post has 

a Volunteer Advisory Committee, a VAC, as we call it. As envisioned by this legislation, these VACs would make recommendations regarding post staff. At this time, volunteers unhappy with 

the report or conduct they receive from post staff may contact their 

regional director, or even the Director of the Peace Corps, to share 

6 

their concerns. On numerous occasions, VAC recommendations, 

along with the results of the biennial volunteer survey, which I 

earlier referred to, have resulted in changes at posts pertaining to 

personnel matters or communications issues. We do have VAC committees in place, actively, positively functioning today, and a vast 

majority of our volunteers are satisfied with this process. We have 

VAC committees in every country except one, that country being 

Cambodia, because of our recent entrance. In September, a VAC 

committee will begin functioning in that country, as well. 

By mandating certain initiatives of S. 732, I think it hampers the 

Agency’s ability to respond to changing world events and lock in 

funds to programs that may prove unworkable. Additionally, initial 

budget estimates find the legislation could cost us between $20 and 

$30 million. Let me be clear on this. If the bill, as written, was implemented, our projection is that it would be a cost the Agency between $20 and $30 million. Ten million dollars of this would be for 

covering the costs of all medical tests for applicants, alone. The 

Agency currently reimburses applicants for medical expenses in the 

area of $1 million. Under the Peace Corps Act, it states that the 

Congress declares that the Agency should maintain a volunteer 

corps of around 10,000 volunteers. I want to uphold this declaration and increase the number of volunteers in service. As such, I 

genuinely appreciate and am enthused about the authorization levels that are in the bill in section 401. We do not want to see a drop 

in volunteers. However, mandates in the bill could force the Agency 

to close programs and cut volunteer numbers. These areas on 

which I trust we can continue to dialog. 

I’m pleased to see, Chairman Dodd, your concern for the thirdgoal initiative. This bill would authorize the Agency to distribute 

up to $10 million in grants per year for this initiative. Today, we 

spend about $2 million on third-goal activities. We would welcome 

the discussions with the subcommittee on ways to enhance RPCV 

engagement once the volunteers have come back to America. This 

is the third goal of the Peace Corps. However, I have real concerns 

about the Agency becoming a grantmaking organization. We need 

to have extensive dialog about the ‘‘whys’’ and the ‘‘hows’’ of implementing such a program. 

There is an idea that we have tossed around that I would like 

to share with you this morning. It’s in the preliminary stages of 

discussion. But I am intrigued with the concept of creating the 

Peace Corps Foundation, a foundation structured with well-known 

board members, such as those from the RPCV communities, corporate leaders, those from the nonprofit sector, those from government leadership positions. The Foundation’s mission could be to 

support third-goal activities by a raising private funds. With more 

corporations recognizing the value of global responsibility, this 

could be a marvelous tool to raise the Agency’s visibility and to 

broaden and deepen our third-goal initiatives. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to be here today, 

for the opportunity to testify, and I genuinely look forward to working with you and your subcommittee on all of the issues that we 

are so passionate about on behalf of the Peace Corps. 

I am pleased to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tschetter follows:] 

7 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD A. TSCHETTER

Good morning. I am pleased to join you today, and I would like to thank Chairman Dodd and Senator Corker, as well as the other members of the subcommittee, 

for giving me the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. Senator Dodd, it is wonderful to have a returned Peace Corps volunteer such as yourself serving in the U.S. 

Senate and chairing this important subcommittee. Thank you for your continued 

commitment to the volunteers and the growth of this agency. I know that many 

RPCVs and current volunteers in the Dominican Republic appreciated the 

videotaped message that you prepared earlier this year in honor of that nation’s 

45th anniversary of its Peace Corps program. It was very well received. 

I would also like to thank all the members of the subcommittee for the bipartisan 

support they provided me during my nomination proceedings last September. As a 

returned Peace Corps volunteer who served in India with my wife in the 1960s, it 

is an honor to be the director of the Agency. 

We also appreciate, Senator Dodd, your focus on strategically expanding the Agency with the desire to maintain a quality volunteer experience and increasing the 

number of volunteers in predominantly Muslim countries. I can verify during my 

recent travels that a vast majority of the 20 countries, which I visited, would welcome additional volunteers. 

Before I comment on S. 732, the ‘‘Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act,’’ I 

am pleased to report that the Peace Corps is in great shape, and I wish to share 

with the subcommittee some recent agency highlights and accomplishments. I would 

also like to note that as director, my goal is to ensure that the Peace Corps remains 

an effective agency as it continues into the 21st century. 

Today, there are currently 7,749 volunteers serving around the globe in 73 countries. And, as of September 30, 2007, we anticipate that this number could reach 

8,000. Mr. Chairman, our volunteers are doing amazing work—critical work—and 

in the 20 countries I have visited thus far as Director—I can see that they are 

happy and are fulfilled by the constructive work they are accomplishing. In fact, this 

year alone we have had 250 volunteers extend into a third year so that they continue working on their projects—the highest number of extensions in four years— 

which reflects the satisfaction that many volunteers have found in their service. 

In 2006, a new country program was opened in Cambodia and the first group of 

Cambodian volunteers were sworn-in in April 2007. A program in Ethiopia will be 

reopened in September, with a focus on HIV/AIDS, bringing the Peace Corps’ involvement with the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) countries 

up to 10. Additionally, country assessments were performed in Sierra Leone and Liberia last month, an assessment team departed for Rwanda last week, and over 20 

countries are interested in having a Peace Corps program. Volunteers continue to 

excel in such project areas as education, health and HIV/AIDS, the environment, 

youth, and business development, and over 20 percent of volunteers are working in 

15 predominately Muslim countries such as Morocco, Jordan, and Kazakhstan—presenting the face of America abroad. The Peace Corps and the unique programs we 

offer are in just as great of demand today as they were in the 1960s. 

There are also several new initiatives underway at the Agency, unveiled in February of this year, that I am passionate about and would like to share with you 

briefly. The three initiatives are: strategic recruitment and outreach, measuring success and impact, and promoting volunteerism. 

To enhance our current recruitment and outreach efforts, there are three areas 

I believe the Agency should focus on: 50+ outreach, organizational outreach, and returned Peace Corps volunteer (RPCV) outreach. 

As I noted in my nomination hearing last year, the 50+ population represents a 

tremendous opportunity for the Peace Corps. I meet with older volunteers every opportunity I have during my travels, and I am always extremely impressed with the 

work they are doing and the lifetime of experience they offer to our host countries. 

In fact, during a recent trip to South Africa, I was able to meet with 18 of them. 

They are an energetic and passionate group and are always eager to share their 

views and thoughts with me. 

The Europe, Mediterranean and Asia (EMA), Inter-America and Pacific (IAP), and 

Africa regions have each identified pilot posts, for a total of 10 pilots, to make recommendations to better support the needs of potential 50+ volunteers. Assessments 

have also been conducted at headquarters of our recruiting process, medical care, 

and language training to better accommodate prospective 50+ volunteers. As a result of these internal evaluations, many recommendations are now in the process 

of implementation, such as the hiring of two additional screening nurses dedicated 

to 50+ applicants. Currently, five percent of all volunteers are 50+, and I am committed to increase this percentage over the next few years. 

8 

We are also becoming more creative in how we work and partner with organizations. We have developed strategic partnerships throughout our history with organizations to expand our recruitment efforts-particularly among minorities-and, we are 

going to do more of this. We already have collaborated with many groups including 

AARP, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, and Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities, among others. From relationships like this we have already seen results such as our Peace Corps Baccalaureate program, which allows 

those with a degree from a community college to obtain a bachelor’s degree in conjunction with their Peace Corps service, and the Peace Corps Prep program that enables college students to take a specialized curriculum promoting international volunteerism. 

We are continuing, as well, with our efforts to increase diversity in the Peace 

Corps. Since last year, we have expanded our recruiting brochures to include American Indian and Asian Americans, launched a new Spanish radio PSA, and enhanced our level of participation at conferences attended by diverse populations. 

New print PSAs geared toward Hispanic and African American audiences will be 

released shortly and we are always seeking ways to reduce barriers for service and 

to increase the number of diverse applications received. 

Additionally, we need to ensure that the RPCV community is engaged and ready 

to assist us in recruitment as active alumni. I was chairman of the National Peace 

Corps Association (NPCA) in the 1990s, and I see many opportunities for increased 

involvement, like the mentoring program between returned volunteers and recently 

returning volunteers. 

With regard to the second initiative, while all of us have an intrinsic understanding of the great value the Peace Corps brings to the world, we need to better 

measure our success and impact in quantifiable ways. Congress is always asking for 

greater accountability, and we at the Peace Corps have heard that call. To add to 

our current performance measures and the abundant stories of transformation— 

such as individuals influenced by the work and lives of Peace Corps volunteers 

going on to become Presidents, Ministers, and business and cultural leaders in their 

countries—the Agency is looking to bolster its ability to capture our impact in more 

measurable terms. 

To this end, I recently established the Office of Strategic Information, Research 

and Planning to focus on the Agency’s performance planning and reporting, evaluation and measurement, and data management needs. Technology will be a key tool 

and our new interactive database, called Magellan, will provide the Peace Corps 

with a global infrastructure, greater information access, and create a seamless system for the entire agency (resulting in greater connectivity between posts, recruiting 

offices, and headquarters). I look forward to the consistency of information that Magellan will bring the Agency, and I am pleased with the progress, the attention, and 

the energy this new office is bringing to this important endeavor. 

Finally, regarding my third initiative, I believe the Peace Corps is the gold standard for volunteerism, and we can assist our host country partners around the world 

in promoting volunteerism among their own people. I created a volunteerism task 

force to carry forward the vision of promoting volunteerism at the community and 

national levels in countries in which we serve. It is actually part of our mandate 

in the Peace Corps Act ‘‘to encourage less developed countries or areas to establish 

programs under which their citizens and nationals would volunteer to serve in order 

to meet their needs for trained manpower.’’ I am enthusiastic about this renewed 

effort to support countries, such as Benin, and Jordan, which have recently asked 

for our assistance in exploring the creation of their own national service corps. 

Additionally, at the community level, I want to encourage volunteers to multiply 

their ongoing efforts to promote volunteerism, and leave a legacy of communities organizing themselves to address local needs. Volunteerism can be an especially powerful agent of change amongst youth, and in most of the countries where we serve; 

over 50 percent of the population is under 25. What better legacy for the Peace 

Corps to leave behind than helping countries and communities work to address their 

own challenges? 

With regard to S. 732, I would like to thank the Chairman for his clear and continued interest in the Peace Corps and for his desire, one I also share, to keep the 

Peace Corps relevant in the 21st century. The bill would authorize the Peace Corps 

for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 and provide a variety of new initiatives, reports, 

and modifications to the Peace Corps Act. And, while I appreciate efforts to evaluate 

and improve the Agency, something I am always striving to do as the director, I 

am also committed to maintaining the Agency’s flexibility to adjust to changing dynamics in the world without losing the passion President Kennedy envisioned when 

he founded the Peace Corps 46 years ago. 

9 

I have not been in Washington that long. But, I have been here long enough to 

know that when this committee asks for testimony on legislation you would like to 

get straight answers. I am here to provide you with my frank assessment of this 

bill. 

From my perspective as an RPCV, the former chairman of the NPCA, and the current director of the Peace Corps, it is evident to me, after a thorough analysis of 

this bill, that those consulted in its drafting believe that certain parts of the Peace 

Corps are broken. Well, I am here to tell you that the Peace Corps is actually thriving. In fact, in our recent volunteer survey 74 percent of volunteers reported that 

their service was personally rewarding, 84 percent would recommend Peace Corps 

service to others, and 95 percent said that they have been personally successful in 

meeting the second goal of the Peace Corps of helping people from other cultures 

better understand Americans. Moreover, the Peace Corps is a relevant and vital 

agency with a strong sense of purpose and one blessed with a dedicated and energetic staff, many of whom are RPCVs. With that being said, I also realize that we 

can do better, and the initiatives that I have just outlined for you are intended to 

provide for an improved and more vital Peace Corps. As I strive, along with my 

staff, to build upon the past successes of the Agency, I welcome and embrace constructive efforts that would contribute to an improved Peace Corps. 

Quite frankly, I do not believe that S. 732, with its constrictive provisions, would 

contribute to an improved Peace Corps, and let me explain to you why I believe 

that: While the legislation may have laudable intentions, many aspects of the bill 

would: 1) create unforeseen administrative burdens and consequences; 2) raise significant safety and security concerns; and 3) would be costly for the Peace Corps 

to implement. 

By mandating certain programs and initiatives, such as the development of 20 

new sectors in 20 countries, it will hamper the agility of the Agency to respond to 

changing circumstances or events, and lock-in funds to programs that may prove unworkable. In effect, this legislation would likely force the Agency to close programs, 

reduce the number of volunteers, and be locked in to initiatives without a proven 

track record. The Agency estimates that the Peace Corps would see total volunteers 

on board drop to approximately 6,000 in FY 2008, back to FY 1999 levels, and approximately 7,400 in FY 2009. Volunteer numbers would only begin to increase 

again in FY 2010, provided that full funding was received. 

Take for example, our work in HIV/AIDS. In the late 1980s, the pandemic of HIV/ 

AIDS was just beginning to surface. Because of the flexibility in programming that 

presently exists within the Peace Corps Act, the Agency was able to adjust its focus, 

work with host countries, and meet the challenge of the pandemic head on. Now 

90 percent of all Peace Corps posts are involved in HIV/AIDS activities and in FY 

2006, volunteers provided assistance to one million individuals, over 84,000 HIV/ 

AIDS service providers, and 3,800 organizations. Had the Peace Corps been locked 

into statutory mandates, the likelihood of the Agency achieving this impact, at this 

magnitude, would have been lost. 

This bill also raises safety and security concerns. The Agency’s number one priority is maintaining the safety of our volunteers, and we have undergone a tremendous number of changes in this post 9/11 world to ensure that they are as safe as 

they can possibly be. As such, I do not believe the bill, as currently written, is in 

the best interests of the Peace Corps and its volunteers, particularly in pushing volunteers to become fundraisers or grant makers. 

With regard to costs, initial budget estimates find that the legislation could cost 

the Peace Corps between $20 and $30 million to implement. As the committee may 

be aware, since FY 2003, the Peace Corps has not received the President’s full budget request for the Agency. And, increases for the past two years have been relatively 

flat. While the FY 2008 House mark has met the President’s request, the Senate 

Appropriations Committee mark is $10 million below the President’s request. Therefore, even if the Agency were to be authorized at the levels provided in S. 732, there 

is no guarantee that it would be appropriated such amounts in future years. 

Additionally, the President’s FY 08 request of $333.5 million would simply allow 

the Peace Corps to maintain its current number of volunteers in the field and perhaps open one new program. It would not enable the Agency to accommodate any 

projects or programs of the legislation’s magnitude. 

I would now like to make the committee aware that there are many elements of 

the ‘‘Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act,’’ that are already underway at the 

Agency. 

1. The first point I would like to raise is that this legislation would mandate 

that each post have a Volunteer Advisory Committee (VAC). As envisioned by 

the legislation, these VACs would make recommendations regarding post staff, 

10 

which post would be required to take into consideration. At this time, volunteers unhappy with the support they receive from post staff may contact the Regional Director, or even the Director of the Peace Corps, to share their concerns. 

On numerous occasions, VAC recommendations-- along the results of the biennial volunteer survey—have resulted in changes at post pertaining to personnel 

matters or communications issues. The current VAC system is working and a 

vast majority of volunteers are satisfied with the process. 

To mandate a VAC each post would also trigger the application of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and could reduce the effectiveness of post staff 

in implementing rules that, for example, may not be liked by volunteers but are 

necessary for their safety and security. Furthermore, the VACs established by 

volunteers at posts are already working, and are extremely active and vocal 

with their views. I always make an effort to meet with the country VACs during 

my travels and carefully listen to their perspectives. To date, I have met with 

at least a half dozen VACs and each time I have appreciated their insights and 

suggestions. Headquarters staff also speak with VAC members, and often listen 

to them before making decisions on whether or not to extend Country Directors 

or other host country staff. 

2. The bill would also mandate that the Agency provide full reimbursement 

for all medical tests it requires of an applicant. The reimbursement of all medical tests could cost the Agency upwards of $10 million, vs. under $1 million 

the Agency is currently spending. In addition to the standardized tests required 

of all applicants based on gender and age, if an applicant indicates that they 

have had medical problems in a particular area then this can often lead to additional tests. Such tests are required to ensure an applicant’s suitability to the 

often extreme conditions a volunteer may incur, and for their own safety should 

they be chosen to serve as a Peace Corps volunteer. 

While we certainly want to help cut down the cost of medical tests for applicants, and do provide a reimbursement based on age and gender, (the Agency 

now pays between $125 to $290 for physical exams and lab work and up to $ 

72 for dental and eye examinations) the focus of our limited budget dollars 

needs to be designated to the support of our volunteers in the field. 

With regard to the publication of the Peace Corps’ medical screening guidelines on its website, and a listing of countries available to accept volunteers 

with certain medical conditions, among other medical process details, this would 

unfortunately lead to confusion for applicants as the countries that can accommodate different volunteer health situations frequently change. Additionally, 

each applicant’s health is assessed individually as diseases and ailments can 

have varying afects on diferent people. One person with asthma, for example, 

might be capable of serving but another may not due to the severity of their 

case. We do, however, post on the Peace Corps website a list of typical ailments 

that are difficult to accommodate as a reference for applicants. 

A comprehensive review by the Peace Corps’ inspector general is currently 

underway to evaluate the (a) medical screening aspects of the volunteer delivery 

system—the Agency’s mechanism for bringing volunteers in the door, (b) the 

transparency, information and communication, efficiency, timeliness, and the 

cost of the medical screening process—particularly as they relate to older applicants, and (c) to review impediments in the process—including those relating 

to medical and health care costs. I look forward to reviewing the final report, 

as I am serious about addressing these issues. However, it may be premature 

to mandate any legislative changes until the Office of the Inspector General has 

had the opportunity to finish its research and issue its findings. 

3. The legislation mandates that the Director shall set a goal of doubling by 

December 31, 2009, the number of volunteers with at least five years of relevant 

work experience serving in the Peace Corps. As I mentioned earlier, I have already launched an initiative to recruit older volunteers that would presumably 

have such work experience, and those efforts are currently being implemented. 

However, with that being said, it should be noted that younger volunteers 

with presumably ‘‘less work experience’’ are the Agency’s main staple, and it is 

through their eagerness to serve their communities, that the Peace Corps is 

what it is today. Many of us were those inexperienced volunteers many years 

ago, and are proud of our volunteer service and contribution. I want to make 

sure that having the opportunity to be a Peace Corps volunteer is available to 

everyone interested and eligible to serve. 

4. The legislation would mandate better promotion of electronic communication among volunteers, such as password protected websites & e-mail links that 

they can use to discuss development strategies, funding sources, etc. The AgenVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
11 

cy is already in the process of making the Peace Corps digitally streamlined for 

the 21st century. There are several projects underway. These include a pilot 

program to enable each post to have its own website and an online program 

called ‘‘PeaceWiki,’’ which will allow volunteers to share their best practices 

with other volunteers around the world. 

5. This legislation would allow volunteers to either raise funds or use seed 

funding for demonstration projects. This component of the bill really shifts one 

of the main tenants of volunteer service from coming along side a community 

and providing the impetus for developing their own funding sources to being 

viewed as a source of cash. According to one, seasoned country director, ‘‘I have 

never worked in a country where a volunteer couldn’t help a local community 

come up with money if the volunteer and local community were sufficiently enterprising. Once a volunteer and local community or organizations come up with 

local funding, two fundamental lessons are learned: that money could be found 

and that the process whereby money can be found becomes known.’’ In other 

words, sustainable development skills are transferred and something is left behind when the volunteer is no longer there. 

Additionally, the Peace Corps already has a proven vehicle to allow volunteers to accept funds for specific projects through the Office of Private Sector 

Initiatives (OPSI) and its Peace Corps Partnership Program (PCPP). In FY 2006, the PCPP received over $1.4 million worth of donations supporting 435 volunteer projects and representing 50 different countries. The 

projects in FY 2006 ranged in size from $62 to over $24,000. A new Director 

of OPSI has been hired, and is in the process of streamlining the PCPP process 

reflecting recent recommendations from the field. The Agency has taken these 

recommendations seriously, and consequently, has taken action to reorganize. 

We are looking forward to increasing the value of this resource to our volunteers. 

Additionally, raising funds outside of PCPP increases legal problems, accountability concerns, safety and security issues for volunteers, and is opposed by 

nearly every Peace Corps Country director we have spoken to. One of a Peace 

Corps volunteer’s main objectives is to integrate into a community and work 

among its host country citizens at the grassroots level. They are not encouraged 

to give out money or be seen as a constant source of funds; nor are they are 

allowed to sell personal items for cash. Allowing volunteers to either raise funds 

or use seed funding for demonstration projects diminishes their primary objectives. 

This provision goes against the Agency’s basic philosophy of helping others to 

help themselves. The Peace Corps has never been a funding institution and 

plays a unique role in the world of development that should be maintained. volunteers should not be requested by host countries or placed in a particular community for their ability to bring money to the table. 

6. This bill would allow volunteers to write articles for publication without 

their Country Director’s approval (unless it pertained to the Peace Corps program or the country, specifically). At this time, volunteers/trainees may write 

articles for publication; however these should be discussed in advance with the 

country director. Publication of material contrary to the advice of the Country 

Director that subsequently results in adverse consequences for the volunteer/ 

trainee or the Peace Corps program may be grounds for administrative separation. Often seemingly benign comments made about the society, food, customs, 

or local community in which a volunteer might serve could have an adverse reaction and affect the reputation of the Peace Corps in the country, or could even 

impact the safety and security of volunteers. 

I would doubt that many Senators would allow members of their staff to publish material without prior approval. For even though that staff member may 

not be writing on policy issues, staff members are always a reflection on the 

Senator—whether on the clock or not. The same applies for a Peace Corps volunteer. 

Finally, a volunteer should not be placed in a position where they are forced 

to make a decision on whether or not a matter may have an effect on Peace 

Corps programs or policies, and therefore, whether it requires prior approval. 

I would now like to discuss a few of the bill’s components which could cause unforeseen consequences for the Peace Corps. 

Section 104 calls for the creation of at least 20 new sector-specific programs in 

20 different countries for those of ‘‘substantial work experience.’’ Such a mandate 

would be a heavy burden for programming and management staff. It would also dilute the effectiveness of existing programs within host countries and may force post 

12 

staff to spend an inordinate amount of time on creating new sectors that may or 

may not be effective. It is also very unclear what would connote ‘‘substantial work 

experience’’ and how the Agency would define it without creating legal challenges 

in the recruitment process. 

As President Kennedy declared, we will continue to only send abroad Americans 

who are wanted by the host country, who have a real job to do, and who are qualified to do that job. Programs have been, and should continue to be, developed with 

care and after full negotiation with the host government to ensure that the Peace 

Corps’ efforts are assisting those in need. We should not arbitrarily develop 20 new 

project-area programs and insist that a host country work with us to accept additional projects if these programs are not something they want or need. We can’t be 

effective without host country ‘‘buy-in.’’ 

Furthermore, the Peace Corps’ six main program sectors (education, health and 

HIV/AIDS, business development, environment, youth, and agriculture) are not narrowly defined. There are currently already many opportunities for volunteers to 

work on projects that are requested by the host country that may loosely fall into 

one of the above categories. Some examples include, but are not limited to, deaf education in Kenya and ecotourism in the Dominican Republic. 

Under Section 306 of the bill, volunteers can only be administratively separated 

for specific conduct violations found in Peace Corps Manual Section 204. By mandating this section in statute, this eliminates the possibility of administrative separation for, among other things, lying on the application, poor performance, and other 

factors, which could hinder the ability of post to manage a program or cause safety 

and security issues. An example of a safety and security issue, not covered in MS 

204, is that volunteers can currently be administratively separated for leaving their 

site without first notifying the country director. For example, a country director 

must know where volunteers are in case of evacuation, civil strife, or natural disasters. 

This bill would also authorize the Agency to distribute up to $10 million in grants 

per year for RPCVs to carry out third goal activities. The Agency supports third goal 

activities and is open to discussing with the Subcommittee ways to enhance RPCV 

engagement. In FY 2007, the Peace Corps expects to spend just over $2 million on 

third goal activities, such as the Paul D. Coverdell World Wise Schools Program, 

University Programs, Returned Volunteer Services, and Peace Corps Week activities. New projects include the launch of a Web-based pilot program in 2006 with 

audio and visual pod casts by Peace Corps volunteers and narrated slide shows. The 

response has been tremendous. The Agency’s ability, however, to administer a grant 

program comes with a great deal of regulation and oversight. Additionally, a whole 

new division would have to be created within the Agency which would require additional resources and staff. The Agency is not a grant making organization and is 

not, nor should be, in the grant making business. 

Finally, I would like to note that the Peace Corps takes volunteer feedback very 

seriously. Every two years, the Peace Corps conducts a survey of its volunteers to 

obtain a comprehensive picture of the Agency’s operations and performance and a 

better understanding of volunteers’ personal experiences. The survey covers such 

topics as training, work assignments, safety and security, life at post, third goal activities, and overall Peace Corps service. It is a very effective and valuable rating 

tool. 

In 2006, 75 percent of volunteers currently in service completed the survey representing 4,482 participants. volunteers are not shy and offer valuable insights in 

the surveys. It is through these surveys that the Peace Corps measures its effectiveness and makes adjustments to its operations. In addition, volunteers are also given 

a Close of Service survey when they leave post, which provides another opportunity 

for direct feedback. volunteers are welcome to provide their thoughts and concerns 

to Country Directors and other staff at any time. A 50+ survey was also recently 

conducted, and the Agency continues to study its results to see how older volunteers 

currently rate their time in the Peace Corps and what can be done to improve their 

experience. 

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate and re-emphasize that many aspects of S. 

732 would be costly for the Peace Corps to implement; create unforeseen administrative burdens and consequences; and raise significant safety and security concerns. 

Moreover, other aspects of the legislation are unnecessary because they are already 

being implemented, and still others could be accomplished administratively-without 

legislation. 

Furthermore, as stated earlier, it will hamper the agility of the Agency to respond 

to changing circumstances or events, such as we saw with the fall of the Soviet 

Union in the early 1990s or the growing HI V/AIDS pandemic, and lock-in funds 

to programs that may prove unworkable and could force the Agency to close proVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
13 

grams and reduce the number of volunteers. In fact, the Agency estimates that the 

Peace Corps would see the total volunteers drop to approximately 6,000 in FY 2008, 

way back to FY 1999 levels, and approximately 7,400 in FY 2009, under the proposed authorization levels in the legislation. Volunteer numbers would only begin 

to increase again in FY 2010, provided that full funding was received. As Director, 

I want to see the number of volunteers serving overseas increase, not decrease. I 

believe the Committee wants that also. 

The Peace Corps is a resourceful federal agency and whenever Members of Congress travel overseas, we receive nothing but praise for the great work our volunteers are doing in the field. They see the return on their investment and that the 

Agency is truly the ‘‘best bang for the buck.’’ Majority Leader Harry Reid recently 

noted after returning from a CODEL that instead of the current 7,000 volunteers 

we have in the field, that there should be 70,000. 

Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Agency. Let me close by saying that the two years my wife Nancy and I spent in India 

as health volunteers had a tremendously positive impact on our lives and, for that, 

I am forever indebted to the Peace Corps. Those two years changed our lives and 

values significantly. Now, as Director of the Agency, I wake up every day committed 

to the goal of ensuring that future generations of Americans will have the opportunity to experience what Nancy and I experienced. 

My promise to you is to work as hard as I possibly can to support our volunteers, 

to strengthen the systems and programs of the Agency, and to ensure that the 

Agency’s presence remains a benefit to the United States and to countries around 

the world-all while protecting its original mission and goals. I know that there are 

many returned Peace Corps volunteers who share my passion for the Agency, and 

I ask you to join with me in guiding the Peace Corps forward. There is much to 

be accomplished, and I am confident we can be successful if we work together in 

constructive engagement. 

As we strive to ensure a better future for the Peace Corps, while continuing to 

adapt to the 21st century, we must remain true to the principles that President 

Kennedy and Sargent Shriver established more than four decades ago. 

I am pleased to answer any questions and address any issues or concerns the 

committee may have. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very much. Thank you, again, for your 

testimony. We appreciate your being here. 

What I’m going to do is ask the clerk to put us on about 10 minutes, here, being as there are just the two of us here right now. 

Others may come, and this way we can move along. 

But I thank you for your testimony. And any supporting documents. As I said, any of our witnesses here this morning, your full 

testimony and supporting documents will be included in the record. 

Mr. Tschetter, let me, if I can, just get through a couple of matters before getting to the substance of the bill, that I’d be remiss 

if I didn’t bring up here this morning to you, since they’ve been 

current events that have occurred with the Peace Corps. In at least 

one instance recently, the Peace Corps—the United States Ambassador clearly, in my view, had not read the Peace Corps statute 

governing the Peace Corps, what makes clear that the organization 

is not part of the State Department, while, I’ll quickly add, it must 

act in a way consistent with U.S. foreign policy goals and objectives. But the day-to-day management of the Peace Corps programs 

in the field are the responsibility of the Peace Corps. 

Would you share with us what you’re doing to ensure that the 

Peace Corps independence is respected? You, of course, are familiar 

with the case I’m talking about here. We recently went through 

here. And I’m glad that it finally worked out where there was a letter directly sent to the Peace Corps director that I’m referring to 

here. But would you mind just sharing with us your views on that 

kind of a matter here, and what you understand those statutes to 

mean? And, again, I don’t expect you to have to get in the weeds 

14 

in the particular case, but on—specifically on this importance of 

the independence of the Peace Corps from our State Department, 

not to digress, of course, from the foreign policy goals. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Right. Thank you for that question. And the 

Peace Corps is in a unique position worldwide, as we serve at the 

grassroots level. We are not foreign policymakers. We ask our volunteers to not get involved in foreign policy situations, discussions 

or issues, in whichever country we may be serving in. We enjoy the 

relationship we have with the State Department, and particularly 

with our Embassies around the globe. And our Ambassadors, for 

the most part, are extremely supportive of the activities that the 

Peace Corps perform in the various countries that we’re serving in. 

And I have endless dialog with Ambassadors and am grateful for 

their deep appreciation of our work. Our Ambassadors understand 

the difference between the role of a Peace Corps volunteer versus 

what they may do through the Embassy relative to their relationships in foreign diplomacy. 

We protect, passionately, the separation of the role of the Peace 

Corps in the countries we serve in, versus the foreign policy initiative of the countries that we may be in. And, as per the regulation, 

and as per the Peace Corps Act, we are separate. We keep separate 

office space. We don’t office on Embassy compounds. We really operate autonomously. And that keeps us in a unique position in the 

country. And, ultimately, as we’re fulfilling goal two—goal one and 

goal two in the countries we’re serving in, we are working at the 

grassroots level, living at the level of the people, and becoming integrated members of those communities. We do this by living there. 

We do this by learning the language. We do this by serving the 

tasks that we’re assigned to do. But then, also we encourage our 

volunteers to look around their communities, see other needs, and 

have a secondary project, a tertiary project, whatever it may be. 

And most of our volunteers are doing a number of initiatives in addition to the actual task that they’ve been sent over to do, just like 

probably you and I did when we were volunteers. 

So, our position is to maintain that autonomy, but also cooperate 

and work as closely as possible with our Embassy people, because 

we believe that they represent America, as well. And it works very, 

very well. And rarely, but we have had a few issues pertaining to 

that, as you alluded to, but we were able to work through them, 

and I think we’re moving forward amicably in that situation, as 

well. 

Senator DODD. Are you satisfied that the State Department understands their role, vis-a-vis Peace Corps country directors? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Yes, I am satisfied with that. As a matter of 

fact, I have personally had conversations with Secretary Rice, and 

she has actually sent a new cable out, within the last 60 days now, 

articulating that to her entire Embassy team around the globe. 

Senator DODD. And the person involved is, I gather, satisfied 

with the letters that have gone back, in terms of her own career? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Yes. Everything is moving forward positively in 

that realm. 

Senator DODD. I hope you’ll keep us informed if there’s any 

change in that policy or any other examples that come up. I’d like 

15 

to know about them before they become a news story, if at all possible, so that we can have a possibility of stepping in earlier. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Right. Thank you. And we will absolutely do 

that. 

Senator DODD. I appreciate that. 

The Washington Post reported, yesterday, that, following the 

2002 congressional elections, the White House conducted what it 

called political briefings for political appointees, including Ambassadors and Peace Corps personnel. In your June 15 letter to Senator Biden, you confirmed that on March 6, 2003, a political briefing took place at the Peace Corps, and it was approved by, ‘‘former 

senior officials.’’ You also state that, ‘‘it was not run through the 

Office of the General Counsel for approval.’’ I’m quoting from your 

letter, in both those lines there. I want to know who, specifically, 

approved the political briefing. Was it the Peace Corps director, the 

chief of staff? Did either of these individuals attend the briefings? 

At what time was there guidance available from the Office of the 

General Counsel as it relates to political activities and the Hatch 

Act requirements? Was the general counsel aware of the briefing 

at the time? And did he attend? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. OK. I am aware of the situation. Obviously, that 

was before my time. And, when the letter was received from Senator Biden. I’ve asked my chief of staff and other staffer members 

to research it. There is no list of who attended. I’ve asked for that, 

and no roster was kept or anything of that nature. This was an informational meeting, a courtesy meeting that was held voluntarily 

for whomever wanted to attend. Most of them were the people that 

were appointed politically to roles at the Peace Corps. 

Senator DODD. Was the general counsel aware of this? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. You know, I don’t know. 

Senator DODD. Has that question been asked of him? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. That question has not been asked of me. 

Senator DODD. Well, I’ll ask it of you to ask it of your general 

counsel. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Excuse me? 

Senator DODD. I’d like to know if the general counsel was aware 

of that meeting. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Yes, he was aware—I believe he was aware of 

the meeting, yes. 

Senator DODD. Did he approve of it? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. I don’t know. I was not there at the time, as 

you—— 

Senator DODD. Did the director participate in the meeting at the 

time? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. I believe that the director did participate in the 

meeting, yes. 

Senator DODD. And the chief of staff? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. I don’t know about that one. 

Senator DODD. Did anyone go out and ask who attended? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Yes, I have asked who attended, but the answer 

has been, ‘‘We don’t have a list.’’ 

There was no roster kept or anything of—— 

Senator DODD. No one’s been forthcoming to say, ‘‘Well, I was at 

the meeting?’’ 

16 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Well—yes, I—a couple of people have told me 

that they were at the meeting. 

Senator DODD. Who else was at the meeting? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. The director’s executive assistant, I’ve talked 

with her, and she was at the meeting. I know that. And there were 

approximately—maybe 15 people that attended the meeting. 

Senator DODD. From Peace Corps personnel. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. From Peace Corps personnel, that’s correct. 

Senator DODD. Yes. Do you think this is an appropriate use of 

Peace Corps personnel, a meeting like that? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Well, it was a voluntary and courtesy meeting. 

It was not a required meeting. And it was just informational in nature. 

Senator DODD. Did it occur on the Peace Corps property? Was it 

in the Peace Corps building, this meeting occurred? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. It was held in the Peace Corps building, that’s 

correct. 

Senator DODD. But what is your views, generally, about the idea 

of a political meeting in the Peace Corps? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. My view would be that I would not condone 

that, personally. 

Senator DODD. Would you tolerate that from occurring? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. I would not encourage that to take place, no. 

Senator DODD. No? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. No. 

Senator DODD. Well, I’m troubled by it. I mean, this is—you 

know, we talked earlier about the State Department and the Peace 

Corps. That’s one separate matter. But, in my experience, and I 

want to be careful here because I don’t know every circumstance 

that’s happened, but the idea that Peace Corps—the Peace Corps 

director, the senior people at the Peace Corps, would be involved 

in a political briefing prior to congressional elections is something 

that we’ve never, never tolerated in the past. Now, maybe it’s occurred. And if it has, I’d like to know about it. But I’m not aware 

of any other circumstance, over the years, that that’s happened. 

And I’m pleased with your response here this morning regarding 

it, and I think all of us, regardless of political persuasion up here, 

this is just not an appropriate activity to the Peace Corps. We’ve 

tried, over the years, for 40 years, to maintain the reputation—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Right. 

Senator DODD [continuing]. ——of this organization. And every— 

almost every administration, without exception, has really made an 

effort to do that. And, at this particular juncture, to watch this administration move us in a different direction, I’m deeply, deeply 

troubled by it, and would hope that there may be some directive 

from you to Peace Corps staff and others admonishing anyone from 

engaging in political activities like this, particularly on Peace Corps 

property. The reputation of this institution suffers when that happens. We have a reputation, and we’ve built a good one over the 

years. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Yes. 

Senator DODD. And to have it soiled because people want to turn 

it into a political operation is something I’m not going to tolerate 

at all. And I’ll call for heads if people are involved in that thing 

17 

are still there, and are involved in these things. They should know 

better than this, than to engage in that kind of activity. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Thank you. And I concur with your opinion that 

this should not have happened. And I would not condone it, as I 

said, and I will look into the possibility, through the advice of my 

general counsel, as to a directive that would be appropriate, at this 

time. 

Senator DODD. Well, thank you for that. Why don’t you prepare 

a letter for Senator Biden, if you haven’t already, or to me, and 

Senator Corker, just expressing those views, so we have something 

on file regarding that. It would be helpful. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Okay. 

Senator DODD. And I’d like to know if there are people at the 

Peace Corps today who were involved in that meeting, because I’d 

like to know who they were. I’d like some explanation from them 

as to why they attended. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. We will. Let me work on that. 

Senator DODD. All right. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. We’ll get back to you. 

[The information referred to above follows:] 

Response from Mr. Tschetter: 

As noted in my June 15th letter to Chairman Biden (copy attached), no record 

was kept of the political appointees who attended the briefing. On July 18, the 

Peace Corps received a request from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) regarding 

this matter. We are fully cooperating with their inquiry at this time and would direct any further questions to OSC. 

Let me just ask one additional question here, and then—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Sure. 

Senator DODD [continuing]. ——turn to my colleague. 

I sat there in the Chamber of the House, for the State of the 

Union message, back in 2002, and you can only imagine the sense 

of pride to hear the President get up and talk about wanting to 

double the size of the Peace Corps. Now, we’ve heard this in the 

past. Well, that’s now 5 years ago. And, where it’s 7,000—we were 

at 6,600, roughly, in those days, and so, we’re pretty short, with 

about 18 months to go before the end of this administration. Can 

you share with us whether or not the President still continues to 

hold the view of doubling the size? Although, obviously, that’s going 

to be impossible, given the time that remains here. And, if he still 

does, can you give us some indication of what’s happened here in 

the midst of all of this, as to why we haven’t gotten to that 14 or 

15,000 level we were talking about 5 years ago? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Thank you. First of all, I vividly remember that 

address. Although I was not a part of the administration, I certainly cheered when I heard of the goal. And I would fully support 

it. We’re not going to make it, however, as you mentioned. We have 

about 18 months, and it’s going to be far from double. 

As I see it, the major encumbrance to the doubling of the Peace 

Corps has been a budgetary issue. We have plenty of opportunities 

to serve. As I mentioned earlier, I’ve had the opportunity to visit 

20 Peace Corps countries in the last several months, and in almost 

every country, as I meet with the heads of the state or with other 

officials from the ministry, the request is made for more. And so, 

when I just look at the infrastructure of the countries where we are 

18 

serving, in the 73 countries we’re serving in, I see that we could 

significantly add more volunteers. 

Additionally, we have several requests for Peace Corps programs 

from new countries, approximately 20 countries with requests in 

right now. We’re doing three assessments, as we speak, as I mentioned to you. I’m hopeful that we can enter all three of these countries, assuming they pass the various assessment criteria. The 

major one of which is safety and security. And as I consider the 20 

requests that have come through the Peace Corps, many of those 

would not pass the safety and security, but many would. 

So, my point is, there are plenty of opportunities for us to grow 

the Peace Corps. 

Furthermore, on the supply side, our recruitment efforts have 

been stellar, and we’ve had significant growth in recruitment activity. We accept about one in three applicants today. So, I see potential for growth on that side, as well. 

And, in addition to that, as I mentioned earlier, I’ve launched an 

initiative to attract more of the baby-boomer generation, the 50- 

plus generation, into the Peace Corps, and I see tremendous potential for service and impact there, as well. So, the growth potential 

is there, both from the supply side as well as the needs from countries around the globe. Therefore, it becomes a budgetary matter. 

And only two times in the last decade has the Peace Corps received 

the full funding request that has gone to the Hill. Therefore, therein lies probably our largest challenge. Even today, as we sit here, the President’s request was $333.5 million, up from $319 million. And the House has—House has recommended that the request be fully funded. The Senate’s preliminary appropriations work has cut that amount from $333 to $323.5 

million. That’s a massive cut that would impact us significantly. 

We would be able to maintain what we’re doing now, much less add 

to it, if we don’t receive more than the $323 million. 

So, I am so pleased with the thoughts you have with regard to 

the Peace Corps’s growth over the next 5 years, and if we can begin 

to advance that initiative, from a budgetary standpoint, I believe 

that we can grow the Peace Corps significantly. 

Senator DODD. If our recruiting is going pretty well, why are you 

projecting a decline, actually, in volunteers in 2008? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. In 2008, with the appropriation of $323 million, 

we probably would not be able to grow. 

Senator DODD. If I’m not mistaken, I think that number was rejected at the administration’s request, not at the Senate’s appropriations mark. They talked about a decline in, actually, the number of volunteers in 2008. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Well, the other part of that is, if the bill, as proposed, was signed into law, we would have to make a number of 

adjustments. 

Senator DODD. Even from the administration’s standpoint, now, 

at their request. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. No. No, the administration’s request was $333.5 

million—— 

Senator DODD. Right. 

Mr. TSCHETTER [continuing]. Which is what the House Appropriations Committee has recommended, and now the Senate ApproVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
19 

priations has recommended $323.5 million—$10 million below the 

administration request. The $333.5 million would give us the ability to slightly grow the Peace Corps and to add one, possibly two, 

new countries. 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. The $333.5 million. With $323.5 million, we 

could not do that. 

Senator DODD. Yes. Well, I’ll come back to this in a minute, here. 

Obviously, looking at the various numbers show a decline, even at 

that. And I gather it’s based on the request. And I presume the request, because you go through the budget— in actuality, your number projects a drop of—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. A slight decline, that’s correct. 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Yes. 

Senator DODD. OK. 

Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And obviously, Ms. Tschetter, you’re here during a period of time 

where the issue of the day is—has been a little bit of involvement, 

if you will, in some of our foreign policy areas. And I just want to 

say that I, too, would want to know if there’s any involvement in 

that regard, and I do hope you’ll send a letter regarding what may 

have occurred and what your position regarding that is. I think all 

of us want to make sure that the Peace Corps is the gold standard 

as it relates to being very nonpartisan, and, certainly, acting appropriately. 

Let me talk to you. This—I actually really appreciate our chairman putting forth this bill, and I appreciate the way you’ve responded so directly. And, as I look at the components of the bill, 

it looks like it had a great deal of volunteer input from individuals. 

And now I look at your response, and obviously it’s a response that 

would come from management. And, again, I really appreciate how 

direct you were in that response. 

I guess I’d like to begin with—is there some dynamic that exists 

right now within the Peace Corps organization between volunteers 

and management that is an issue? Is there some rub there that 

you’d like to cause us to be illuminated by explanation? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Well, certainly not that I’m aware of, nor that 

I’ve encountered or observed as I’ve had the opportunity to travel 

to various Peace Corps countries. In most of the countries that I’ve 

visited, I actually meet with the VAC committees, as many as possible, to find out matters such as that. Issues that, you know, sitting in Washington, we aren’t aware of. And I have not encountered that. Our VAC process works very well. The volunteers feel 

like they have open opportunity to dialog with the country director, 

with country staff, with the regional director, and all the way up 

to my office. I have received e-mails from volunteers, and we do respond to those gratuitously and as rapidly as possible. So, I really 

don’t see any issues of major matter at all. 

Now, we have 73 countries, and each country director is fully responsible for all operations of the Peace Corps in that country. I 

can’t tell you that there isn’t a country director somewhere that 

might have issue. Actually, I can think of one example, where, from 

20 

VAC feedback, we became concerned about a country director’s 

style and approach. We researched it thoroughly, and we did not 

give that country director a second term—called a second tour—because of his style and the impact that we felt was negative in 

terms of supporting the volunteers in that particular country. So, 

we have responded, and will respond, to situations such as that. 

That’s normal, typical of the management challenges that come before most of us in various ways. 

So, there are really no major rubs that I know of at all. The one 

message I try to deliver consistently as I travel and as I meet with 

staff in Washington is: This is really all about the volunteer, and 

they are our client, and let’s make sure that we are supporting 

them in every way possible. 

Senator CORKER. Now, speaking along those lines, we—I know 

that Senator Dodd asked something about financial support, and I 

know there’s a $10 million difference, I guess, between what the 

President asked for and what currently looks like it’s going to be 

appropriated. Explain the relationship, if you will, between those 

moneys and how it directly affects the number of volunteers, if you 

will, you’re able to put in place, how the volunteer’s supported, and 

talk a little bit about the direct relationship there. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Well, in the 73 countries we’re in, every country 

requires a certain infrastructure of support and staffing. Whether 

there are 100 or 120 volunteers oftentimes doesn’t have a major, 

major economic impact. And so, I’ve asked our financial staff, 

‘‘What does $10 million mean to the agency?’’ The response is with 

an additional $10 million, the Peace Corps can add something in 

the neighborhood of 150 to 200 volunteers and open at least one 

new country with that amount of money. So, that kind of puts in 

perspective the relevancy of how $10 million impacts the Peace 

Corps. 

You know, we have a small budget, and we do an amazing 

amount of work with that money, and having a tremendous impact 

around the globe, with almost 8,000 volunteers serving in the countries that we’re in. 

Senator CORKER. It looks to me that the bill itself, again, was put 

forth, I know, for discussion and to try to strengthen the Peace 

Corps, but looks like the bill, in many ways, codifies things that 

may otherwise be, sort of, management types of issues. And one of 

the things that I’ve seen a great deal of, more than any of us, I 

think, would like to see within much of what we do in foreign relations and this type of work, is tremendous bureaucracies and hands 

being tied and inabilities to do things. And it looks like your major 

criticism of this bill, as drafted, is that, in many ways, it does even 

more of that than already exists. And I wonder if you would expand a little bit on that. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Well, as I mentioned in my brief opening remarks, there are a number of initiatives in the bill that the agency 

is already involved in and is already doing. You know, that we 

have VAC committees, we have the Peace Corps Partnership Program, which gives access to funds in a controlled and managed 

way. And I think that’s really important, because, we are not a 

funding agency, we are a grassroots agency serving the people at 

the local level, building those relationships and understandings, 

21 

and leaving behind a better environment, whether it’s in a classroom or in a health initiative or in an agricultural initiative or an 

HIV/AIDS educational initiative, which, as you know, are some of 

the major programs that we’re involved in. 

So, to open up the funding to a point where we become viewed 

as a funding agency really changes a lot of the dynamics of what 

the Peace Corps is all about and what the Peace Corps is really 

supposed to be accomplishing in the countries we serve. 

So, in my opinion is that we have a mechanism in place—by the 

way, my opinion is also that we have not leveraged that mechanism to the maximum, that there is more potential in the Peace 

Corps Partnership Program yet to be expanded on. And, as a consequence of that, matter of fact, within the last few weeks I have 

installed new leadership to take us to new levels of progress and 

success there, as an example. 

Senator CORKER. On the funding piece, give us a vivid example, 

if you will, of—if the funding mechanism that’s been contemplated 

in this bill were in place, and volunteers were able to do some of 

things it contemplates, give us a—sort of, an example of the type 

of management issue or, let me say, divergence from the Peace 

Corps mission that might create. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Yes. Well, I guess, as proposed, it would be a 

grantmaking initiative, and that takes a whole different kind of expertise, and we’d have to set up a separate department to manage—— 

Senator CORKER. Let me just—I’m not clear about—is it 

grantmaking or is it volunteers raising money to do specific 

projects in areas that they’re working on, that they’d like to see 

done that, otherwise, they wouldn’t have the resources to do? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. They can do that today through the Peace Corps 

Partnership Program. Currently, we have on our Web site 80 requests from Peace Corps volunteers in the field for moneys for various projects. We’re actually in the process of fulfilling over 300 requests right now. So, there’s a lot of activity. Last year, we fulfilled 

435 requests, and the total amount that was handed out, if you 

will, that was raised, was $1.4 million. This money came in from 

the private sector—primarily from individual donations that were 

then doled out to the volunteers, as per their requests. 

I’ll give you an example of one that I observed. I was in Swaziland, in a very remote part of the country. I was taken to a really 

shoddy small two-room school for AIDS victims, and it was an environment that you wouldn’t want children to be in. The volunteer, 

a young lady from Iowa, by the way, saw the need for a very simple 

two-room classroom. The cost of this was going to be around 

$10,000, so she posted her request. Word about her project got back 

to her friends in Iowa and other people around the globe. And one 

of the things that we require when funding like this takes place is 

that the community becomes involved in the giving, as well. And 

so, in this case, about half of the money came from the Peace Corps 

Partnership Program through contributions of individuals in America, and the other half was sweat equity that the local community 

provided, as well as materials that the local community provided, 

in addition to the moneys that were used to buy materials. I observed not only the young volunteer carrying bricks up the ladder 

22 

but I observed grandmothers doing it and others with great pride. 

And the reason the grandmothers were doing it is because the 

mothers had passed on as a result of AIDS. 

And so, it’s just one example of the kinds of projects that our volunteers get—become involved in and make a tremendous difference 

in the service around the world. 

The size of our Peace Corps Partnership donations last year ranged from $64 to about $24,000, so that gives you an idea of the 

wide array of projects that are supported through this program. 

Senator CORKER. And—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. So, my position is, we have a mechanism in 

place. It works well. We have accountability that goes with it and 

all the aspects from the legal perspective are taken care of. As 

such, I think there’s more potential within this program. 

Senator CORKER. But how would that be—again, I’m unclear as 

to how it would be changed, per the way this bill contemplates. I 

know, right now you obviously—it’s an empowering deal, it’s teaching people how to fish instead of giving them fish. It’s that same 

mentality that’s been so successful in many other areas. But I’m 

not clear as to what changes this legislation creates that dampens 

that. And if you would illuminate that, I’d appreciate it. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. As I understand the language in the bill, the 

volunteers would be able to solicit funds directly from family at 

home, which would come directly to them. There would be no control, no oversight or management of those moneys. They’d flow directly from the source to the volunteer, as opposed to through a 

mechanism that can have oversight to make sure that the monies 

are appropriately placed. 

Senator DODD. If I could—since I’m the author of it, it would require the director of the Peace Corps program per country to have 

to approve it coming in. This has been a longstanding practice, I’m 

sure you probably did the same thing I did. I can tell you, as a volunteer, I solicited support—in my case, it was baseball equipment 

from Connecticut to my mountain village in the Dominican Republic. It wasn’t exactly a grant application. The Peace Corps didn’t 

approve it, 40 years ago. A bunch of local people back home got together and packaged up some stuff and sent it down. Now, obviously that’s one example. That’s gone on in literally thousands and 

thousands of cases over the years. And a lot of this has happened 

over the years. I know of examples where people did this without 

Peace Corps approval—but I am certainly aware that volunteers 

were soliciting support back home from groups to support an activity in their community. 

So, we thought, rather than just having this go on this way, Senator, to try to set up some mechanism in many of these cases here, 

because there is a danger—and you’re right to raise questions, this 

could get out of hand here and cause some problems under my legislation, the country director would have to approve this. So, it 

wouldn’t be just a question of the volunteer bringing that in without some authorization being given in order to get some control 

over this, if we could. So, that’s the idea. 

Senator CORKER. And since you’re the author, but not the witness, but I’ve got—let me ask, would it—and you would contemplate in this that the same type of balance, where there had to 

23 

be sweat equity, there would have to be the same type of formula— 

is that what you would contemplate? 

Senator DODD. That’s the idea of having the country director 

being involved in this way, so that you’d have some supervision 

over what was occurring here. And, obviously, those kinds of considerations, I presume, will be taken into consideration. We should 

try not to be so rigid in this process. The whole idea is to solicit 

additional funds for the Peace Corps. You know, when we talk 

about the money for this annual budget for the Peace Corps here— 

just to put it in perspective for you—this is one day in Iraq. The 

entire budget for the Peace Corps for a year, is one day. It’s $300 

million a day in Iraq. So, we’re talking about, you know, $10 and 

$20 million to do something here. That’s a matter of hours here. 

For 7,000 volunteers in 70 countries to make a difference in the 

world, one day in Iraq—$10 billion a month. 

So, with all due respect, we’re spending a lot of time on this 

stuff, and when you start talking about it, and I want to be careful 

about comparisons here, but too often I think we fail to understand 

the value of what a program like this can mean to us around the 

world. We’re trying to regain the moral authority and the respect 

that we need to achieve here. 

But obviously, this is a beginning, and any ideas and suggestions 

you might have in trying to make this work right would be welcomed—I just tried to come up with a system here that’s been 

going on for basically the length of the Peace Corps, where people 

have been supporting and contributing to projects on site. We need 

to address how they can do it in a way that makes sense and furthers the goals and helps volunteers achieve their goals here. That 

was the idea, really—— 

Senator CORKER. And I know my time’s up. I’d just make one— 

I don’t know if we’re going to come back around for second rounds 

or not, but, you know, I think this is actually a really interesting 

exercise, I do. And, again, I appreciate the contributions the Senator has made in proposing this bill, and your contributions and 

leadership. 

I’m wondering if you would consider, in a, you know, paragraphby-paragraph way, to sort of respond to some of the kind of things 

that Senator Dodd just laid out, and ways of taking what he has 

done, which obviously has a large volunteer slant to it, which is not 

bad, not bad at all, and take that and, maybe, massage it in such 

a way, in response back to us, that we could look at it and, maybe, 

potentially make changes to the legislation that really created 

what, in your opinion, would be a balance to really empower the 

volunteers to do the best job they can possibly do, at the same time 

keep within the Peace Corps the ability to actually run the organization and cause it to have the mission that it’s set out to do. Yeah, 

I wonder if you could do that. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Absolutely. I would welcome the opportunity. 

[The information referred to above, follows:] 

Response from Mr. Tschetter: 

With regard to Senator Corker’s request to expand on the Chairman’s comments 

regarding funding for volunteer projects, the Agency shares the Chairman’s sentiments about the need to support volunteers in their work and the incredible impact 

they make every day around the world. However, the Agency cannot support Title 

24 

I, Sec. 101 of S. 732: ‘‘Seed Funding for Volunteer Projects,’’ as written, as the additional funding sources detailed in this bill for volunteer projects could create legal 

problems, accountability concerns, safety and security issues for volunteers, and is 

oposed by nearly all Peace Corps country directors surveyed about the proposal. 

While applying for funds through approved sources (such as the Peace Corps Partnership Program, U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Embassy funds, 

etc.) for a particular project is acceptable, a volunteer should not be seen as a constant source of funds. One of a Peace Corps volunteer’s main objectives is to integrate into a community and work among its host country citizens at the grassroots 

level and to help the community help themselves. When a volunteer raises money 

through the Peace Corps Partnership Program, they are required to have community buy-in for the project, meaning the community raises the matching funds required. When a volunteer eventually leaves the community they have left not only 

a water well, for example, but a valuable lesson to the community on how they can 

raise their own funds to achieve something and how to become more sustainable. 

Simply allocating additional funds to a community may not leave the lesson behind 

on which no dollar value can be placed. The Peace Corps has never been a funding 

institution and plays a unique role in the world of development that should be 

maintained. Volunteers should not be requested by host countries or placed in a particular community for their ability to raise funds. 

As mentioned earlier, the Peace Corps Partnership Program, administered by the 

Office of Private Sector Initiatives (OPSI) at the Peace Corps, is already a proven 

vehicle to allow volunteers to accept appropriate funds for specific projects. 

Additionally, the Agency has made some recent changes to the Partnership Program over the last several months, such as the revision of the manual section setting out the policies and procedures for the program in order to make it more user 

friendly; the creation of a Peace Corps Partnership Program volunteer handbook; 

several new forms, including the application form for funding that has been updated 

and made more accessible for volunteers; an updated website that has become more 

user friendly and easier for donors to give money on-line: http:// 

www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=resources.donors; creation of a quarterly newsletter to share current news about the office to RPCV groups, posts, regional offices, 

and donors; and a video is being produced about the Peace Corps Partnership Program to share with all interested individuals (expected completion date: end of 

2007). 

Mr. TSCHETTER. In fact, I was thinking, as Senator Dodd was explaining, his approach to this part of the bill, about what we’re 

doing already, through the Peace Corps Partnership Program, for 

example, and concept that Senator Dodd presented—we need to sit 

down and talk about the give-and-take of making this work better 

all around. That’s really what we’re suggesting, and I’d be more 

than happy—— 

Senator DODD. We’d welcome that, as well. 

Mr. TSCHETTER [continuing]. To do that. 

Senator DODD. Senator Coleman has been a chairman of this 

subcommittee, and did a lot of work when he was in that capacity, 

and we thank him. Thank you for coming this morning. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have a deep 

interest in the success of the Peace Corps. Minnesota—the director 

comes as a Minnesotan, and we have, I think, one of the strongest 

Peace Corps alumni associations in the country. It’s very, very important to my State, and I think this is kind of part of the Minnesota fabric of who we are. 

I will say, Mr. Chairman, my concern about—as I look at this 

bill—and let me first ask you, Director, were you at all involved in 

the writing of this bill? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. No. 

Senator COLEMAN. Were your—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. I had no involvement. 

25 

Senator COLEMAN. Were your opinions solicited before provisions 

were written? Did you have discussion with staff? Did you have 

any opportunity to have input—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. No. 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. To the development of the bill? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. No. 

Senator COLEMAN. My concern, Mr. Chairman, of—Senator Corker talking about a volunteer slant—Director, you were a volunteer, 

is that correct? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Yes; I was. 

Senator COLEMAN. And your wife is a volunteer? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Yes. 

Senator COLEMAN. And many folks in management were volunteers? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Yes. 

Senator COLEMAN. So, I’m confused as to whether there is a volunteer slant or perhaps particular—I have—let me step back. 

I presume, among volunteers, there are different perspectives on 

how to do things. Kind of, if you had a group of—if I got a group 

of farmers together—I get three together, I often get four opinions. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Right. 

Senator COLEMAN. But they’re all farmers. And so, I would just 

question whether this is a ‘‘volunteer slant’’ or simply the slant of 

particular volunteers who were involved of the writing of the bill. 

And what I would hope—and I want to follow up on the comments 

of Senator Corker—that you do come back and present the perspective—but I’m not saying this is one of management versus volunteers. I don’t want to testify for you, but I—would it be fair to say 

that—Director Tschetter, as you look at what volunteers do, you 

do—do you do it with a concern about the perspective of volunteers 

and—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Absolutely. 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. Safety of volunteers? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Absolutely. 

Senator COLEMAN. You mention in your testimony that you’d 

be—you’re concerned that some of the provisions of the bill could 

potentially undermine the safety of Peace Corps volunteers. And I 

know that’s a critical issue. We addressed it during my chairmanship. There were a series of articles written, I think, in an Ohio 

paper, about the safety issue. And we had hearings about that. Can 

you talk a little bit about—a little more detail as to what in this 

bill, from your perspective—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Right. Well—— 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. Would undermine safety? 

Mr. TSCHETTER [continuing]. Certainly, safety and security is our 

No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 priority at the Peace Corps. And it is something that is addressed and talked about and paid attention to literally every day. And one of the things I look for when I visit countries and I ask volunteers about their feelings about safety and security as it pertains to their particular volunteer work in the community they’re living in, in the transportation they have to use, 

etc.—so, it’s a major issue that we have at the Peace Corps. 

There are two or three components of the bill that do concern me, 

from a safety and security standpoint. One is the whole fundraising 

26 

issue. And we are an agency of people that give of themselves and 

their expertise, and that’s the fundamental groundwork of what we 

do and how we do it. If, now, this shifts because the volunteers are 

spending more of their time raising money, it changes the whole 

perspective of the volunteers in the communities they’re serving in, 

and I would be concerned about how they’re viewed. This could ultimately lead to a safety and security issue. 

There’s another matter in the bill, that talks about publishing of 

articles and the open-endedness of that, without scrutiny, if you 

will—and those are my words, the bill doesn’t use those words— 

and that is so critically important to us at the Peace Corps, what 

our volunteers say and write. And it goes back to the 1960s. And 

you might recall the Nigeria postcard of the 1960s that a volunteer 

wrote from his hotel room that created an immense stir in that 

country. And so, our country directors are fully responsible to make 

sure that we have sound relationships as we work within the countries we serve in, that we do not offend the culture, that 

relationally we are appropriately operating. And that’s why we require volunteers to run past their country director the concept and 

the idea of what they want to publish, what they want to put on 

their blog, what they want to send on their e-mails. And it’s all 

with regards to the relationship within the countries we’re serving 

in, and being sensitive to those cultures. Things that may look innocuous, that may look innocent from a volunteer’s perspective, 

might appear differently to our country director and their staff, and 

they would need to dialog with the volunteer on it. So, that’s another area of safety and security that I think could pose a degree 

of risk, actually. 

Then, there’s some administrative separation language that is in 

the bill that does concern me, as well, and primarily as it pertains 

to what a volunteer would not be able to be separated for. For example, from a safety and security standpoint, we require that when 

a volunteer is away from his or her site that the country director 

is informed of that, so they know exactly where our volunteers are 

all the time. And it’s a clear safety and security issue. And if the 

language, as it pertains to administrative separation, prevents 

that, that creates a safety and security issue that I would be quite 

concerned about, actually. 

So, those are the kinds of issues that we would need to address, 

and I am more than happy and willing to sit down and dialog 

about these at whatever length necessary so that we understand 

each other and we can amicably and mutually agree on the right 

way that these issues should be resolved. 

Senator COLEMAN. In regard to the issue about what volunteers 

can publish, do you know what the—I’d be interested, but I don’t 

know what the answer to this—in the State Department, do you 

know whether there are similar limitations for State Department 

personnel on things that they write or they publish? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. I really do not know, but I would assume there 

is. 

Senator COLEMAN. Probably worth looking at, just—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Yes. 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. To see—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. We will do that. 

27 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. And to check with the policy. 

Again, I have no idea what those policy—I presume it’s the same 

thought. In fact, I could tell you, I had some deep disagreement 

with the State Department, who took some action against an ambassador who published and said something that was contrary to 

policy and created great difficulty then, within that country, and— 

but I—in speaking with the Secretary and the Under Secretary, 

they expressed to me their concern about having one Secretary of 

State and one policy, and the complications that can arise from 

that. So, I think it’s worth—I think it’s certainly worth looking at. 

I would hope that you sit down with, by the way, volunteers. And 

so, it’s—this is not—you know, in some instances, you may have a 

director who’s got perspectives very separate from all the volunteers. My sense here, as I look at this and I listen to your testimony, that there are some very good ideas that have come from 

some volunteers. I presume that’s a source of what this—these— 

this bill—you know, from whence this bill flows. On the other 

hand, I suspect that there are other volunteers—and you being a 

former volunteer, as well as the director—who have different perspectives and have different concerns. And certainly, before I can 

move forward on this, I’d really like to make sure that it has—that 

we get a full vetting, that you sit down—but it’s not just management versus—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Right. 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. Volunteer, that it is from a volunteers’ perspective that we get some feedback, and then, in the 

end, figure out what the right policy is. But I—again, I think it 

would be critically important to have your insight and response 

and participation. 

Senator DODD. What do you think this hearing’s about? 

Senator COLEMAN. Part of it, and we’ll get where it—— 

Senator DODD. Who is this person, right here? 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. I—Mr. Chairman—— 

Senator DODD. He’s the director. 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. I do have the floor, and I—— 

Senator DODD. Is that the director? 

Senator COLEMAN. That is the director, and I—— 

Senator DODD. All right. 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. And I’ve got my—but I’m just 

saying, and I’ll say it very clearly, I think it’s rather absurd to be— 

to have a director coming up here and not participating in a bill 

that’s talking about volunteer empowerment. 

Senator DODD. Is the Senator telling me that all the bills he’s 

written over the years, he’s always contacted everyone in every 

agency that he’s writing the bill about? 

Senator COLEMAN. I—— 

Senator DODD. Have you done that all the time? 

Senator COLEMAN. I don’t know about every time, but—— 

Senator DODD. Of course not. 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. I think if I—I’m just telling you 

what I need. I’m telling you what I need. And what I need is—if 

I’m going to be acting and responding to a bill on the Peace Corps, 

it’s supposed to be the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act, 

I’d like to know the—from the head of the Peace Corps—and so, 

28 

we’re getting it, and I’m making the request, that, beyond just this 

written testimony, that, in fact—plus his oral testimony—that, in 

fact, you come back, as Senator Corker has raised—and, I also 

want to make it clear—not just you. What I’m looking for is—I’d 

like to make sure that there is, you know, further input from other 

volunteers, and then, in the end, I’ll be able to make a judgment 

about that. 

Senator DODD. Well, I hope the Senator will stay for the whole 

hearing; he’ll hear a lot of people here this morning. 

And, by the way, volunteers are not employees of the Federal 

Government. Surprising, the former chairman of the committee 

would understand that the Peace Corps volunteer is a very different creature than the State Department employee here. And just 

basic understanding of the Peace Corps Act and the role of volunteers and the purpose of volunteers is very fundamentally different 

than a State Department employee, and how they’re treated, and 

how they’re helped, and how they work with the director of the 

country, and what responsibilities they have, as well. 

Let me, if I can, go into the medical screening issue, Mr. Director. Based on the input from applicants and volunteers, most of the 

criticism we received centers on the medical screening portions of 

the application process. I’d like to know what—the average length 

of medical screening phase of the application process is, and what’s 

the average cost? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. First of all, Senator Dodd, the medical screening 

process is probably our biggest challenge in the whole volunteer application process, no question about that. And, it was brought home 

to bear as we sat down and talked about the 50-plus initiative with 

our recruiting people—now that there are baby boomers that have 

30 years in service of expertise in whatever profession they’ve been 

in. 

And when they have to fill out that medical clearing questionnaire, clearly they will have more yeses when the questions are 

asked, ‘‘Have you ever had,’’ or, ‘‘Have you ever encountered,’’ or 

‘‘experienced,’’ or whatever the medical question is. And anytime 

there’s a yes, it needs to be followed up on. We have some real 

challenges in front of us with regard to streamlining the medical 

clearing process, I recognize that. And what the 50-plus initiative 

has done has really caused us to sit down and take a look at the 

process, whether it’s 50-plus or 20-plus in age. And so, it’s going 

to help us throughout the entire screening process, not just the 50- 

plus initiative. 

We also have an investigation, if you may, going on through the 

Office of the Inspector General right now—their work is not yet 

complete—but I am eagerly awaiting their response and their report, and will certainly take the findings that they have encountered and come up with ways to resolve some of these matters. 

A typical Peace Corps application, across the board today, is 

about a 9-month process, the turnaround time, the average. That’s 

long. And I’d like to shorten that, as well. And clearly the medical 

screening part of it is the longest single consumer of time in that 

process. And it’s longer when you’re 50-plus, because there are just 

more issues that need to be followed up on. 

29 

So, the request to pay for all of the additional tests is the one 

that is the largest single budgetary item of cost. That’s about a $10 

million cost, versus today we spend about $1 million a year on additional tests that are requested, and the rest is either borne by the 

applicant or by their insurance carrier. 

Senator DODD. Do you have any idea what those costs are to the 

applicant? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. On average? 

Senator DODD. On average. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. I really don’t have a good average number on 

that. We have an amount that we pay for the initial appointment 

with the doctor and for the dental checkup and the eye checkups 

and so on, but the additional tests, on average, I do not know what 

that cost is; no. 

Senator DODD. It may be worthwhile—because, again, we talked 

about this, and you’re concerned about some of the costs associated 

with that—and, again, anecdotal evidence is exactly what it is, anecdotal evidence. But having a nephew now serving in the Peace 

Corps in Africa, knowing that months that were delayed because 

of a medical question that just took forever to get resolved back 

and forth—one which turned out not to be a serious one in the 

end—but, nonetheless, this might have discouraged another applicant from continuing the process, taking as long as it does. And, 

of course, we’re talking about recruiting people across the economic 

spectrum, those that are not as well off, and we’re trying to attract 

more and more volunteers coming from the communities that aren’t 

necessarily in a position as to afford the additional costs associated 

with the kind of additional medical examinations that are required 

here, so I would strongly urge, as a way to try to bring down that 

cost, not miss people who might otherwise be willing to continue 

the process. This is something very, very valuable. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. It is a major issue with us, and I fully would 

agree with you, that we need to review and look at all components 

of this process, and we are doing that. And the other part of it, that 

our IG’s office is looking into, is why those 50-plusers that have, 

somewhere along the process, decided not to go forward, it’ll be of 

value for us to understand why and when they dropped out, and 

may give us some insight into how we may change some of this 

process. This is work in progress, and this is—— 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. TSCHETTER [continuing]. Work that needs to be done, there 

is no question about it. 

Senator DODD. And particularly with a lot of the older volunteers, as well, obviously, as you point out what happens with the 

aging process. But, nonetheless, considering the tremendous abilities and talents that retirees or people who want to take their life 

experiences and share them, it seems to me that looking for ways 

in which that person might be able to fit into a situation that 

would be less medically challenging than others would be very 

worthwhile here. And I just can’t tell you the number of people I’ve 

encountered who would love to have that experience, would like to 

do it, but feel as though they’re going to not be able to get through 

this process because of medical issues that arise. 

30 

Now, some are so serious, obviously you can’t run the risk, but 

with others, it seems to me we ought to try and have much more 

flexibility inorder to take advantage of these talents out there, and 

considering the value they can provide for these communities or 

people where we want to serve, have some way to judge that a bit 

differently, again, so that we’re not losing the talents of people who 

might otherwise serve. What are we doing about that? What steps 

has the Peace Corps taken to try and have some sort of differentiating criteria when it comes to older people? Are we setting the 

same standard for the 22-year-old we do for the 65-year-old? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. No. We do have some flexibility and do make exceptions, and—there’s two or three things that we’re doing. First 

of all, we have 9—I’m sorry, we have 10 pilot countries that are 

part of the 50-plus-initiative guidance. And so, we’re relying heavily on those countries with regard to the 50-plus people that they 

have. And, for example, South Africa is one of them. And I’ve met 

with 18 50-plus volunteers in Johannesburg not too long ago. We 

had a delightful, insightful conversation about, first of all, the challenges that they had to go through medically as they were applying, and now the experiences they’re having in country. 

So, we try to be real flexible with regards to the medical issue 

that’s there, and, if possible, make an exception, to place them near 

the kinds of medical help that they may need. 

So, we’re paying a lot of attention to the medical issues, especially in the 50-plus area, and it is not, across the board, the same 

standard that a 22-year-old would be required to have, medically. 

So, there’s work in progress on that right now. 

Senator DODD. I know one of the things we’re trying to do, obviously, is to try and recruit, where we can, some more experienced—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Yes. 

Senator DODD [continuing]. Volunteers, and obviously the very 

effort to achieve that goal depends upon the ability to attract people who have experience. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Right. 

Senator DODD. And so, the medical issue becomes a barrier, in 

a sense, to achieving that goal. So, my hope is, you’ll continue to 

pursue that. And I’d like to know exactly what those medical costs 

are, being borne by an applicant, and whether or not that’s having 

any adverse effect on the number of people, we’re trying to recruit 

from various sectors of our economy and country here, from actually completing the process or even beginning the process, to begin 

with. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. I’ll get some answers for you. 

Senator DODD. All right. And that will be helpful. 

[The information referred to above, follows:] 

Response from Mr. Tschetter: 

At present, the agency only tracks the cost of the fixed reimbursement amounts 

given to applicants for required medical tests based on gender and age. These tests 

cost the Agency approximately one million dollars annually. We understand that the 

OIG in its evaluation of the Peace Corps’ medical clearance process may have 

sought to obtain anecdotal information on this subject. We have no way of knowing, 

outside of the fixed reimbursements that Peace Corps pays, how much an applicant 

may have paid for additional medical exams or tests needed as part of the medical 

screening process. 

31 

Senator DODD. Let me raise, if I can with you, the third-goal 

issue. And, again, this is an issue that’s been talked about since 

the Peace Corps’s inception—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Yes. 

Senator DODD [continuing]. A way to try and take advantage of 

the 180,000 of us that have come back, and who want to find ways 

to participate. And so, it’s always been a struggle to find ways to 

give fulfillment to that third goal. I was talking to Harris Wofford, 

who was actually with President Kennedy the day they launched 

off the first volunteers from the South Lawn of the White House. 

And according to Harris Wofford, they walked back into the Oval 

Office that day, and President Kennedy turned to whoever was 

gathered there and said, ‘‘You know, this is going to be remarkable,’’ words to that effect, ‘‘that in—40 or 50 years from now, 

there’ll have been a million returned volunteers. Obviously, the 

number is far short of that goal, at 180,000. But the point he wanted to make was what a valuable asset this will be, to have that 

many people in the country who will have had experience in other 

nations, bringing that back, and giving this country a better opportunity to have a world view, to understand what other people’s aspirations and hopes are, and the like. 

And so, to a large extent, that idea of not only volunteers, giving 

the world a better view of who we are, as Americans, but, of course, 

coming back and giving Americans a better opportunity to view 

what the rest of the world was like, has been critically important. 

And so, I wonder what we can do here. The provisions in this bill 

that we would establish to fund a—dedicated to supporting the 

third-goal activities I’ve laid out here. What is your reaction to 

that, Mr. Director? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. I was really encouraged to see third goal as a 

part of the bill. I clearly believe that the third goal is our weakest 

link in the Peace Corps’s 46 years of success. However, I will add 

that I think there’s a lot more that has happened, positively, with 

regard to the third goal in America than any of us realize. It’s immeasurable. As an example, I can think of my wife’s and my experiences as returned volunteers. I don’t know how many talks we’ve 

given on the Peace Corps in our Peace Corps experience. Hundreds 

over the 40 years. 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Did we keep track of them? No, not really. 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. But, as recently as 2 months before I came—became director of the Peace Corps, I gave a talk at a service club, 

on the Peace Corps. And the people were as interested then as 

they—had I walked off the airplane from India the day before, and 

it was 40 years of stories. 

So, there’s a real opportunity here, and a real challenge. So, I 

really look forward to the opportunity to sit down with the subcommittee or the appropriate group to talk about how we can 

strengthen the third-goal success. The $10 million, of course, would 

need to come from somewhere, if we went forward with that, so 

we’d need to wrestle that issue to the ground. I’m intrigued, however, with the idea of a foundation and attracting outside funds to 

create a Peace Corps Foundation that could then be utilized in 

32 

third-goal initiatives. So, I’m very supportive of it. It is not one of 

my three major initiatives that I launched earlier this year, but I 

can easily be talked into putting that high on my list of matters 

to give attention to, so I welcome the opportunity. 

Senator DODD. Well—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. I think, together, we can figure out something 

that will make sense, and make a difference. 

Senator DODD. Yes. And I want to come back to the issue of dealing with the communications and comments and so forth. I’m a little concerned that if we end up having sort of a policy, here, given 

this day and age, of limiting, in some ways, people’s ability to communicate freely as volunteers, we’ll end up causing some restraints 

here that I would be worried about. Again, given the nature of 

what a Peace Corps volunteer is, and I think that there is some 

confusion about the role of volunteers in this organization—an organization dedicated, as you pointed out appropriately in your 

opening comments here, to the volunteer. This is a whole different 

concept compared to the relationship between Federal agencies and 

Federal employees. And getting people to understand that fundamental distinction sometimes is difficult. Dealing with a volunteer 

is different than dealing with employees involved in an agency, or 

a congressional office, for that matter. And with that in mind, we 

have to be wary of excessive restraint on communication. This is 

something that I’m very worried about. And I gather you are, as 

well, so—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Yes. And may I just comment; that, again, I 

think it is an issue that we should sit down and try to resolve it 

in a way that makes sense both from a first amendment standpoint, as well as from the issues that our country directors face 

with regards to the impact they may have on the country. So, it’s 

certainly a resolvable matter that we’d be willing to wrestle to the 

ground. 

Senator DODD. Thanks very much. 

Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, I know we have some other witnesses, and probably need to move on to them. I’m going to just be 

fairly brief, anyway, and that is to, first of all, say, I think we have 

a person heading the Peace Corps that is unique, from the standpoint of how they’ve arrived at the Peace Corps. He’s been there 

10 months. And I know that the way that we, as Senators, deal 

with issues is through legislation. That’s just what we do. And the 

way that management deals with issues is through making sure 

they have good management principles in place, and guidelines, 

and those kinds of things. And I think that sometimes in our striving to make an organization better, from the Senate side, if you 

will, we can create laws that can, in fact, have a good purpose, but 

maybe hamstring. And I think what we have here is someone who 

can give us constructive input. I think that the bill that you’ve put 

forth has truly caused us to raise some good questions, but I think 

they’re questions that Mr. Tschetter can respond to. And what I 

hope will happen, and I know will happen, is that hopefully he’ll 

respond and we’ll have the opportunity to, maybe, look at this legislation, amended, if you will, to really take into account the balance between some goals that the legislation has, but balance that 

33 

with some management objectives, to really give it the flexibility to 

bring out the best in the organization and truly empower the volunteers. So, I look forward to that. 

I would like to say that, in this testimony—and this is certainly 

my first with the Peace Corps—I am struck by the length of time 

that it takes to become a Peace Corps volunteer. If I had had 9 

months to think about running for the Senate, I am sure I would 

be doing something else. That’s a long time. [Laughter.] 

I’m very glad to be here, but—it seems that people do, in their 

life, reach a point where they want to do something meaningful, 

and this happens over and over and over again, I know, in people’s 

lives. But it seems like, to be able to catch those people when 

they’re available and when they’re ready is an important thing for 

the Peace Corps to be able to do. 

I would like for you to just expand a little bit on—how long 

should it take. I mean, 9 months is—for a volunteer, is a long, long 

time, and people have other things in life they need to do, and 

want to do. So, what would be a goal of management? Two months? 

Thirty days? Two weeks? 

Mr. TSCHETTER. No. [Laughter.] 

Well, that’s a very difficult one to answer. It’s an interesting 

process, because, first of all, the person has to get cleared, if you 

will, from a safety and security standpoint, and then the background check. Then there’s the medical process, which hangs over 

that, and that is clearly the longest piece of the process. And then, 

of course, there’s the matching of the individual to the need, to taking the skill set and matching it to the country, and putting that 

all together. So, there are some valid reasons for the length of time. 

Is 9 months too long? I think it is. If you were to press me on 

a number, I’d say, ‘‘We should be able to do this in 6 months.’’ But, 

when I look at the reality of all the pieces that have to move 

through the volunteering process, I can’t see it being a 2-month 

process, or even a 3-month. Sometimes it does happen. I saw a volunteer in Jamaica, just a couple of weeks ago, and, as we were 

dialoging—she said she was cleared in less than 3 months. So, it’s 

a timing issue. It matched up with her graduation from the university and the need of that program, which left on July 4th for Jamaica, and so on. 

So, there’s a lot of dynamics that impact the length of time, but 

I think we can make a difference in that timeframe, and clearly the 

medical clearing process would be probably the biggest single factor 

that we could streamline to shorten it up. 

Senator CORKER. Well, it seems to me that—I know you have 

wonderful, wonderful volunteers, but it seems like that many really, really good volunteers are, in many cases, like heat-seeking missiles; I mean, they want to go do something, they want to change 

the world, they want to be involved in that. And it does seem like 

a 9-month process—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Yes. 

Senator CORKER [continuing]. Doesn’t match up to people who 

really want to go out and solve many of the world’s problems. So, 

I would stress to you that you really focus on that. I know that you 

have to be prudent and make sure people are matched up properly. 

34 

I know that Senator Coleman came in a little bit late, and 

missed a big part of the questioning, so I’m going to defer to him, 

at this point, so we can have time for other witnesses. 

But, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Thank you. 

Senator CORKER. And I look forward to the amended supercharged Dodd Peace Corps bill coming back to us. 

Thank you. 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Thank you. 

Senator DODD. Senator Coleman. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 

want to assure the chairman, first, that I understand the Chair’s 

concerns about excessive constraint, and I know he’s trying to 

strike a balance here. And I want to apologize to the Chair in my 

questioning about the—under the input, at all, would—in—for any 

undermining the—of the worthwhileness, the integrity of this bill. 

This—I think if the chairman himself just simply dictated things 

that he thought would make the Peace Corps better, that would be 

worthwhile for the Senate to consider, without anybody. I mean, I 

have—I don’t think there is a stronger advocate in the U.S. Senate 

than the chairman, and I’ve seen that in my time here. My job just 

would have been made much easier, perhaps, as I looked at this, 

to have some input from Mr. Tschetter up front, but that’s from my 

perspective. But I wanted the chairman to understand that I deeply appreciate the kind of commitment and his efforts, and whatever 

he puts on the table starts with the presumption that it’s worthwhile for me to look at. I just need some other information. So, I 

want to assure that to the chairman. 

Mr. Tschetter, I hope, then, we get the feedback. I want to work 

on this bill, and I’ll work with the Chair to—because our goal is 

the same, and that is to strengthen Peace Corps. And I appreciate 

the chairman’s leadership in that regard. 

Senator DODD. Just one point of reference you might check on, 

Director, and I don’t know the specifics of this, I should remember, 

but as I recall, when I joined the Army, it was pretty quick. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Two weeks. [Laughter.] 

Senator DODD. They didn’t take 9 months to decide they wanted 

me. And I’m not suggesting that this would be that quick, but by 

comparison, I know, if you show up at your recruiting station in 

Alexandria or Maryland somewhere today, I’ll—— 

Mr. TSCHETTER. Are you suggesting that should be our goal? 

Senator DODD. No. [Laughter.] 

But I would just guarantee you that they’ll accept you pretty 

quickly in the process. So, again, I think, to pick up on Senator 

Corker’s comments here, even 6 months may be a little long. And, 

again, in the case of anecdotal evidence, I ought to be careful to say 

how long it is. And, by the way, my nephew is having a wonderful, 

incredible experience. I’ve been a very poor recruiter, given all the 

nieces and nephews I have, I finally got one. [Laughter.] 

But despite his incredible experience, because of a relatively 

minor medical issue it took him almost a year to clear. I think it 

was minor, anyway. So, the idea of getting this thing expedited further is clearly something that’s got to be on the agenda today. And, 

35 

again, by comparison passing the medical tests and so forth to 

wear the uniform of our country is something we do pretty quickly 

here. 

We’ll probably have some additional questions for you, and so, 

we’ll submit those and ask you to get back to us, but we thank you 

for your testimony here this morning. 

Now I’d like to invite our next witnesses: Mark Schneider, former 

Director of the Peace Corps, to join us, if I can. And I think we are 

going to bring up David Kotz as well—am I pronouncing that correctly—Kotz? 

Mr. KOTZ. Kotz, yes. 

Senator DODD. Yes. David, thank you very much. 

[Pause.] 

Senator DODD. We thank both of you for being here, and we’re 

happy to receive your testimony. 

Good morning. Thank you both for coming. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK L. SCHNEIDER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE PEACE CORPS; SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND 

SPECIAL ADVISOR ON LATIN AMERICA, INTERNATIONAL 

CRISIS GROUP, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me express my appreciation to you, Senator Dodd—you’re a 

returned Peace Corps volunteer from my era—for the invitation to 

appear before the subcommittee this morning. 

I think it’s clear that every one of the 187,000 returned and serving volunteers recognize your commitment and leadership over the 

past four decades in support of the Peace Corps, and we thank you 

for that legacy of leadership. 

I want to thank Senator Corker, Senator Coleman, for having 

been here earlier for support of the Peace Corps. 

My wife and I served as Peace Corps volunteers in El Salvador 

40 years ago. By the way, she’s here today. And those 2 years at 

a small barrio on the outskirts of San Salvador were still the most 

demanding and the most rewarding of our lives. I, of course, have 

also had the rare and enormously special privilege of being able to 

serve as Director of the Peace Corps, during the last 2 years of the 

Clinton administration, and there’s no better job in Washington. 

I’ve worked in USAID, the State Department, international organizations, and now with the International Crisis Group, which is 

a field-based, nonprofit conflict-prevention organization that analyzes and reports on the causes of conflict in some 60 countries, 

from Haiti to Pakistan, from Iraq to Sudan, from Kosovo to Colombia. 

I’ve been able to visit volunteers in dozens of countries around 

the world, including on trips since 9/11. I can tell this committee, 

with absolute conviction, that there is no other program that the 

U.S. Government supports that provides greater benefit than the 

Peace Corps: In helping other communities build their knowledge 

and their institutions; in conveying to the world around us who we 

really are as a people and as a country, which is more essential 

today than ever before; and in broadening this country’s awareness 

of the complexity, challenge, and, really, the common aspirations of 

other peoples around the world. 

36 

And I should say that that’s why I’m convinced that this legislation contains three critical elements to help the Peace Corps double 

in size to 15,000 volunteers by the time it celebrates its 50th anniversary, on March 1, 2011. And those elements are, first, of authorizing the necessary funds; second, empowering volunteers—and I 

think that the key here is to see that as a means to promote better 

management, improve programming and site selection, and, therefore, safer and more satisfied volunteers; and, third, trying to remove some of the financial, medical, and bureaucratic obstacles to 

recruiting senior volunteers. 

I would also suggest one other provision for the committee’s consideration, and that is to recommend to the Peace Corps that it 

pursue additional efforts to recruit people of color as Peace Corps 

volunteers. We’ve just been creeping up, from the time I was Director, when it was just about 15 percent, to, now, 16 percent of our 

volunteers coming from ethnic and racial minority groups. I still 

think we can do better. And so, I would urge that we consider additional targeted steps to do so. 

One example would be expanding the Master’s International and 

Peace Corps Fellows Programs at Historically Black and Hispanic 

Colleges and Universities. 

Now, the three elements: 

First, the money. And, simply stated, the resources have not 

matched the rhetoric of those who have called for doubling the size 

of the Peace Corps. This bill provides the authorization that’s needed, but, as we know, it takes appropriations. And so, I would urge 

the committee to consider what it might be able to do to ensure 

that the first year’s appropriations in the bill does match the $336 

million mark approved by the House of Representatives when this 

measure goes to the President for final approval. As you know, the 

Senate Appropriations Committee approved a level much lower. 

Now, there are some 20 countries today that want the Peace 

Corps to either establish or increase the size of their volunteer programs. And, as we saw after 9/11, there is an actual jump in the 

number of Peace Corps applicants. And I truly believe that if we 

communicate to potential volunteer communities across this country that we have opportunities for them to serve, they will come. 

Second, I think the array of measures that are in title 2, that are 

designed to empower volunteers, will, in fact, contribute to the 

Peace Corps’s ability to expand by contributing to better management, better programs, and greater volunteer satisfaction. 

Now, it’s crucial—you said it here, and I want to underscore— 

the Peace Corps is about volunteers, not staff. The role of staff in 

Washington, and the role of staff in the field, is to find ways to 

help volunteers to succeed. And I think most staff, many of whom 

are returned Peace Corps volunteers, would agree with that sentiment. 

Now, you’ve heard some of the good news that’s reflected in the 

current Peace Corps volunteer survey, and I think it’s also just impressive, if you’ve gone through the list of the questionnaires, that 

some 75 percent took the time to fill out that questionnaire—92 

percent said they definitely intend to complete their 2-year term, 

80 percent said their host country would benefit if the Peace Corps 

program were maintained or expanded. And, by the way, 85 perVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
37 

cent now, 88 percent when I was Director, said that they would 

join again, and they would recommend to their friends to join. 

Those—that’s the good news. 

But, somewhere between 16 and 28 percent, in this latest survey, 

indicated less than full satisfaction with site selection, job assignment, and administrative support. Similarly, with respect to technical support and project feedback from staff. Now, while it’s a 

small percentage, it’s a significant percentage. It just seems to me 

that these are areas where the kind of measures in the bill to promote greater volunteer involvement and empowerment would help. 

Finally, I think you should also view the provisions of the bill to 

encourage seed money going to volunteers as a way to empower 

volunteers. And it’s not as if this is new. As you’ve heard, the small 

project fund at the USAID provides—usually for Peace Corps volunteers—exists: The Peace Corps Partnership Program. The problem is, from the recent survey, about 40 to 45 percent of the volunteers have not used those services, have not been able to get their 

projects approved in order to use those funds. And I was interested 

in the discussion—Senator, you said it best—when it comes to 

other sources, Peace Corps volunteers, for the last 40 years, they 

have solicited funding for Peace Corps community projects everywhere possible—in the community, from businessmen, from local 

employees of the Embassy, from their friends at home, churches, 

Rotary Clubs, you name it. We had a survey question in 1999, and 

there were about 50 different sources of funds the Peace Corps volunteers had used. 

With respect to the seed money, the 1 percent that you’ve indicated in the bill, it really just provides an additional source of funding to permit more volunteers to use it for those kinds of projects; 

and there’s a limitation on the size, which I think is appropriate. 

Now, the third way that you’ve described in this bill to move, it 

seems to me, to expand the size of the Peace Corps appropriately 

is to try and remove the obstacles to recruiting experienced volunteers. Medical screening procedures, we know, if they’re not broken, 

they’re at least slightly impaired, and they definitely need to be 

fixed. And I think the Director’s indication that they’re looking at 

it, I know that you’re going to hear from the inspector general 

about this—but this is an area where we must do better. 

And, finally, with respect to the 9 months, that’s just too long. 

I was hoping that we would get it down to between 4 and 6 

months, as average. There may be some individual instances. But 

there shouldn’t be any reason why we can’t do that. 

Finally, just let me mention that volunteers today do much the 

same things that we did, in terms of trying to reduce poverty in 

their countries and to promote change. But some of the conditions 

are different. You now have HIV/AIDS. You now have climate 

change. You have information technology. You have to deal with 

that. And you also have the reality of a reduced regard for the 

United States in many parts of the world. And I believe that the 

Peace Corps has come up with answers in each of those areas. 

Generally, the answer comes from the volunteers in the field, not 

from the staff in Washington. And I would just hope that this bill 

would be approved and help us celebrate Peace Corps’s 50th anniVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
38 

versary, in 4 years, with 15,000 more volunteers working across 

the globe to come up with more of those answers. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schneider follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK L. SCHNEIDER

I want to express my appreciation to the chairman, Senator Chris Dodd, a fellow 

returned Peace Corps volunteer from my volunteer era, for the invitation to appear 

before the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps and Narcotics Affairs this morning in support of the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act. 

Every one of the 187,000 returned and serving volunteers recognize your commitment, dedication and influence over the past four decades in support of the Peace 

Corps and its three goals. We all thank you for that legacy of leadership. 

I also want to express my appreciation to the ranking member Senator Bob Corker and the members of the committee for the opportunity to appear here today. And 

although not a member of the committee, I want to express the appreciation of the 

Peace Corps community for your original co-sponsor on this legislation, Senator Ted 

Kennedy, not only a friend of the Peace Corps, but my boss for nearly six years a 

long time ago. 

My wife and I served as Peace Corps volunteers in El Salvador 40 years ago, and 

those two years in a small barrio on the outskirts of San Salvador were the most 

demanding and the most rewarding of our lives. I also had the rare and enormously 

satisfying privilege of serving as director of the Peace Corps for the last two years 

of the Clinton administration. I have worked in USAID, the State Department, in 

international organizations, and now with the International Crisis Group, a fieldbased non-profit organization that analyzes and reports on the causes of conflict in 

some 60 countries. 

I have been able to visit volunteers in dozens of countries around the world, including on trips since 9/11. I can tell this Committee with absolute conviction that 

the Peace Corps is the single most cost effective investment this country makes in 

pursuit of its foreign policy goals-in helping other communities build their knowledge and their institutions, in conveying to the world around us who we really are 

as a people and a country-which is more essential today than ever, even more than 

it was during the Cold War, and in broadening this nation’s awareness of the global 

community. 

That is why I am convinced that this legislation contains three critical elements 

to enable the Peace Corps to double in size to 15,000 volunteers by the time it celebrates its 50th anniversary on 1 March 2011. 

Those elements are first, authorizing the necessary funds; second, empowering 

volunteers which will mean better management, improved programming and site selection, safer and more satisfied volunteers and third, removal of financial, medical, 

and bureaucratic obstacles to recruiting senior volunteers. 

I also will suggest one other provision and that is to aggressively pursue additional people of color as Peace Corps volunteers. We have been creeping up to 16 

per cent of our volunteers coming from ethnic and racial minority groups. We can 

do better and I simply would urge additional targeted steps to do so—including expanding Master’s International and the Peace Corps fellows programs at historically 

black and Hispanic colleges and universities. 

Show Me The Money: The first indispensable element in the bill is its authorization of the necessary growth in funding in FY 2008, through FY 2011 to permit the 

Peace Corps to reach that goal. It is a goal that President Clinton enunciated and 

that President Bush has supported. Simply stated, the resources have not matched 

the rhetoric. This bill provides the authorization. I hope that the committee also will 

act to see that the first year’s appropriations of $336 million, as passed by the 

House of Representatives in the FY 2008 State-Foreign Operations Appropriations 

bill will be the final mark when the measure goes to the President for his signature. 

As you know there are nearly 20 countries today that want the Peace Corps to 

establish programs. As we saw after 9/11 when there was jump in Peace Corps applications, if we communicate to potential volunteer communities out across this nation that we have opportunities for them to serve, they will come. 

Empower Volunteers: The second element enabling the Peace Corps to expand 

with better management, better programs, and greater volunteer satisfaction which 

I want to endorse is the array of measures in Title II to empower volunteers. 

I would emphasize that we are not starting at zero. Just as an example-there is 

a mandate for Volunteer Advisory Committees (VACs) in each country in section 

39 

202 and then a requirement for staff to listen to them. I cannot think of a measure 

that makes more sense. Most but not all countries already have established VACs. 

Best practices reports of the inspector general on safety issues have cited their importance. They should be required. 

Empowering volunteers is crucial because the Peace Corps is about volunteers, 

not staff. The role of staff in Washington and in the field is to find ways to enable 

volunteers to succeed. By the way, most staff—many of whom are returned volunteers—would agree. 

If you look over the years at the Peace Corps volunteer surveys, which now are 

conducted every two years, and ask volunteers about every aspect of their pre-service, training, program, satisfaction, and concerns, the strongest link exists between 

two elements of a volunteer’s experience, an adequate site where they live and work 

and an adequate program for them to contribute their energies and skills. 

I have personal experience on selecting sites, since my wife and I extended for 

several months specifically to survey all of the existing communities in a public 

health program to check with volunteers on potential living quarters and work conditions. As director, I urged that volunteers be part of the process of evaluating 

which existing sites and programs should be expanded or replaced. The legislation 

would mandate that requirement. 

The other provisions of the Title II relating to training curriculum and staff performance also deserve support. 

Let me just add again, that these provisions build on the lessons already learned 

from volunteer statements in every volunteer survey over the past several years, as 

well as from the thoughtful individual volunteer experiences that you are going to 

hear about from my good friend Chuck Ludlum and his wife, Paula Hirschoff. They 

should be commended for their strong commitment to the Peace Corps, displayed 

during their current second volunteer tour in Senegal, their research on parts of this 

bill and their dedication to continued improvement of the Peace Corps. 

Let me note there is good news with respect to some of these issues in the current 

2006 volunteer survey, and in the last volunteer survey when I was director. Both 

show a continuing worldwide global satisfaction rate on the part of volunteers that 

I suspect would be hard to match in any organization. 

There were more than 80 individual questions with about a dozen choices and 

then open-ended questions and nearly 75% of all currently serving Volunteers responded, which is pretty amazing. In 1998, it was the same, slightly lower in 1999. 

A quick listing of some of the results may be particularly relevant. 

Of all volunteers who responded: 

• 92% said they definitely intended to complete their 2 year term. In 1999, it was 

93%. 

• 80% said the host country would benefit if the Peace Corps program were maintained or expanded. 

• 94% found it rewarding personally. 

• 85% would probably or definitely join again; in 1999, it was 88%, with the same 

percentages saying they would recommend to friends. 

• 95% said they had been moderately, considerably or exceptionally successful in 

terms of the Peace Corps second goal of helping people from other cultures better understand America. 

However, the surveys also provide additional support for the empowerment provisions of the legislation because the views of volunteers on staff support continue to 

be somewhat discouraging. A strong majority were adequately, considerably or exceptionally satisfied with staff support, but somewhere between 16% and 28% were 

dissatisfied with regard to site selection, job assignment, and administrative support, and even greater unhappiness with respect to technical support and project 

feedback. That is too high a negative review. In each of these areas, bringing greater Volunteer input into decision-making will strengthen Peace Corps management 

and programming. 

On the positive side, the most satisfaction with staff is in relation to safety and 

health which demonstrates not only that the Peace Corps is committing additional 

resources but also that there is more volunteer input. 

I also would add that I believe that the digital Peace Corps will enable volunteers 

to get more of that support from each other by tapping into the best practices in 

their country and region and the Peace Corps now and in the past. 

Finally, I would view the provisions of the bill (Section 101, 102) that seek to expand volunteer access to seed funding for their projects through a Peace Corps fund 

or by obtaining donations or grants from various sources as part of the empowerment process. 

40 

Again, these provisions build on existing programs such as the Small Project Assistance Fund at USAID—but in the current survey, 41 per cent of Volunteers had 

not used it; the Peace Corps Partnership fund, but 44% had not used it; and on 

‘‘other’’ resources, including family friends, service clubs, churches, etc. Here I believe it is important to note that Peace Corps volunteers have been soliciting anyone 

they can wherever they can for a long time if they thought it would help implement 

community projects. I can recall wandering around San Salvador with the community council members from Colonia San Juan Bosco to solicit funds for the community newspaper we were starting. 

In some individual instances, volunteers may not have been encouraged to seek 

outside resources-although I believe that is relatively rare--and there also is a constraint that volunteers do not want to be seen as ‘‘Daddy Warbucks.’’ These provisions encourage the use of project funding but do not make it mandatory, which 

would be a mistake. 

The provisions with respect to protecting the rights of Peace Corps volunteers also 

are positive and worthy of support. 

Recruiting Senior Volunteers: Removal of obstacles to recruiting experienced Volunteers is the third element in the bill which will help move us toward the goal 

of doubling the size of the Peace Corps. The current Peace Corps Director, returned 

PCV Ronald Tschetter, has undertaken an initiative in this area and the legislation 

hopefully will be seen as a way to advance the common objective of increasing experienced Volunteers, 

On the health side, while reforms to the medical screening process are important 

to every incoming applicant, they are critical with respect to senior Volunteers. I 

think the specific provisions provide for greater transparency, greater due process, 

and greater fairness. By publishing the medical screening guidelines and process 

with full disclosure, enabling changes to be proposed, permitting appeals, and reimbursing for medical tests required by the Peace Corps, the system will improve. 

The non-discriminatory treatment of retirees who serve as Peace Corps volunteers 

in terms of their ability to resume medical coverage from institutions in addition 

to the federal government should be pursued. And the study of the costs of extending continuing coverage to volunteers following completion of service from one to six 

months also is desirable. 

On the financial side, the proposals again would go far to encouraging seniors to 

join the Peace Corps. 

Finally, I would simply support the effort to enhance the third goal through expanding funding for programs like World Wise Schools, for supporting efforts to enable non-profit organizations with returned volunteers to conduct programs that 

link their home communities with their former communities and with the global 

community. I would urge, however, that the funding for this grant program be in 

addition to the funds needed each year to meet the target for doubling the size of 

the Peace Corps. I also think that NPCA president Kevin Quigley, also an RPCV, 

will have valuable insights in this area. 

Mr. Chairman, I was the Peace Corps director on the 40th anniversary of the 

speech that then Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy made at the University 

of Michigan on October 13, 1960. I traveled to the steps of the Michigan Union. Although his speech began at 2 a.m., I was convinced to start mine at midnight to 

an audience gathered to commemorate that event, including some of the students 

who had been there 40 years earlier. 

President Kennedy challenged young people, and increasingly older people as 

well, to serve our country and the cause of peace in a new way. His idea for a new 

type of service appealed to Americans who wanted to lift the hopes of people in developing countries and to strengthen international understanding in a world divided 

by the Cold War. Our world today is at least as divided in this age of extremism 

and terrorism. That is why the Peace Corps remains important. 

The Peace Corps has grown to symbolize our country’s enduring commitment to 

helping people in developing countries help themselves. Some 7,800 volunteers serve 

in 73 countries, and in virtually every sector of development. 

Because millions of individuals awaken each day to poverty, hunger, and ill 

health, Peace Corps Volunteers still are needed at the core of our work-teaching in 

classrooms, carrying health and nutrition messages to distant villages, and working 

with farmers to find more sustainable ways of growing food. 

Today’s Peace Corps volunteers also are responding to new challenges. They are 

working with communities of Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS, a disease that 

has inflicted a tragic toll on the people of Africa. As director I imposed a requirement that all volunteers then serving in Africa and all new volunteers would be 

trained to be HIV/AIDS prevention educators to help their communities confront 

41 

this pandemic. It marked the first time that the Peace Corps mobilized every volunteer to join in a continent-wide campaign against a specific disease. I am pleased 

that this administration has built on that foundation and actually expanded the 

number of volunteers working on HIV/AIDS as a primary assignment. Volunteers 

have achieved innovative and countrywide impact on expanding prevention education—some with public health training were working as health educators but others, whose primary assignment was in education and agriculture and small business, also used their ideas, know-how and determination in ways I am convinced 

have saved lives. 

Today’s Peace Corps volunteers also are helping people in developing countries 

take part in the information technology revolution that all of us now take for granted. They are bridging the digital divide by helping local entrepreneurs create web 

sites to market their goods over the Internet, helping extend health data bases and 

training teachers to develop computer literacy programs. That is why the provisions 

of this legislation to promote the digital Peace Corps internally are so essential. I 

am convinced that there can be a vast expansion of public/private partnerships with 

AOL, Hewlett Packard, Google, and others in the dot.com community. We had initial grants of technical support and equipment worth more than a million dollars 

to use information technology when I was director. That program clearly can be expanded. 

What has not changed about the Peace Corps over the last 45 years, and what 

unites volunteers of the Kennedy era with volunteers of the new millennium, is the 

spirit of service and the same goal of contributing to world peace and international 

understanding by fulfilling the three goals of the Peace Corps: 

• helping people in developing countries address social and economic needs; 

• promoting a better understanding of Americans among the people they serve 

and; 

• ‘‘bringing the world back home’’ to promote greater understanding by Americans 

of the world, of the people who share that world with us, what the face each 

day and how their lives intersect with our own. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Mark, appreciate it very 

much. 

Mr. Kotz, thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID KOTZ, INSPECTOR GENERAL, PEACE 

CORPS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. KOTZ. Thank you. Good morning. I’m honored to testify 

today, before this committee, on the subject of the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act. I believe that the committee and 

Congress’s involvement in the Peace Corps is helpful to our office, 

the Office of Inspector General, in strengthening the accountability 

and effectiveness of the Peace Corps. I plan to focus my time today 

on the items in the bill that relate to the medical clearance process. 

The Office of Inspector General is currently undertaking a comprehensive 8-month study of the Peace Corps medical clearance 

system and process. It is important to point out to the committee 

that, in the course of conducting this study of the medical clearance 

system, we are systematically analyzing many of the same issues 

that the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act also addresses: 

The adequacy of the screening review process and policies, the 

medical screening guidelines, the screening review timeframe, 

guidance to applicants, transparency, interoffice communication, 

customer service, staff training, the appeals process, and the reimbursement fee schedule. Our study is ongoing, and should be finalized in the fall. 

Our office’s study marks the first time that any entity has been 

able to reach out to a subsection of the general public—that is, applicants who entered the medical screening process, but withdrew 

42 

their application to become Peace Corps volunteers—to survey 

them about their experiences in the medical clearance process. 

While the study is not complete, and I am somewhat reluctant 

to present definitive determinations, we do have some preliminary 

information that we can share with the committee today. 

Our results to date show that 82 percent of applicants who withdrew their application withdrew during the medical clearance process. Our results also show that, when asked why they withdrew 

from the application process, the four most frequently cited reasons 

were: Medical screening took too much time; burdensome medical 

costs; burdensome dental costs; and poor communication with medical screening. Overall, 63 percent of applicants who applied, but 

did not serve, answered that they were not at all satisfied, or minimally satisfied, with the medical clearance system. 

We have also identified the following specific issues with the 

medical clearance system, and plan to offer recommendations to address each of these areas of concern: 

Quality improvement in the Peace Corps Office of Medical Services has been lacking. The staff within the Peace Corps have reported that our office’s current study of the medical clearance system was one of the first opportunities in which a Peace Corps staff 

member was asked their opinion on systems and processes. We recommend that the Agency develop quality-improvement feedback 

mechanisms for Peace Corps staff to identify aspects of the medical 

screening process that can be improved. 

Two, Peace Corps has identified, but not prioritized or implemented, technological improvements that would have a host of benefits to applicants, including streamlining the medical clearance 

process, improving transparency and communication with applicants, and improving medical records management and storage. We 

recommend that the Peace Corps use its online presence to post information such as the bill’s proposed detailed description of the 

medical screening process, to improve transparency and communication with applicants about the medical clearance system. 

Three, numerous applicants reported that they and their 

healthcare providers found the medical kit guidance and instructions, that explained the forms that the applicants are required to 

fill out, to be confusing. We recommend that the Peace Corps improve the medical kit instructions by eliminating contradictory 

guidance and by highlighting the most critical information. 

Four, medical screening customer service needs to be significantly improved. Our report would detail specific recommendations 

to improve the customer service component of the process, including establishing customer service training and standards, and 

mechanisms for customer service feedback. 

Five, 50-plus applicants take nearly twice as long to clear medical screening, compared to applicants under 50 years of age; and 

thus, the problems with the medical screening process take on an 

even greater sense of urgency in light of the director’s 50-plus initiative. 

Six, applicants and Peace Corps staff uniformly report that the 

applicant reimbursement fee schedule for required medical, dental, 

and eye examinations is not adequate and should be increased. 

While we agree with the Agency that full reimbursement for medVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
43 

ical costs required by Peace Corps is not attainable without a significant increase in appropriations dollars, we strongly recommend 

that the reimbursement schedule be increased. 

Seven, and perhaps of greatest concern, our study has found that 

several of the recommendations for improvement to the medical 

clearance system were recommended in prior reports dating back 

to 1992, but never implemented. 

Overall, our preliminary findings indicate that the medical clearance system is in need of significant improvement. While there are 

particular aspects of the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act 

to which we concur, there are other areas where we feel the concerns behind the bill’s provisions can be addressed in different 

ways. We have certain concerns with the bill’s provision that providing a list of countries available who accept volunteers with medical accommodations may lead to false expectations on where these 

volunteers may serve, and result in misinformation and more confusion. We agree wholeheartedly with the concerns that have been 

expressed regarding the outdated nature of the medical screening 

guidelines. These guidelines must be reviewed, at a minimum, annually to ensure that they represent the most currently available 

medical evidence. 

However, posting the medical screening guidelines online is not 

the only solution to providing applicants with answers to their 

medical screening concerns, nor is it necessarily the best, in our 

opinion. The medical screening guidelines are a tool for making 

complex medical decisions used by medical professionals. If the 

medical screening guidelines were posted online, it could lead to 

applicants without medical backgrounds misinterpreting their eligibility, and more confusion on the part of applicants. 

With regard to the establishment of a process for applicants and 

other interested parties to propose changes to the medical screening guidelines, we note that, while it is important to provide mechanisms that give voice to applicants’ feedback and concerns, questioning the medical validity of screening guidelines may actually 

lead to even longer and costlier processing lengths. 

In conclusion, we applaud Senator Dodd and the committee’s interest in the Peace Corps. We plan to finalize our comprehensive 

medical clearance system study shortly and aggressively encourage 

the Agency to implement our recommendations to repair a medical 

clearance process that needs a great deal of improvement. We also 

plan to follow up with many of the additional good measures provided by the bill. 

While we support aspects of the bill, we also feel that, with 

Congress’s support, these measures can be implemented without 

legislation. We hope to continue our excellent dialog with Senator 

Dodd’s office, and other offices, to ensure that the necessary improvements are made to the medical clearance system and other 

aspects of the Peace Corps. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kotz follows:] 

44 

1Due to the fact that the Office of Inspector General Peace Corps Medical Clearance System 

survey is open and will continue to collect responses until August 20, 2007, these results are 

preliminary, and may change. To date we have received 152 surveys from applicants who did 

not serve in Peace Corps. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF H. DAVID KOTZ

INTRODUCTION

Good morning. I am honored to testify today before this committee on the subject 

of the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act as the Inspector General of the 

Peace Corps. The purpose of the Office of Inspector General is to prevent and detect 

fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement and to promote economy, effectiveness, 

and efficiency in government. I appreciate Chairman Dodd, as well as the other 

members of the committee, for their interest in and commitment to the Peace Corps. 

I believe the committee’s and Congress’ involvement in the Peace Corps is helpful 

to our office, in strengthening the accountability and effectiveness of the Peace 

Corps. By introducing this bill and expressing interest in the Peace Corps, Congress 

is helping the Peace Corps Office of Inspector General identify the necessary 

changes and improvements in the Peace Corps. Through the committee’s commitment to improving the Peace Corps, whether through legislation or continued dialogue, Congress and the Office of Inspector General can help ensure that these critical improvements are implemented by the Agency. It is my hope that the committee 

remains committed to the issues raised in the legislation and the continued improvements to the Peace Corps in the future. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE MEDICAL CLEARANCE SYSTEM STUDY

I plan to address several of the items in the bill; however, the matters that I will 

devote most of my time to relate to the Medical Clearance process. The Office of 

Inspector General is currently undertaking a comprehensive eight-month study of 

the Peace Corps Medical Clearance System and process. 

It is important to point out to the committee, that in the course of conducting this 

study of the Medical Clearance System, we are systematically analyzing many of the 

same issues that the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act also addresses: the 

adequacy of the screening review process and policies; the medical screening guidelines; the screening review timeframe; guidance to applicants; transparency; interoffice communication; customer service; staff training; the appeals process; and the 

reimbursement fee schedule. Our study is on-going and should be issued shortly. 

This study that our office is conducting is the first of its kind, and also marks 

the first time that the Peace Corps has received the Office of Management and 

Budget approval to reach out to a subsection of the general public, applicants who 

entered the Medical Screening Process but did not become Peace Corps volunteers, 

to survey them about their experiences in the medical screening process. The Office 

of Inspector General recognizes that this population of former applicants is a rich 

and untapped resource for identifying strengths and weaknesses in the Medical 

Clearance System. Through their responses, we hope to gather data unique to this 

group of applicants, which will yield findings and recommendations that will improve Peace Corps’ applicant retention during the Medical Clearance System. 

One of the goals of our study is to determine whether frustrations with the Medical Clearance System have become a barrier to service in the Peace Corps or have 

otherwise contributed to applicants’ decision to discontinue their Peace Corps applications. The Office of Inspector General has reached out to 3,330 volunteers and applicants in our survey and to date has collected detailed responses on the Medical 

Clearance System from 864 individuals. We are analyzing responses from those applicants who withdrew their application and particularly with respect to the question, ‘‘At what stage did you withdraw your application?’’ Our results to date show 

that 82% of the respondents withdrew their application during the medical clearance process. Our results also show that when asked why they withdrew from the 

application process, the four most frequently cited reasons out of the 19 provided, 

which included reasons such as ‘‘returning to school’’ or ‘‘personal/familial reasons’’ 

were ‘‘medical screening took too much time,’’ ‘‘burdensome medical costs,’’ ‘‘burdensome dental costs,’’ and ‘‘poor communication with medical screening.’’ 

When asked the question, ‘‘Were you satisfied with the Peace Corps Medical 

Clearance process?’’ 63% of applicants who applied but did not serve, answered that 

they were not at all satisfied or minimally satisfied. However, 19% said they were 

more or less satisfied and only 12% stated they were very satisfied or extremely satisfied.1 When the same question was asked to current volunteers (those who persevered through the process and served), ‘‘Were you satisfied with the Peace Corps 

45 

2 In Fiscal Year 2006, Peace Corps posts requested 4640 volunteers; the Peace Corps Screening unit medically qualified 5323 applicants for service. 

medical clearance process?’’ 28% said they were not at all satisfied or minimally satisfied and nearly half of the volunteers (49%) said they were more or less satisfied 

with the medical clearance process. For the last five years, the number of applicants 

the Office of Medical Services has medically qualified for service has exceeded the 

number of volunteers requested by Peace Corps posts.2 Therefore, if your measure 

of the effectiveness of the Medical Clearance System is whether the Agency is able 

to medically screen in the number of volunteers requested by Peace Corps posts, 

then, yes, it would appear that the Medical Clearance System is working. However, 

our preliminary results show that the Medical Clearance System and process has, 

in fact turned away numerous individuals from continuing their application process, 

and that an overwhelming percentage of those who withdrew their application withdrew at the medical screening stage and expressed negative views on the medical 

screening system demonstrates that while the Medical Clearance System may not 

be entirely broken, it is certainly in need of repair. 

In addition to our survey, our evaluation of the Medical Clearance System includes a case study portion requesting electronic journals and teleconferences with 

current 50-plus applicants and extensive face-to-face interviews with Peace Corps 

staff including screening staff, screening nurses, Office of Medical Services managers, and policy makers. Our office has been working with the Agency, the 50-plus 

Initiative Work Group that the Agency has put together, and the National Peace 

Corps Association to understand how the Medical Clearance process can be improved. We look forward to sharing more information with the committee and Chairman Dodd when the study is completed and working together to improve the process 

for applicants and the Agency. 

MEDICAL CLEARANCE SYSTEM PROBLEMS LIST AND DESCRIPTION

While the study is not complete and I am somewhat reluctant to present 

definitiveinformation, we have identified the following issues with the Medical 

Clearance System: 

1. quality improvement in the Office of Medical Services has been lacking. 

The quality improvement unit within the Peace Corps’ Office of Medical Services has not been proactive in developing performance measures, leading quality 

improvement initiatives, or collecting staff feedback to analyze and track 

screening performance in order to identify areas for improvement, nor have they 

systematically updated the medical screening guidelines or the country health 

resources database as required. As a result, screening nurses have developed 

their own, additional criteria, based on research they collected about medical 

conditions and advances in medical diagnosis. The quality improvement unit is 

currently working with the screening nurses to incorporate their research into 

the new medical screening guidelines. In addition, the posts have not been required to annually update their information in the country health resources 

database and therefore, the list of countries who can accept medical accommodations has not been updated in real time and applicants are being restricted 

from serving in countries that could have accommodated them. 

2. Peace Corps has identified but has not prioritized or implemented technological improvements that would have a host of benefits to applicants including 

streamlining the medical clearance process, improving transparency and communication with applicants, and improving medical records management and 

storage. These technological enhancements are critical to improving numerous 

aspects of the medical clearance process including reducing screening time. For 

example, while 75% to 80% of the Peace Corps applications are submitted online, the medical kit, a packet with examination forms and instructions for the 

applicant and the medical or dental provider, is in a paper format which must 

be collated and mailed to the applicant. Screening nurses reported that approximately 95% of the medical kits they receive are missing required documentation 

and that is a major reason why medical screening is delayed. Although the Office of Medical Services has requested that the Agency’s information technology 

group place the medical kit online as far back as several years ago, as of this 

date, this has not occurred. 

3. Numerous applicants reported that they and their health care providers 

found the medical kit guidance and instructions to be confusing. Other applicants reported that they were overwhelmed by the medical kit guidance because 

it is presented in a 32 page book. One volunteer wrote: 

46 

The way it was organized took many times to read and reread to figure 

out which doctor needed what. It wasn’t completely unclear, because obviously I’m here, but I remember it took several times to read it to make sense 

of it for me, and then even my doctors had some questions about what was 

needed. Certain tests I thought might be unnecessary, because I knew I 

hadn’t any of those diseases, but my doctor was afraid not to run them, so 

I paid for them anyway! In the dental forms I didn’t realize you needed a 

certain x-ray exam, so I had to go back to see the dentist twice (out of my 

own pocket). My gynecologist was unclear even about some of the paper 

work. 

Other volunteers wrote: 

Some of the instructions were partially repeated, forms were called by a 

variety of names, and in one case I felt it was necessary to cut a portion out 

of the booklet based on the instructions. Those items to be filled out by the 

applicant need to be organized and clearly separated. 

Information had inconsistencies, and was often confusing. Calling the help 

telephone numbers did no good as you seldom got through, messages you left 

were usually not returned, but, most frustrating, whenever you did reach a 

person they usually told you they couldn’t help you and would transfer you 

to another department, who would then tell you they couldn’t help you and 

transfer you right back. 

4. Medical screening customer service needs to be significantly improved. Applicants reported that despite calling the 800 number multiple times to reach 

a screening nurse, they were unable to reach a customer service representative 

and sometimes unable to even leave a voicemail message because the voicemail 

was full. In addition, some applicants who did reach a customer service representative, reported that they were rude or unhelpful. 

One of the current 50-plus applicants who is participating in the case study 

had this to say about calling with a medical screening question: 

I left a message on the nurse line yesterday (June 11), and have not received a response yet. I just tried again to call (June 12, 11 :45 am), and 

wasn’t able to leave a call-back message, as the voice-mail box was full. I 

never received a call back this time. 

Another 50-plus applicant wrote: 

I sent a fax on Saturday afternoon, July 7, asking for clarification of what 

was wanted. As of Monday evening, July 9, I had not received a reply. This 

morning, July 10, I still hadn’t received a reply, and I needed to know because I’m having blood drawn for another purpose soon. So I called the 

nurse station. I think this was the first time I’ve called there that a person 

picked up, and she then transferred me directly to the screening nurse and 

I was able to get my answer. She told me my fax was probably in a pile 

of about 20 that she had to deal with, now in their busy season. 

One applicant who did not serve had this to say about medical screening customer service: 

I don’t know where to begin here, since my experience was so negative. For 

one thing, you have to have live people available, and you MUST get back 

to people and answer their voicemail and e-mails in a timely fashion. You 

must be clear and specific about your objections, and please try to be helpful 

and supportive rather than cold and distant during this difficult process. 

Our evaluation intends to make several recommendations that will affect the 

customer service provided to applicants during the medical clearance process. 

5. Numerous Peace Corps staff and applicants reported that veterans affairs 

hospitals do not have the resources to adequately screen applicants for Peace 

Corps medical clearance. The veterans affairs hospitals are highlighted as a resource for applicants to get free physical exams covered by Peace Corps; however, many applicants are unaware of this resource. Other applicants reported 

that veterans affairs physicians’ were rude, did not honor their appointments, 

and that the physical exam was not complete. This required applicants to spend 

hundreds of dollars to complete follow-up tests and exams. 

One applicant who did not serve wrote: 

Provide a facility in order to do the medical clearance process much like 

the one that is done for the armed forces. 

Another volunteer provided the following feedback: 

47 

3The majority (39%) of applicants who applied but did not serve in the Peace Corps spent 

$101–$500 in out-of-pocket expense for required medical exams and lab work compared to the 

majority (45%) of volunteers who spent $101–$500 in out-of-pocket expense for required medical 

exams and lab work 

Misinformation about availability of using government/military medical 

facilities. I was denied this option when I tried. Also, unnecessary tests were 

required as follow-up for conditions or past procedures, which were not 

medically indicated and furthermore were not reimbursed by PC. 

6. 50-plus applicants take nearly twice as long to clear medical screening compared to applicants under 50 years of age. According to the Office of Medical 

Services executive summary reports, it takes approximately 34 days to medically qualify an applicant under the age of 50, whereas it takes between 68– 

73 days to medically qualify an applicant over the age of 50. Additionally, as 

a group, 50-plus applicants are more likely to appeal their case if they are 

deemed medically not qualified. The 50-plus population comprises 5% of the 

total volunteer population; however, they make up 25% of the cases reviewed 

by the Medical Screening Appeals Board. The 50-plus applicant population does 

have a different medical screening experience and therefore, it is critical for significant improvement to be made to the Peace Corps Medical Clearance System 

in order for the director’s laudable goal of significantly increasing the percentage of 50-plus volunteers to be achieved. 

7. In 2006, the average Federal Employees’ Compensation Act claim amount 

paid to 50-plus volunteers was $9,109 compared to $5,667 paid to under 50 volunteers. In 2006, 29% of the 50-plus population in the field became a Federal 

Employees’ Compensation Act claimant, compared to 12% of the under 50 population. An effective screening process protects volunteer’s health and safety and 

saves the Agency and taxpayer’s money by resulting in fewer medical evacuations and Federal Employees’ Compensation Act claims. 

8. The five-year rule is a significant detriment, not a benefit to the Medical 

Clearance System and Office of Medical Services screening unit. Where experience and a comprehensive knowledge base of Peace Corps post conditions and 

medical accommodations are indispensable to screening applicants efficiently, 

productively, and safely, the effect of the five-year rule is to essentially force 

the most experienced and dedicated nurses to leave the Agency. These nurses 

are replaced with new nurses who require extensive training and who only 

reach acceptable levels of efficiency screening applicants after one year. The 

turnover caused by the five-year rule also reduces all screening teams’ productivity and creates an unnecessary bottleneck in the application process. 

9. Applicants and Office of Medical Services staff uniformly report that the 

applicant reimbursement fee schedule for required medical, dental and eye examinations is not adequate and should be increased. According to the preliminary results of our survey, 21% of applicants and volunteers did not have health 

insurance when they applied to the Peace Corps with the majority spending 

$101–$500 in out-of-pocket expenses for required medical exams and lab work.3

One volunteer wrote: 

Tell us in advance that we’ll probably have to have (and pay for) followup examinations or tests. The reimbursement is inadequate for most situations, even at a public health clinic. 

10. And perhaps of greatest concern, our study has found that several of our 

recommendations for improvements to the Medical Clearance System were recommended in prior reports dating back to 1992, were accepted by the Agency 

but were never implemented. An evaluation conducted by McManis Associates, 

entitled ‘‘Report on the Screening and Medical Clearance Process’’ issued in 

1992 gave the recommendation that: 

A process needs to be established to institutionalize and standardize the 

procedures for updating and revising medical screening guidelines and medical screening policy. 

Discussion to develop a process for reviewing and updating the Medical 

Screening Guidelines was proposed in 2005, begun in October 2006 and is anticipated to be completed by October 2007; this is 15 years after the problem 

was identified. Additionally, several Office of Medical Services staff cited the 

2002 Pugh Ettinger McCarthy External Evaluation of the Volunteer Health 

System as an excellent evaluation of the Medical Clearance System and agreed 

48 

with its recommendations including, the need for collecting applicant and volunteer feedback, development of quality performance controls and indicators, and 

noting the effect the five-year rule has had in ‘‘challeng[ing] succession planning 

in management and limit[ing] organizational memory.’’ 

In light of our preliminary findings from our comprehensive Medical Screening 

System survey, we conclude that the Medical Clearance System is in need of significant improvement. Particularly in light of the 50-plus Initiative, the Peace Corps 

needs to fix the Medical Screening Process. In a number of cases, the problems with 

the Medical Screening Process are not new, and in fact, some changes have been 

suggested by Peace Corps employees and prior studies, but these changes have not 

been implemented. 

HIGH LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE

MEDICAL CLEARANCE SYSTEM. 

The Medical Screening System is a critical aspect of the volunteer delivery process. The Medical Screening System is responsible for striking the delicate balance 

between medically screening in and screening out applicants in order to provide 

overseas posts with healthy, able and productive volunteers. While again our study 

has not been completed, our office has worked with the Medical Screening System 

Agency stakeholders and has identified specific action items for fixing the issues 

with the Medical Screening System: 

We recommend that the quality improvement unit work with Office of Medical 

Service managers to develop performance measures and staff feedback mechanisms 

to systematically identify, justify to the Agency, and implement improvements to the 

Medical Clearance System. 

Some of the performance measures identified are the following: 

Employee and staff: 

Percent of Office of Medical Services 

employees that rate their job 

satisfaction as excellent 

Timeliness and Flow: 

Percent of screenings with decision made 

within 90 days of receipt 

Timeliness and Flow: 

Percent of incomplete medical records 

Timeliness and Flow: 

Percent of requests for records not 

delivered in 48hours 

Efficiency and accuracy: 

Cost per screening 

Effectiveness: 

Percent of Peace Corps volunteers with 

accommodations that complete 27 

months of service 

Effectiveness: 

rate of mental health Early Terminations 

In addition, the Quality Improvement unit within the Office of Medical Services 

should take a more proactive role in leading quality assurance and quality control 

initiatives. Quality improvement should be conducted on two tiers, operational on 

a day-to-day process level and on a strategic level. Office of Medical Services staff 

reported that our Office’s current evaluation of the Medical Clearance System was 

one of the first opportunities in which a Peace Corps staff member was asked their 

opinion on systems and processes. We recommend that the quality improvement 

unit develop quality improvement feedback mechanisms for Office of Medical Services staff to identify areas and processes in the medical screening process that can 

be improved and suggest improvements. Discussion and data analysis will identify 

the best ways to make these process and strategic improvements. Quality improvement leadership and staff should undergo quality improvement training to better 

equip the unit with the tools and knowledge to implement this recommendation. 

To ensure Agency accountability to the Medical Clearance System, we recommend 

that performance measures and other indicators developed by the quality improvement unit and Office of Medical Services managers be written in an annual report 

that tracks the efficiency, effectiveness and productivity of the Medical Clearance 

System. We further recommend that this report be included in the Office of Medical 

Services report ‘‘Health of the Volunteer.’’ 

We also recommend that the Quality Improvement unit in the Office of Medical 

Services lead the effort in reviewing the medical screening guidelines at a minimum 

annually or as updates are required. 

We applaud Senator Dodd’s office for the concern with applicants’ ability to obtain 

information on their likelihood of being medically qualified by the Peace Corps before they spend significant sums of their own money on required medical exams and 

tests. We also agree wholeheartedly with the concerns that have been expressed regarding the out-dated nature of the medical screening guidelines. These guidelines 

must be reviewed at a minimum annually to ensure that they represent the most 

currently available medical evidence. However, posting the medical screening guideVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
49 

lines online is not the best solution to providing applicants with answers to their 

medical screening concerns, nor it is necessarily the best in our opinion. The medical 

screening guidelines are a tool for making complex medical decisions used by medical professionals. If the medical screening guidelines were posted online, it could 

lead to applicants without medical backgrounds misinterpreting their eligibility and 

actually lead to more confusion on the part of applicants. It also has the possibility 

of resulting in the Agency unnecessarily dissuading perfectly able, healthy and productive applicants from becoming volunteers. Further, telling the applicants the answers they need to give in order to be medically cleared may encourage and invite 

fraud, which would, in the end, jeopardize their health and safety in the field. In 

our view, applicants would receive the most accurate answer of whether or not their 

particular condition will preclude them from serving in the Peace Corps by having 

the opportunity to speak to a screening nurse, rather than by reviewing the information online. 

We respectfully suggest that since the underlying reason that the authors of the 

bill may have recommended the posting of the medical screening guidelines online 

relates to the high levels of frustration that applicants feel with regard to the customer service element of the Medical Screening System, our evaluation will make 

several recommendations that address needed customer service improvements and 

that will make screening nurses more accessible to applicants. 

We recommend the Agency strategically use technology to streamline the Medical 

Clearance System. As the bill correctly points out, the Peace Corps can use the 

internet and technology to streamline the Medical Clearance System and provide 

more transparency and accessibility to applicants. We strongly support those aspects of the bill. Improvements in technology that we have identified that will improve the Medical Clearing System are: 

• Immediate scanning of applicant’s paper medical records prior to review by the 

screening nurses. This change in the Medical Screening System will help segue 

the department toward a full electronic medical records system and will remedy 

the current administrative problems of inadequate storage and the difficulty 

sometimes faced locating and processing paper files. 

• Posting the Medical Kit online. 

We recommend Peace Corps use its online presence to post information to improve 

transparency and communication with applicants about the Medical Clearance System. We recommend that the following measures be put into place to improve transparency and communication for applicants: 

• Create an Online Toolkit Medical Screening Checklist. 

• Expand Status Checks and Incorporate Automated E-mail Messaging to Applicants every time an applicant’s status is changed. 

• Publish the ‘‘Comprehensive Medical and Dental Package’’ online. 

• Modify the Health Status Review to include timeframes for questions regarding 

family counseling. 

• Consolidate location of instructions and forms. 

• Communicate a detailed description of the Medical Screening process and the 

country placement process. 

• Post the most typical conditions for which the Agency (1) does not normally accept applicants, (2) medically accommodates applicants, and/or (3) delays an applicant’s entry into duty and update this list on a routine basis and as needed. 

We agree with the bill’s Section 301(4), that a detailed description of the medical 

screening process applicable to Peace Corps applicants, including definitions of all 

applicable terms, should be posted on the Peace Corps website and on My Toolkit. 

We strongly concur that there should be a more detailed description of the Medical 

Clearance process that helps set applicant expectations for the amount of time the 

medical clearance will take including scheduling doctors appointments, waiting for 

test results, completing follow-up tests and review of medical documentation by a 

screening nurse. We also strongly agree with providing more information on the 

medical dispositions that can result from the screening process and improving information regarding the implications of a failure to disclose medical information as indicated in Section 301(5) of the bill. 

We concur with Section 301(1) of the bill, that a list of medical conditions that 

typically disqualify individuals from serving, and a list of conditions that typically 

lead to medically accommodating a volunteer should be provided to all applicants, 

and note that this list is currently posted on the Peace Corps application site and 

is included in recruitment kits sent out to applicants. However, more detailed inforVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
50 

mation should be provided and the list should be updated on a continuous basis. 

We recommend that the Office of Medical Services continually update the list of 

medical conditions. Numerous applicants stated that the online document does not 

list all conditions, and the following quote from one of the volunteers who responded 

to our current survey highlights the importance of providing this information to applicants: 

Did not know that getting PRK/LASIK eye enhancement surgery would 

delay my medical clearance for a year. This was not known to me and was 

the reason I did not finish my medical clearance. 

We agree with the bill in that the Peace Corps can and should do a better job 

at providing medical clearance information to applicants. We do however, agree with 

the Agency that if some of the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act provisions 

for the Medical Clearance System were implemented without an understanding of 

the interwoven systems of recruitment, medical screening, legal screening and placement, the result could actually lengthen the medical screening process and could result in volunteers being placed in countries that cannot provide the resources needed to accommodate their health conditions. However, upon the conclusion of our 

study, we plan to recommend specific improvements that address the majority of the 

concerns that are raised in the Peace Corps Act Volunteer Empowerment Act: transparency, communication and customer service. 

We recommend that the Office of Medical Services improve the Medical Kit instructions by eliminating contradictory guidance and by highlighting the most critical information. 

We recommend that the Office of Medical Services recognize customer service as 

a core value of the screening process, the importance of coaching applicants through 

the Medical Clearance System, and that the Office of Medical Services implement 

‘‘Coaching through Clearance,’’ for applicants. 

In addition, the following specific improvements will improve customer service, 

communication and transparency for applicants: 

• Establish customer service training and customer service standards. 

• Establish mechanisms for customer service feedback. 

• Establish a Screening Nurse e-mail address that can be checked by Screening 

Assistants and forwarded onto the proper screening nurse. 

• The direct telephone extension of the screening assistant should be included in 

the Medical Kit. 

• Improve the Medical Clearance System customer service line so that the line 

always rolls to another phone until a live person is reached. 

We recommend that the regional recruiters cease providing applicants with information about Veterans Affairs Hospitals as a convenient and financial resource for 

completing the physical exam requirements of the Medical Kit. 

We recommend that the Agency exempt several positions in the Office of Medical 

Services from the five-year rule to the extent allowed under the law. Peace Corps 

is unique in that it hires and extensively trains experienced and knowledgeable 

nurses but then by virtue of the five-year rule, it loses that experience and knowledge prematurely. This practically has the effect of increasing the likelihood of errors in medical judgment, causing potential harm to Peace Corps volunteers. If one 

combines the drastic effect of the five-year rule with the nationwide nursing shortage, for example, and the present-day reality that trained, experienced, and passionate screening nurses are becoming increasingly more difficult to recruit and retain, the overall impact is substantial. While there are legislative impediments to 

wholesale exemption of positions in the Office of Medical Services from the five-year 

rule, our final report will outline specific positions that we believe should be exempted from the five-year rule and the statutory and regulatory bases for these exemptions. 

We recommend that the reimbursement fee schedule be increased to meet average 

doctor bill rates for physical examinations, dental examinations, and eye glasses. We 

wholeheartedly endorse the concern expressed in the bill in Section 301(6), about 

the insufficiency of the reimbursement fee schedule for physical examinations, dental examinations, and eye glasses. One of the questions on our survey is, ‘‘What one 

thing would you do to make the Medical Clearance process better?’’; a high percentage of respondents cited changes to the reimbursement fee schedule. This is somewhat surprising in light of the survey’s results that 59% of applicants who did not 

serve and 32% of volunteers did not even submit a reimbursement claim. 

While we agree with the Agency that full reimbursement for medical tests required by Peace Corps is not attainable without a significant increase in appropriaVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
51 

tion dollars, we strongly recommend that the reimbursement schedule be increased. 

The justifications are two-fold; the current schedule has not been increased on a 

routine basis to account for inflation and does not take into account new clearance 

requirements, such as immunizations, that have been added to the Medical Kit. In 

addition to immediately increasing the reimbursement fee schedule, the Agency 

should review the reimbursement schedule annually and determine increases to the 

reimbursement schedule if either (1) new requirements are added to the Medical Kit 

and/or (2) already required tests and exams have increased in cost. Aside from annual reimbursement review and general increase of the reimbursement schedule, 

the current dental reimbursement amount of $60 should be increased to $100 or 

more because the costs of dental exams and x-rays is increasingly higher and fulfilling the requirements for dental clearance is one of the most burdensome components of the medical screening process. 

Our office feels strongly about this recommendation because not only does the current reimbursement schedule frustrate volunteers and deter desirable and qualified 

volunteers from completing medical screening, but the reimbursement schedule may 

also act as an unintended barrier to recruiting volunteers from diverse socioeconomic levels. There is a correlation between people of lower socioeconomic levels 

not having access to health insurance, increasing the cost burden for this demographic and further preventing them from finishing the application process or even 

applying to Peace Corps. If the committee and the Peace Corps are seeking to increase recruitment efforts for minorities and older Americans, removing the impediment of an inadequate reimbursement schedule is an important step. 

We also would like to provide the following additional comments about specific aspects of the Volunteer Empowerment Act’s medical screening provision that we have 

not already addressed above. 

We have certain concerns with the bill’s provision in Section 301(1b) that providing a list of countries available to accept volunteers with medical accommodations may lead to false expectations on where these volunteers may serve and result 

in misinformation and more confusion. In addition, the list of medical accommodation countries is maintained by the Office of Medical Services, but is constantly 

changing and posting that information may not achieve the desired result of providing more accurate information to applicants. 

With regard to Section 301(2) of the bill that requires the establishment of a process for applicants and other interested parties to propose changes to the Medical 

Screening Guidelines, we note that while it is important to provide mechanisms that 

give voice to applicants’ feedback and concerns, questioning the medical validity of 

screening guidelines may actually lead to even longer and costlier processing 

lengths. Screening nurses could potentially be overburdened by the tenacity of volunteers to seek other medical opinions that would medically qualify them. In addition, medical opinions provided by other physicians unfamiliar with the health conditions and standards necessary in foreign posts could pose serious health risks to 

that volunteer. Finally, screening nurses need a standard of medical criteria to base 

their decisions in evaluating an applicant’s medical qualification. Changing this system fosters an environment of relativity and inconsistency as each screening nurse 

will have differing methods and criteria for qualifying applicants, which may in effect, compromise medical screening transparency. 

We very much concur with the intention of Section 301(3), of the bill that would 

require a process to allow volunteers to appeal rejections on medical grounds, and 

note that we have determined that there is an appeals process in place which provides applicants an opportunity to provide more data empowering the volunteer to 

advocate for themselves using new medical information. With respect to the right 

to base an appeal on the inadequacy of the medical screening guidelines, there is 

a process in place to update the medical screening guidelines that will be completed 

by October 2007. We endorse this effort and note that it is long overdue. Given that 

this review is underway, we do not think it is necessary to include the right to base 

an appeal on the inadequacy of the medical screening guidelines in the overall appeals process. 

COMMENTS ON OTHER SECTIONS OF THE S. 732 VOLUNTEER EMPOWERMENT ACT

As I indicated, our analysis is focused on the Medical Clearance System. With respect to certain other aspects of the bill, I have the following opinions. 

We wholeheartedly concur with the laudable goal of doubling the number of Peace 

Corps volunteers by December 2009, but would caution that significantly increased 

appropriations are an absolute necessity to achieve this goal, as in some cases, the 

Peace Corps is stretched too thin today. In our view, it would be unwise to continue 

52 

to expand posts without the resources to ensure that volunteers are properly supported. 

We applaud Section 306(b) of the bill that increases whistleblower protection for 

volunteers reporting the misconduct of Peace Corps staff as we feel that as much 

protection as possible should be provided to these whistleblowers. Because of their 

status as volunteers and not employees, currently volunteers are not afforded significant protection from retaliation for their whistleblower claims. Whistleblowers 

provide a great deal of critical information to our office with respect to the inner 

workings of the Agency and we need to make sure volunteers are protected when 

they provide this important information. Very often, our information comes from 

whistleblowers and complaints and our Office would not be able to prevent waste, 

fraud and abuse in the Agency without the help and support of volunteers acting 

as whistleblowers. 

We also applaud the committees’ efforts to give the volunteers a larger role in 

evaluating various aspects of the Peace Corps. When the Office of Inspector General 

conducts evaluations, we focus entirely on the opinions and viewpoints of the volunteers, as they are the life blood of the Agency, and we uniformly uncover critical 

information regarding their sites, programs, projects and the abilities of the Peace 

Corps staff in country. We believe that Office of Inspector General inspections 

should not be the only mechanism for volunteers to share their view and provide 

feedback concerning activities at post. It is our opinion that the Agency should become even more volunteer-centric and provide more opportunities for the volunteers 

to be involved in the decision-making process. Encouraging the use of the Volunteer 

Advisory Committee is an excellent idea. We also concur with the bill’s efforts to 

provide more volunteer involvement in site selection and personnel aspects of a post. 

The volunteers’ viewpoints and feedback must be considered when the Agency 

makes important decisions concerning site selection, training curriculum and personnel evaluation at post. Within Section 201 of the bill, there is a provision that 

these upward reviews and surveys of volunteers be provided to various Agency officials. We concur with a proposal expressed by others that our office also receive the 

results of the upward reviews conducted by volunteers on senior staff and programs. 

We too believe that this will be a source of valuable information and enhance the 

effectiveness of the Inspector General’s Office in improving Peace Corps management and programs. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In conclusion, we applaud Senator Dodd and the committee’s interest in the Peace 

Corps. We plan to finalize our comprehensive Medical Clearance System study 

shortly and aggressively encourage the Agency to implement our recommendations 

to repair a medical clearance process that needs a great deal of improvement. We 

also plan to follow-up with many of the additional good measures provided by this 

bill. While we support aspects of the bill, we also feel that with Congress’ support, 

these measures can be implemented without legislation. We hope to continue our 

excellent dialogue with Senator Dodd’s office and other offices to ensure that the 

necessary improvements are made to the Medical Clearance System and other aspects of the Peace Corps. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very much. Very comprehensive testimony. We appreciate it very, very much, and I thank both of you 

for joining us here today. 

And, Director Schneider, Mark, we remember your service very, 

very well, not only as a volunteer, but as the Director of the Peace 

Corps, as well, and thank you. 

I think I saw both of you here for the testimony regarding implementing the proposals contained in the legislation which I have introduced. Just very quickly, is that accurate, in your assessment? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. That would—— 

Senator DODD. They’re implementing many of the suggestions—— 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Oh. I think that they’re—he does—the Director 

does have a 50-plus initiative—— 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER [continuing]. And I think that that is going in 

the same direction. I would think that, sitting down, that several 

53 

of the provisions in this bill, particularly related to the financial 

barriers, if you will, for 50-plus applicants, and also the medical 

screening, should move in the direction of permitting his initiatives 

goal to be achieved, which is to increase the number of 50-plus volunteers. 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. The second is that I think that the comment 

that he made with respect to support for the VACs is accurate. I 

think the issue there is, it’s—as he said, there is one of the—Volunteer Advisory Committees that—where he said that there is one 

country where that didn’t exist. My view is that that’s so important 

that it should be mandated. And it shouldn’t be up to an individual 

country director whether or not it exists, and it should exist, and 

I have no problem in providing that their recommendations then 

are taken into consideration with respect to the issues, as indicated; particularly, in my view, site selection and program and 

training. That’s where volunteers see it. 

And I’ve always been of the view that it’s extremely important 

for volunteer input on—into sites—where new volunteers are going 

to live and where they’re going to work. Those are the two things 

that are most important about satisfaction for a volunteer. If the 

site is a place where they could live comfortably, in the sense of 

not being afraid and also being able to do their work, and if the— 

their role in the program makes sense. 

Senator DODD. Let me, if I can, very briefly, here, I—Mr. Kotz, 

I want to ask you about this case that I raised with the Director 

involving the report in the Washington Post on the 2003 political 

briefings. Do you have any information about that—— 

Mr. KOTZ. Well, our office has been in consultation with the Office of Special Counsel on that matter. The Office of Special Counsel has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate Hatch Act violations. 

So, we have spoken to them. Our investigator has met with them 

to talk about going forward with the investigation. So, we will be 

participating in, and assisting them in, the investigation, but they 

essentially have the lead in that investigation. 

So, I can certainly assure you that we are asking—the Office of 

Special Counsel is asking for a list of all political employees at the 

time, and then those political employees will be interviewed to determine whether they attended that particular briefing, and will be 

followed up, in terms of getting the information that you asked for 

previously today. 

Senator DODD. And then you’d report back to this committee, is 

that how that would work? 

Mr. KOTZ. Well, it’s the Office of Special Counsel, essentially, 

that has the jurisdiction. We assist them. I’ll be happy to do whatever you wish. 

Senator DODD. We’ll follow up with that and determine what’s 

the proper—— 

Mr. KOTZ. OK. 

Senator DODD [continuing]. Appropriate way to proceed. 

Mr. KOTZ. But I did express to the folks in the Office of Special 

Counsel that, while they do have exclusive jurisdiction, since it’s 

happening in, you know, the Agency that I am involved in—— 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

54 

Mr. KOTZ [continuing]. You know, I need to know what’s going 

on, and to look into it further. 

Senator DODD. Can I also quickly raise with you the issue of the 

Peace Corps volunteer in Bolivia, Walter Poirier, who disappeared 

back in 2001? I gather that investigation has been reopened? 

Mr. KOTZ. Yes. Yes. About 6 months ago, our office decided to 

look again at that. Mr. Poirier is the only volunteer in the history 

of the Peace Corps who has gone missing, who hasn’t been found. 

And so, our office, which is in charge of violent crimes against volunteers, considers that case still to be the No. 1 priority in our office. In order to go back in—and look at a search effort, I have 

asked the National Park Service to help us out. We have gotten 

several individuals, experts in the field, who have done searches in 

Grand Canyon, who have expertise in doing searches, to assist us. 

They have gone out to Bolivia to do initial efforts to look into that. 

We have gotten some documentation from the FBI, that were never 

previously provided, that we are looking at, even though this happened 6 years ago. And so, there is a renewed effort to do a targeted search. We’re hoping to do one in September, to make another effort to find the missing volunteer. I’m in touch with Walter 

Poirier, Sr., on a biweekly basis, to talk to him about how we go 

forward on this case. But this is a very important matter for our 

office, and we continue to make every effort we can to try to see 

if we can find Mr. Poirier’s remains. 

Senator DODD. How helpful is the Embassy in Bolivia being? 

Mr. KOTZ. Yeah, we have had a couple of issues, frankly, with 

the Embassy in Bolivia, in terms of their view that nothing else 

needs to be done. And we have essentially said to them that we 

don’t need their assistance at all, but we would ask that they not 

be an impediment in the process. There were some impediments in 

our last trip when we went out there. We’re hoping to, as I say, 

look to do a search effort in September, and we’re certainly hoping 

that we won’t have any further impediments—— 

Senator DODD. Well, perhaps Senator Corker and I could draft 

a letter to the Ambassador down there, and just urge the embassy 

to be cooperative in every way they can—— 

Mr. KOTZ. Yes. 

Senator DODD [continuing]. And we’ll try and work something up 

for the two of us to send down. 

Mr. KOTZ. That would be great. 

Senator DODD. Maybe Senator Biden or Senator Lugar to join us, 

as well, in that. 

Mr. KOTZ. I would really appreciate—that would be great. We 

want to be able to, you know, have unfettered access to—— 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. KOTZ [continuing]. The area, to bring in our experts and see 

what we can do, in terms of—— 

Senator DODD. The FBI has been helpful, I gather? 

Mr. KOTZ. Yes. Yes. Yes. Generally. 

Senator DODD. Very, very good. 

The safety and security of volunteers is something all of us care 

about this very, very much, obviously, and we’re talking about a 

case in point. Any other additional suggestions or recommendations? There were concerns raised by the Director, that I was raisVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
55 

ing some security risks by things we were suggesting. Would you 

address that issue? 

Mr. KOTZ. Yes. I mean, I think, you know, in a minimal way, 

there are some possibilities. I guess the issue was raised about 

fundraising, and so, that—I guess there was the possibility that 

volunteers would be some sort of target, although I think you could 

put mechanisms in place on that. The other matter that was raised 

related to administrative separation—I mean, I do agree with—as 

the Director says, that we should have the ability—our Peace 

Corps country directors should have the ability to administratively 

separate volunteers, if they’re at a site. I mean, I think that’s an 

issue. They need to be available, they need—we need to know 

where they are at all times, so something like the Poirier case can’t 

happen again. But, again, I think that there are ways to work 

around that. 

We—our office, actually, in addition to the medical clearance 

study, is doing a comprehensive safety and security study. We’re 

going out to 19 different posts to assess—there were many changes 

that were put into place in the Peace Corps, vis-a-vis safety and 

security, several years ago, and we’re assessing whether those 

changes have been implemented in the appropriate way and whether there has been a change in the safety and security of volunteers 

as a result. 

Senator DODD. Well, I’d appreciate it if you might take a look at 

these recommendations in this bill—— 

Mr. KOTZ. OK. 

Senator DODD [continuing]. And any modifications you may suggest that would allow us to proceed with these provisions, but to 

minimize the security and safety issues to the extent they exist. 

Mr. KOTZ. Absolutely. 

Senator DODD. It would be very, very helpful. 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS BY SENATOR DODD FROM H. DAVID KOTZ, 

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE PEACE CORPS

Below are noted the portions of the Bill (S. 732) that will have an impact on volunteer safety and security. The following are my recommendations of modifications 

to the Bill that should be made in order to minimize the security and safety issues: 

Title I, Section 101 (Seed funding) and Section 102 (Charitable fundraising): 

First of all, we agree with Mr. Schneider’s remarks made during the hearing that 

some Peace Corps volunteers are already involved in fundraising activities, and this 

bill would provide more visibility, structure and oversight to those fundraising activities and thereby would increase those volunteer’s safety and security. Secondly, 

and conversely, we recognize that encouraging volunteers who would not have engaged in fundraising on their own accord to engage in fundraising activities could 

increase the likelihood of volunteers being seen as a constant source of funds and 

could jeopardize their primary objectives and their safety and security. Lastly, a vehicle for funding volunteer projects already exists; the Peace Corps Partnership Program (PCPP). 

Modification recommended: Prior to establishing two new vehicles for funding volunteer projects, we suggest the Peace Corps investigate why volunteers are turning 

to alternative methods of fundraising instead of using the Peace Corps Partnership 

Program.Our office has already evaluated some of those issues in recent post reports 

and the agency is advised to consider our recommendations and make changes to 

PCPP to increase program clarity and decrease processing timeframe. We also suggest the Office of Private Sector Initiatives (OPSI) analyze whether aspects of the 

programs discussed in Sections 101 and 102 could be implemented into the Peace 

Corps Partnership Program to make the program more useful to volunteers. 

56 

Title I, Section 104 (Doubling the number of Volunteers with significant work experience and adding 20 new sector specific programs in 20 different countries): 

We wholeheartedly concur with the laudable goal of doubling the number of Peace 

Corps Volunteers with significant work experience by December 2009, but would 

caution that significantly increased appropriations are an absolute necessity to 

achieve this goal, to ensure that Peace Corps is not stretched too thin. 

Modification recommended: Make the expansion of posts contingent on additional 

funding. It would jeopardize volunteer safety and security to expand posts without 

providing the resources to ensure that volunteer sites are properly developed and 

that safe working and living conditions are provided for volunteers. 

Title II, Section 201 (Participation in reviews of staff and programs), Section 202 

(VAC) and Section 203 (Input regarding site selection and training curriculum): 

We applaud all three provisions under Title II of the Bill that encourage the use 

of volunteer feedback concerning post activities and providing insight to headquarters regarding post operations. We feel these provisions will improve dissemination of critical information and will ultimately increase the level of safety and security of our volunteers. 

Modification recommended: Title II, Sections 201, 202 and 203 provisions will 

have a positive impact on volunteer safety and security and therefore, we have no 

modifications to make to these provisions. 

Title III, Section 301 (Reforms to Medical Screening process): 

Posting medical guidelines online, discussed in Section 301(1) of the Bill may negatively impact volunteer’s safety. As stated in my submitted written testimony, if 

the medical screening guidelines were posted online, it would tell the applicants the 

answers they need to give in order to be medically cleared and may encourage and 

invite fraud, which would, in the end, jeopardize their health and safety in the field. 

With regard to Section 301(2) and 301(3) of the Bill that require the establishment of a process for applicants and other interested parties to propose changes to 

the Medical Screening Guidelines and the right to base an appeal on the inadequacy 

of the Medical Screening Guidelines, we note that while it is important to provide 

mechanisms that give voice to applicants’ feedback and concerns, questioning the 

medical validity of screening guidelines may actually lead to even longer and costlier processing lengths. In addition, medical opinions provided by other physicians 

unfamiliar with the health conditions and standards necessary in foreign posts could 

pose serious health risks to that volunteer. 

Modification recommended: We do not believe that modifications to these sections 

would ameliorate the concerns and thus, respectfully recommend removing Sections 

301 (2) and 301(3) from the Title III, Personnel Issues and Benefits, portion of the 

Bill. 

Title III, Section 306 (Protecting Rights of Volunteers):, 

We applaud Section 306(b) of the Bill that increases whistleblower protection; 

whistleblowers provide a great deal of critical information to our office with respect 

to the inner workings of the Agency and we need to make sure volunteers are protected when they provide this important information. 

Modification recommended: Section 306 provisions will have a positive impact on 

volunteer safety and security and therefore, we have no modifications to make to 

this provision. 

Senator DODD And last, you raised the medical screening procedures. I think you’ve adequately covered that, the importance of it. 

And I think you heard Senator Corker, and he can comment on it, 

himself. But we really care about this very much, and this has got 

to be changed. I was sort of stunned that some of the recommendations go back to 1992. 

Mr. KOTZ. Yes. 

Senator DODD [continuing]. And things that have not been implemented, to move this along at a more rapid pace. 

And the seed money issues, I think you’ve addressed this, as 

well. Mark, I think you have outlined this issue. We talk about the 

country director having to approve—— 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Exactly. 

57 

Senator DODD [continuing]. Are there other steps that should be 

taken? Is that too light? Should there be something more? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. No; I mean, I think that you have it right, in 

terms of putting a limit on the size. 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. You don’t want a lot of money going there. 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Having the country director essentially approve 

the proposal—this simply provides additional resources, and I don’t 

see any reason why that should be of any concern, really. It’s happening now. Peace Corps does it through both the Partnership Program and, in country, through special project funds, the small 

project funds that are run either by USAID or the Embassy. 

I will say that, on the question of safety and security, again, I’ve 

always felt that two things—the site selection and the program 

being adequate—are two of the most important things with respect 

to these—keeping the volunteers in the community and reducing 

the chances for anything happening. Where the most danger to volunteers occurs is when they travel. That’s where the majority of accidents and crimes occur. 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And so, the time that the volunteers stay in the 

community, the better off they are, and the better off we are. 

The other point, about the indication that we would be concerned 

about the provision in the bill with respect to limiting when you’d 

have administrative separation, the bill really says that you would 

have administrative separation for those causes found within the 

Peace Corps manual. And if there is an additional rationale or additional reason to increase the seriousness with which you view not 

being in a post for X amount of time, then it should be in the Peace 

Corps manual, volunteers should know that they are potentially 

going—they could be separated. The whole point about this provision, it seems to me, is to ensure that volunteers know the conduct 

that will result in their separation. 

Senator DODD. That’s the whole purpose. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And that’s—seems to me—— 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER [continuing]. To be absolutely desirable. 

Senator DODD. That’s all we’re trying to do. And I can’t disagree 

at all. I mean, the notion, obviously, is—just an act of responsibility, that if you’re not going to be where people think you’re going 

to be, letting someone know is always just smart. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Right. 

Senator DODD. But, obviously, if this becomes overbearing, then, 

obviously, you’re crossing a line, in a sense. But we are trying to 

walk that line here, in case you are faced with another Poirier case. 

Well, OK. Well, thank you both. I may have some additional 

questions for you. 

Let me turn to Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you both for your testimony. I found it 

very enlightening. 

Did either one of you have input into the bill as it was being 

drafted? 

58 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I did. I was able to make some suggestions 

about it. And, as I say, I think that the—the key elements are to 

increase the volunteer empowerment in ways that are, I believe, 

reasonable. I’m particularly of the view that additional requirements for volunteer input on the question of site selection, where 

they’re going to live—future volunteers are going to live—that the 

volunteers have the best information about that, and that kind of 

input should be solicited. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Kotz. 

Mr. KOTZ. Yes. No, I didn’t have input in it. 

Senator CORKER. You know, I was actually struck by the polling 

data that you had. And it’s—seems like people are relatively happy 

in the Peace Corps. And, actually, the number of people that were, 

sort of, dissatisfied with their assignment, I thought, was pretty 

low. And, you know, it’s a really—I know, a tough challenge. We 

have been involved in civic initiatives, and you have people who 

want to do good things, but finding the exact right spot for them, 

that really is challenging to them and really uses the best of their 

skills, and do it with the right kind of issues, is a real difficult 

thing to do. And my guess is that’s one of the greatest challenges 

the Peace Corps has. And I know that what you’re trying to do is 

empower that. 

I took—I got a little humor out of the fact that you mentioned 

that rhetoric and appropriations don’t always match. And that’s on 

both sides. And certainly seen a great deal of that over the last 6 

months. 

Are there—I know you had input into the bill, and I know that 

you were in the same position as the Director is now. My guess is 

there were times when you felt like the Federal Government sort 

of worked against your ability to make things happen, I would 

guess. Is that—— 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I was pretty comfortable, at the moment when 

I was Peace Corps Director. 

Senator CORKER. Yes. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes. 

Senator CORKER. Is there anything about this bill, then—what 

I’m really driving at is, is there anything about the bill, in codifying some of the things that are actually contemplated—sometimes we do sense-of-the-Senate kind of things, and sometimes we 

do goals and try to impress upon the people leading organizations 

where we’d like to see it go. But then, actually making a law regarding that sometimes can be confining, because it’s in black and 

white, and you don’t have the judgment of the circumstances at 

hand. Is there anything about this bill that you’d like to make— 

as proposed—you’d like to make comments in that regard? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. There are just two things. One, I mentioned in 

my testimony. I do think that we could—the bill could encourage 

actions to promote the recruitment of minority volunteers. I think 

there’s more things that we could do. We tried to do things when 

I was Director, and I still believe that we can do additional things. 

Targeting Master’s International Program and the Fellow—Peace 

Corps Fellows. More directly, it’s some of the—at some of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities, is one thing. I think we 

59 

should do more of that. It’s not that it’s never been done, but I 

think it would be useful to encourage it. 

Second, I do think that the provision that deals with the initial $10 million for third goal, I would try and write it, perhaps, so that 

that additional money came in after you met that the basic appropriations each year for make—for growing the Peace Corps to 

15,000, so that you would have a—it would kick in at that point. 

Senator DODD. Yeah, we make it a specific line item. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. In—I understand, but I’m saying that in the 

Peace Corps—— 

Senator DODD. I understand. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER [continuing]. You don’t—— 

Senator CORKER. So, there’s additional comments that you might 

have regarding the bill? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. That’s just about it. 

Senator CORKER. I wonder if you could send those to both of our 

offices, in writing. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Sure. 

Senator CORKER. And—— 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Be happy to. 

Senator CORKER [continuing]. Mr. Kotz, do you have any—in 

looking at the bill as it reads, seems like a big focus of yours has 

been the medical application piece. 

Mr. KOTZ. Correct. 

Senator CORKER. And, Senator, I have to—Mr. Chairman, I’d say 

he has some excellent information for us to utilize in really looking 

at the application process. Any other comments regarding stipulations in the bill that you think, just based on your experiences, 

ought to be looked at? 

Mr. KOTZ. I think there are a couple of areas in the medical 

screening process that we differ on, putting the guidelines online, 

allowing the volunteers or applicants to appeal based upon the 

guidelines, I think, might lead to longer processing times. So, those 

are the areas that I mentioned. 

It does highlight a lot of areas in the medical screening process 

that need improvement. We’re hoping that, with our study that 

comes out, and our report, and aggressively encouraging the Agency, that a lot of these matters will be remedied through the normal 

channels. 

Senator CORKER. Well, I look forward to hearing more written— 

or seeing more written input from both of you. Thank you both 

very much for your service and for what you’ve done to help us 

today. 

Thank you. 

Senator DODD. Thanks very much. We look forward to hearing 

back from both of you, if you can. 

The last panel here, has been very patient, and we thank them 

for coming. Chuck Ludlam and Paula Hirschoff are here, and we 

thank them for travelling such a long way. The Chamber of Commerce of Senegal has obviously dressed you this morning promoting 

the garb. [Laughter.] 

Senator DODD. We’re delighted to have both of you here. Kate 

Raftery, country director for the Peace Corps in the Eastern Caribbean, is here. Ms. Raftery, thank you very much. Mr. Kevin 

60 

Quigley is president of the National Peace Corps Association. And, 

last, Nicole Fiol, who is an applicant to the Peace Corps from Bayamon, Puerto Rico. I even said ‘‘Bayamon’’ correct, huh? [Laughter.] 

Well, thank you all for coming, and you’ve been very patient to 

listen to this earlier testimony. We appreciate it very much. 

I’ll ask each of you to just take 5 minutes, if you would, and if 

you could do it in less time than that, it would be appreciated. But 

your full text and testimony will be a part of the record, I want you 

to know that here. However, to the extent you can get through it 

quickly and we get to the questions, it would be very, very helpful. 

So, we’ll begin with you, Mr. Ludlam. And we know that you and 

your wife have come a long way to be here this morning. And you 

heard me say, at the outset, you’ve given us some valuable support 

as we’ve talked about this, listening to volunteers and ideas as we 

helped draft this proposal. So we thank both of you for making the 

effort to come here. 

STATEMENT OF CHUCK LUDLAM, VOLUNTEER, SENEGAL, 

PEACE CORPS, WASHINGTON, DC; ACCOMPANIED BY PAULA 

HIRSCHOFF, VOLUNTEER, SENEGAL, PEACE CORPS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. LUDLAM. It’s a tremendous honor to be here, Senator, to be 

in front of an RPCV. You’re a Senator, also, but we think of you 

more as an RPCV than anything else. 

Senator DODD. Thank you, I do, too. [Laughter.] 

Mr. LUDLAM. We appreciate the invitation. 

Ms. HIRSCHOFF. My name is Paula Hirschoff, and I’m serving as 

a Peace Corps volunteer in Senegal. I was a volunteer in Kenya 40 

years ago. 

Mr. LUDLAM. And my name is Chuck Ludlam, and I’m serving 

as a volunteer, with my wife Paula, in Senegal. I was a volunteer 

in Nepal 40 years ago. 

Ms. HIRSCHOFF. Chuck and I will testify together, alternating 

turns. 

With this joint presentation, we continue the partnership that 

characterizes our work in Senegal. We’ll observe the 5-minute rule, 

times two. [Laughter.] 

Mr. LUDLAM. Paula and I are testifying here today, because we 

are loyal to the Peace Corps and the founding ideals, and we admire the volunteers’ work throughout the world. We are among the 

few volunteers to serve again after a long gap in time, so we’re 

among the first who can report, from the volunteer perspective, 

how the Peace Corps has changed over the last four decades. 

We wish we could report that all is well with the Peace Corps, 

but we regret to say this is not our view. We see the Peace Corps 

as a middle-aged bureaucracy, where hierarchy and rigid controls 

prevail. Volunteers sit at the bottom of the pyramid, where their 

needs are often ignored. What we need is an upside-down hierarchy, an inverted pyramid in which the support of the volunteers 

takes precedence. 

Senator Dodd, in your recent article in WorldView magazine, you 

said it best, this bill recognizes that the real heart of the Peace 

Corps lies in—not in Washington, but in the villages, like the one 

in which you served in the DR. 

61 

Ms. HIRSCHOFF. The volunteers with whom we serve are much 

the same as the ones we served with in the 1960s—idealistic, resourceful, and hardworking. You’ve been proud of the volunteers 

who have served in the past, and you can be proud of those in the 

field today. The volunteers can and should be trusted, and they deserve more support of management. 

Mr. LUDLAM. We have also compared the Peace Corps bureaucracy to the one we knew in the 1960s. In many ways, it has become 

more risk-averse and less responsive. It often fails to listen to, respect, and empower the volunteers. We hear from volunteers in the 

field who believe they succeed despite the bureaucracy, not because 

of the support that it provides. They succeed by ignoring it and resisting it. The bureaucratic command-and-control approach stifles 

creativity and collaboration. This management approach works 

poorly with younger volunteers, and it is anathema to older, more 

experienced volunteers. These problems undermine the Peace 

Corps in various ways. Volunteers become demoralized or cynical. 

Their potential as agents of development are not realized. Dropout 

or early termination rates are too high. We believe that many 

RPCVs from our era would be dismayed to hear how much the bureaucracy today adversely affects the volunteer experience. 

Ms. HIRSCHOFF. Of course, these are generalizations. We know 

there are many Peace Corps managers throughout the world who 

provide outstanding service and support to volunteers. But we believe the problems are prevalent enough to justify enacting this legislation. 

Mr. LUDLAM. The legislation is well crafted to address these 

problems. We endorse it enthusiastically. We believe that our fellow volunteers join in that endorsement. The National Peace Corps 

Association recently conducted an online survey of PCVs and 

RPCVs regarding the legislation. The respondents overwhelmingly 

favored all of its provisions. 

Ms. HIRSCHOFF. Turning now to the specifics of the bill, the key 

provisions give volunteers a substantial voice in personnel and program reviews, training curricula, and site choice and preparation. 

The legislation is premised on the notion that the expertise needed 

to strengthen and renew the Peace Corps lies at the grassroots 

with volunteers in the field. Volunteers know best who’s supportive 

among staff. They know what programs are working at the village 

level. They know what they need, in terms of training and seed 

funding. They know what village sites are best suited to volunteers. 

The legislation would have the Peace Corps rely on their expertise 

in these crucial areas. 

Mr. LUDLAM. We would like to comment primarily on two of the 

bill’s most important provisions, section 201(a) and 201(b). 

Section 201(a) mandates that the Peace Corps consult with volunteers confidentially before renewing or extending the contract of 

any manager. In substance, it mandates that the Peace Corps initiate what are called 360-degree reviews, or upward feedback personnel reviews, like those now common in the private sector, where 

employees assess their manager’s performance. In collaborative organizations, these reviews are standard operating procedure. They 

can be a powerful tool for sensitizing management to the employVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
62 

ee’s viewpoint and encouraging collaboration towards common 

goals. 

The Peace Corps personnel should be judged primarily on how 

well they support the volunteers, because volunteers are the most 

important asset that the Peace Corps has. Only by supporting volunteers can the Peace Corps achieve its goal to serve as an effective agent of development. Accordingly, we believe that the volunteer’s views should be given substantial weight in the personnel review process. All of the bill’s provisions mandate that the Peace 

Corps bureaucracy listen to, respect, and empower volunteers, but 

only section 201(a) tells managers that their tenure with the Peace 

Corps depends on how well they do so. Because these reviews 

might seem to threaten their tenures, Peace Corps managers might 

not welcome volunteer participation. Indeed, we believe that section 201(a) is the provision that the Peace Corps is least likely to 

implement effectively on its own. That’s why enacting this provision into law is imperative. 

Ms. HIRSCHOFF. Section 201(b) is also critical. It mandates confidential consultations with volunteers on the design and continuation of the country-specific programs in which they serve, such as 

health, education, or agriculture. Some Peace Corps programs are 

better designed than others, some need to be redesigned, some simply are not working and should be abandoned; thus, freeing resources for more effective programs. 

Volunteers see the results of these programs daily in their villages. Because they’re donating 2 years of their time, volunteers 

deserve to be placed in programs that give them a reasonable opportunity to achieve sustainable results. And, of course, our host 

countries deserve sustainable results, as well. We view the first 

goal of Peace Corps, to serve as an agent of development, to be its 

highest priority. And, for that, program design is crucial. 

Taken together, sections 201(a) and (b) institutionalize a process 

for continual renewal of the Peace Corps, led from the grassroots. 

None of us will know how widespread the management problems 

are until sections 201(a) and (b) are enacted and the results of 

these confidential surveys reviewed. 

Mr. LUDLAM. Our written testimony comments in depth on each 

provision of the bill. The legislation will strengthen the development role of the Peace Corps by providing seed funding for volunteer projects and overhauling the rules regarding fundraising by 

volunteers. The legislation will help the Peace Corps reach its goal 

of recruiting more experienced volunteers by removing troublesome 

disincentives. These include retiree health insurance and medical 

screening process. And the legislation will confirm and clarify certain volunteer rights. 

Ms. HIRSCHOFF. We’re pleased that you do not assume that the 

Peace Corps management always speaks for volunteers. In the private sector, management and labor often have different perspectives on the workplace, and the same is true of Peace Corps managers and the volunteers. 

Representatives of management are posted here in Washington, 

so you will hear from them. It’s more difficult for volunteers to 

make themselves heard. Yet, this legislation and hearing demVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
63 

onstrate that you are listening to volunteers, and for that we are 

grateful. 

Mr. LUDLAM. Given the problems we’ve discussed, you may wonder if we recommend that older volunteers and RPCVs serve as volunteers. And our answer is yes, absolutely. Older and second-time 

volunteers often have special insights into how to launch and sustain development projects. Also, older volunteers tend to speak up 

about the quality of staff support, program design, training curricula, and site placement. In our view, the more older volunteers 

the Peace Corps recruits, the better, both for development and 

Peace Corps reform. 

To be clear, you will substantially strengthen the hand of the volunteers, the young and the not so young, and the cause of Peace 

Corps reform, if you enact this legislation into law. 

We’ve heard, this morning, that the Peace Corps management is 

largely opposed to enacting legislation to listen to, respect, and empower volunteers. We’re sad to hear this. But this opposition is useful, in one respect; it is evidence of an attitude towards volunteers 

that is consistent with that which we have just described. And, 

more than anything we can say, this position regarding the legislation and empowering volunteers demonstrate how important it is 

to enact this legislation into law. 

Ms. HIRSCHOFF. In conclusion, the Peace Corps has had a powerful and positive influence on our lives. In the four decades since we 

first served, we’ve never stopped thinking of ourselves as Peace 

Corps volunteers, and we love serving again, despite the difficulties 

discussed here. Serving together is a special joy. 

It’s been very difficult for us to go public with these criticisms, 

but, because we still believe in the Peace Corps, we felt we had no 

choice. The legislation gives us great hope. With enactment of these 

reforms, we believe that volunteers would work move effectively 

with their local partners, promoting development and cultural exchange in a spirit of peace and generosity, and ensuring that the 

Peace Corps will thrive for decades to come. 

Thank you for supporting Peace Corps volunteers—past, present, 

and future—and we’re happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Chuck Ludlam and Paula Hirschoff 

follows:] 

PREPARED (COMBINED) STATEMENT

OF CHUCK LUDLAM AND PAULA HIRSCHOFF

PAULA. My name is Paula Hirschoff and I’m serving as a Peace Corps volunteer 

in Senegal. I was a volunteer in Kenya 40 years ago. 

CHUCK. My name is Chuck Ludlam and I’m serving as a volunteer with my wife 

Paula in Senegal. I was a volunteer in Nepal 40 years ago. 

PAULA. Chuck and I will testify together, alternating turns. 

With this joint presentation, we continue the partnership that characterizes our 

work in Senegal. 

We’ll observe the five-minute rule, times two. 

CHUCK. Paula and I are testifying here today because we are loyal to the Peace 

Corps and its founding ideals, and we admire the volunteers’ work throughout the 

world. 

We’re among the few volunteers to serve again after a long gap in time, so we’re 

among the first who can report from the volunteer perspective how the Peace Corps 

has changed over the last four decades. 

We wish we could report that all is well with the Peace Corps, but we regret to 

say this is not our view. 

64 

We see the Peace Corps as a middle-aged bureaucracy where hierarchy and rigid 

controls prevail. Volunteers sit at the bottom of the pyramid where their needs are 

often ignored. 

What we need is an upside down hierarchy, an inverted pyramid, in which support of the volunteers takes precedence. 

PAULA. The volunteers with whom we serve are much the same as the volunteers 

with whom we served in the 60s - idealistic, resourceful, and hardworking. One difference is that they’re more mature and wise to the world. 

You’ve been proud of the volunteers who’ve served in the past and you can be 

proud of those in the field today. 

The volunteers can and should be trusted. And they deserve more supportive 

management. 

CHUCK. We have also compared the Peace Corps bureaucracy to the one we knew 

in the 1960s. 

In many ways it has become more risk-averse and less responsive. It often fails 

to listen to, respect or empower the volunteers. 

We hear from volunteers in the field who believe that they succeed despite the 

bureaucracy, not because of the support that it provides. They succeed by ignoring 

or resisting it. 

The bureaucratic command and control approach stifles creativity and collaboration. 

This management approach works poorly with younger volunteers and it’s anathema to older, more experienced volunteers. 

These problems undermine the Peace Corps in various ways. Volunteers become 

demoralized or cynical. Their potential as agents of development is not realized. 

Drop-out or early termination rates are too high. 

We believe that many RPCVs from our era would be dismayed to hear how much 

the bureaucracy of today adversely affects the volunteer experience. 

PAULA. Of course, these are generalizations. We know there are many Peace 

Corps managers throughout the world who provide outstanding service and support 

to volunteers. But we believe the problems are prevalent enough to justify enacting 

this legislation. 

CHUCK. The legislation is well crafted to address these problems. We endorse it 

enthusiastically. We believe that our fellow volunteers join in this endorsement. 

The National Peace Corps Association recently conducted an online survey of 

PCVs and RPCVs on the legislation. 

The respondents overwhelmingly favored all of its various provisions. 

PAULA. Turning now to the specifics of the bill, the key provisions give volunteers 

a substantial voice in personnel and program reviews, training curricula, and site 

choice and preparation. 

The legislation is premised on the notion that the expertise needed to strengthen 

and renew the Peace Corps lies at the grassroots, with volunteers in the field. 

Volunteers know best who is supportive among staff. They know what programs 

are working well at the village level. They know what they need in terms of training 

and seed funding. They know what village sites are best suited to volunteers. 

The legislation would have the Peace Corps rely on their expertise in these crucial 

areas. 

CHUCK. We’d like to comment primarily on two of the bill’s most important provisions: Section 201 (a) and 201 (b). 

Section 201(a) mandates that the Peace Corps consult with volunteers confidentially before renewing or extending the contract of any manager. 

In substance, it mandates that Peace Corps institute ‘‘360 degree’’ or ‘‘upward 

feedback’’ personnel reviews, like those now common in the private sector where employees assess their managers’ performance. 

In collaborative organizations, these reviews are standard operating procedure. 

They can be a powerful tool for sensitizing management to the employees’ viewpoint 

and encouraging collaboration toward common goals. 

Peace Corps personnel should be judged primarily by how well they support volunteers because volunteers are the most valuable asset that the Peace Corps has. 

Only by supporting volunteers can the Peace Corps achieve its goal to serve as 

an effective agent of development. 

Accordingly, we believe that the volunteer’s views should be given ‘‘substantial 

weight’’ in the personnel review process. 

All of the bill’s provisions mandate that the Peace Corps bureaucracy listen to, 

respect, and empower volunteers. But only Section 201 (a) tells managers that their 

tenure depends on how well they do so. 

65 

Because these reviews might seem to threaten their tenures, Peace Corps managers might not welcome volunteer participation. Indeed, we believe that Section 

201(a) is the provision that the 

Peace Corps is least likely to implement effectively on its own. That’s why enacting this provision into law is so important. 

PAULA. Section 201(b) is also critical. It mandates confidential consultations with 

volunteers on the design and continuation of the country-specific programs in which 

they serve, such as health, education or agriculture. 

Some Peace Corps programs are better designed than others. Some need to be redesigned. Some simply are not working and should be abandoned, thus freeing resources for more effective programs. 

Volunteers know first-hand which programs are working. Every day, they see the 

results in their villages. 

Because they are donating two years of their lives, volunteers deserve to be placed 

in programs that give them a reasonable opportunity to achieve sustainable results. 

And of course our host countries deserve sustainable results as well. 

We view the First Goal of Peace Corps—to serve as an agent of development— 

to be its highest priority, and for that, program design is crucial. 

Taken together, Sections 201(a) and (b) institutionalize a process for continual renewal of the Peace Corps led from the grassroots. 

CHUCK. Our written testimony comments in depth on each provision of the bill. 

The legislation will strengthen the development role of the volunteers by providing seed funding for volunteer projects and overhauling the rules regarding volunteer fundraising.The legislation will help the Peace Corps reach its goal of recruiting additional older, experienced volunteers by removing troublesome disincentives. These include problems with retiree health insurance and the medical screening process. 

And, the legislation will confirm and clarify certain volunteer rights. 

The legislation is comprehensive and ambitious. However, this is a good opportunity, so we have proposed that it be amended to address several additional subjects. The most important are recruitment and retention of able staff and reform of 

the leave policies for volunteers. 

PAULA. We are pleased that you do not assume that the Peace Corps management 

always speaks for volunteers. In the private sector, management and labor often 

have different perspectives on the workplace; the same is true of the Peace Corps 

managers and the volunteers. 

Representatives of management are posted here in Washington so you will hear 

from them. 

It’s more difficult for volunteers to make themselves heard. 

Yet this legislation and hearing demonstrate that you are listening to volunteers. 

For that we are grateful. 

CHUCK. Given the problems we’d discussed, you may wonder if we recommend 

that older persons and RPCVs serve as volunteers. Our answer is, ‘‘Yes, absolutely.’’ 

Older and second-time volunteers often have special insights into how to launch 

and sustain development projects. 

Also, older volunteers tend to speak up about the quality of staff support, program 

design, training curricula and site placements. 

In our view, the more older volunteers the Peace Corps recruits, the better-both 

for development and Peace Corps reform. 

To be clear, you will substantially strengthen the hand of the volunteers, the 

young and not-so-young, and the cause of Peace Corps reform if you enact this legislation into law. 

PAULA. In conclusion, the Peace Corps has had a powerful and positive influence 

on our lives. In the four decades since we first served, we have never stopped thinking of ourselves as Peace Corps volunteers. 

And we love serving again, despite the difficulties discussed here. Serving together is a special joy. 

It’s been very difficult for us to go public with these criticisms. But because we 

still believe in the Peace Corps, we had no choice. 

The legislation gives us great hope. 

With enactment of these reforms, we believe that volunteers will work more effectively with their local partners, promoting development and cultural exchange in a 

spirit of peace and generosity, and ensuring that the Peace Corps will thrive for decades to come. 

Thank you for supporting Peace Corps volunteers, past, present and future. 

We are happy to answer your questions. 

66 

Senator DODD. Thank you very much.—look pretty good, at 40 

years, I must say. [Laughter.] 

You know? A little white hair, there, I noticed, too, and all of 

this. 

But, part of what you hear in my voice a little jealousy, you 

know. And so, congratulations to both of you. I’ll have some questions for you in a few minutes. 

Ms. Raftery, thank you very much for being here. 

STATEMENT KATE RAFTERY, COUNTRY DIRECTOR, EASTERN 

CARIBBEAN, PEACE CORPS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. RAFTERY. Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Dodd, 

Senator Corker. I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here 

this morning. 

I currently serve as the country director in the Eastern Caribbean, where I serve as the country director for Marty Landis, who 

is serving on the island of St. Kitts. I’ve also served as a Peace 

Corps director in Peru, in Honduras, and as a trainer in Costa Rica 

and El Salvador. 

I, myself, am a returned Peace Corps volunteer who left Collinsville, CT, in 1973 to be a volunteer in the country of Paraguay. 

Ensuring a quality volunteer experience is a shared responsibility between staff and the volunteer. I believe that my staff, myself, provide the assistance necessary to maximize this unique experience. 

I’d like to speak to some of the specifics of the legislation, which, 

in my opinion, may not be the best way to empower volunteers or 

increase staff support. 

I will begin with the external funding proposed for demonstration 

projects. This issue is one of considerable debate within the volunteer and staff communities. Many volunteers, who are currently 

serving and who have served, feel the external funding flies in the 

face of sustainable development. Dependency on outside support 

can potentially hinder indigenous development from thriving. If 

getting the grant is the goal, then there is a problem. The end goal 

must be the empowerment of the community to identify their own 

possibilities and then bring them to fruition through hard work 

and learning a valuable set of skills. The Agency has made significant resources available for volunteers through partners such as 

USAID, OGAC, U.S. Embassies, USDA, and others. The expanded 

use of external resources needs to be assessed carefully so that 

bringing money to a host community does not become more important than bringing the Peace Corps volunteer. 

In relation to the bill’s proposed expansion of volunteers’ ability 

to do fundraising, I have, sadly, seen, over many years, good volunteers transform from bring productive grassroots development 

workers to full-time fundraisers. With this transition, we see more 

volunteer-driven projects and fewer community-driven projects. 

The bill speaks of the need to increase support of the third-goal 

activities. This is an area that, historically, has received few resources, but I am concerned by the recommendation that only certain nonprofits will be used to facilitate this effort and that the 

type of activities eligible for support would fit into such a limited 

scope. 

67 

The bill encourages the Peace Corps to be more proactive in the 

recruitment of volunteers with 5 years of relevant work experience. 

I believe that the Agency has looked for new ways to engage individuals with 25 to 30 years of experience to join the Peace Corps, 

and this is a positive move. At my post, we are one of the pilots 

for increasing this population, and I have worked very closely with 

volunteers like Marty Landis to assess our current training and 

support operations, and have made initial recommendations to the 

headquarters staff. 

There are certainly areas in need of improvement, and the responsibility of the Peace Corps director is to make sure that every 

volunteer, no matter how old, how young, how experienced, has a 

quality experience. 

Each volunteer needs to feel confident that they have a forum for 

expressing their opinions. I involve volunteers in training, program 

focus groups, site development and selection. I—but I remain confident that I am not interfering with their job and they do not become—because they have not come to the country to run the Peace 

Corps operations. Volunteers’ input has never disappointed me, 

but, at the same time, I point out to volunteers that they have one 

reason for being in country, and I have another. I am the hired 

help and they are the volunteer. When a problem arises, the director will not be calling them for an explanation, they will be calling 

me. 

At personnel appraisal time, I include the volunteer and the staff 

in the review process. I request feedback on all volunteers—on staff 

from all volunteers. This feedback should come to me, as country 

director and the supervisor, not the regional director, miles away, 

although my feedback does go to the regional director. 

Volunteers have provided me with invaluable input on program 

development and focus, on development of sites. And the vehicles 

used to solicit this feedback is many—group meetings, focus 

groups, and surveys. 

With regard to sites, it is the responsibility of staff to identify 

meaningful assignments for volunteers and to ensure that the volunteer input is critically used and incorporated. 

The volunteer’s point of view, coupled with the request from the 

community and the overall development goals, is what we are attempting to address. 

The Volunteer Advisory Council is one of the most important vehicles I have to engage volunteers. I do that proactively and with 

a spirit of cooperation. 

A country director must always be forthcoming and transparent 

in their interactions with staff and volunteers. I attempt to do that. 

A country director needs flexibility to manage his or her post by 

balancing the complex issues of volunteer safety, programming, 

and culture, and nuances. Perhaps the Agency should be challenged to ensure that all staff view their commitment in a similar 

fashion. Perhaps the Agency should be encouraged to look at their 

support to volunteers and third-goal activities more creatively. But 

I believe, in my humble opinion, that this particular bill does not 

advance it, as it is written. 

I am pleased to answer any questions that you might have. 

68 

Senator DODD. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Raftery, and 

thank you for your service. 

Ms. RAFTERY. Thank you. 

Senator DODD. You’ve been involved with the Peace Corps for a 

long time. 

Ms. RAFTERY. Yes, sir. 

Senator DODD. Nice to see you, Kevin, thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN QUIGLEY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

PEACE CORPS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having me. Good morning, Ranking Member Corker and Senator Coleman. 

I’m Kevin Quigley. I’m the president of the National Association—National Peace Corps Association. And, for Senator Corker, 

the NPCA is the only organization for individuals whose lives have 

been influenced by the Peace Corps experience—volunteers, staff, 

family, friends, counterparts. And what we seek to do is to connect, 

inform, and engage the Peace Corps community around issues of 

importance to our community, such as this legislation. 

And, earlier, Chuck and Paula alluded to a survey that my organization conducted shortly after Senator Dodd introduced his bill. 

This survey had 433 respondents and over 1,300 comments. And, 

just for a comparison, this is twice the number of respondents, and 

at least twice the number of comments, around a comparable survey that we did when Senator Coleman was chairing some hearings 

on the safety and security issue, a little more than 2 years ago. So, 

there is great interest in our community about this legislation. So, 

I wanted to applaud the chairman and the Senators for having this 

hearing. 

Like other—most of the other witnesses, I’m also a returned 

Peace Corps volunteer. I served in Thailand for 3 years, between 

1976 and 1979. 

And, since the other witnesses have spoken about many of the 

provisions in the bill, I really just want to focus my comments on 

two provisions. And I’m focusing them on two provisions, because 

I think these are two interrelated provisions. And that is, one, the 

authority to expand Peace Corps, section 401. 

Just reflecting back on Director Tschetter’s testimony, he indicated that we currently have slightly more than 7,700 volunteers. 

This is a highwater mark—almost a highwater mark—for the last 

three decades. But if we stuck with that metaphor, the tide is receding. It’s quite clear that, if you look, even at the President’s request, that the number of serving volunteers will go down. And if 

the final outcome of the appropriation process is the level—the 

Senate level, of $323.5 million, there will inevitably be some decline in Peace Corps, the numbers of serving volunteers. 

Why is this? Is Peace Corps not an effective agency? I think 

we’ve heard a lot of evidence today, and others in government and 

around the world who have looked at Peace Corps; they see that 

Peace Corps has made a outstanding contribution, certainly commensurate with the resources provided the 187,000 in—over the 

last 46 years. 

69 

But have the problems that Peace Corps was set up been addressed, the problems of poverty and underdevelopment? Still, 

we—as Senator Corker knows from his own field experience, we 

still have a great deal of work to do in that regard. 

And also, I think, incredibly important, we know one thing about 

Peace Corps, that the kind of personal contact, the fact that we, as 

volunteers learn foreign language, we learn to look at the world 

through the eyes of our friends, families, colleagues, counterparts, 

that that has a profound impact, as Chairman Dodd said, on our 

world view, and something that is desperately needed in our world 

today, particularly as part of an overall strategy to restore our 

country’s standing in the world. So, I think that provision is timely, 

it’s essential, and it is widely supported by the Peace Corps community, and we pledge our effort to work with the committee to do 

whatever we can to get that goal realized. 

The other provision I wanted to talk about was section 103, 

which is—relates to the so-called third-goal funding. As we’ve 

talked earlier today, Peace Corps has had three goals. The first 

goal—and I paraphrase—help others help themselves, help them 

understand us, and, three, most importantly, bring that world 

home. Again, reflecting on the Director’s testimony, he indicated 

approximately $2 million Peace Corps resources are devoted to the 

third-goal activity. Two million, that’s less than 1 percent of Peace 

Corps’s current budget, certainly indicated that this has never been 

a major priority for Peace Corps, and for historical and very understandable reasons, that the Agency’s priorities have been placing— 

recruiting and placing and supporting volunteers in the field. So, 

I applaud the chairman for this innovative and unprecedented effort to address the serious underfunding of the third-goal activity. 

And I know a lot of people will look at it and see it as, kind of, 

zero sum, that that $10 million might come out of Peace Corps’s 

budget, that, as a consequence, even fewer volunteers will be sent 

overseas, but I see these resources as being resources that—as an 

investment, and an investment that can be leveraged by the network of 130 of our groups, the individuals who do third-goal 

projects on their own, corporations, universities, other partners, 

will join us in this effort to significantly expand the size and scope 

of Peace Corps. And, in my view, the fact that we have fallen so 

far short on this third goal really is the central reason why Peace 

Corps does not have the support it should have in the American 

people. I think if the American people knew how effective Peace 

Corps was, relatively speaking, that they would be clamoring for a 

widely expanded Peace Corps. And we hope to work with you and 

others to accomplish that. 

Director Tschetter, this morning, talked about the—creating a 

mechanism of a Peace Corps Foundation to explore—or to—a one 

possible idea that would handle the administrative task of running 

a $10 million competitive grant program. We’d welcome the opportunity to talk to the committee about what’s the best mechanism 

to do it, how that might be governed, organized, funded. What are 

the appropriate criteria for looking for leverage? And we very much 

look forward to working with you on that. 

In conclusion, I wanted to thank you, Chairman Dodd, for providing the authority for an expanded Peace Corps and this unprecVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
70 

edented funding for the third goal, which, I think, for the first time 

in the history of our community, gives us a real shot at bringing 

the world back home. And I think bringing the world back home 

will be critical to getting more Americans overseas, which I think 

will be helpful to addressing a major national challenge. We look 

forward to working with you and the committee, and I see this legislation as both empowering volunteers and actually empowering 

Peace Corps. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Kevin Quigley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN F. F. QUIGLEY

Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Corker, my name is Kevin Quigley, President of the National Peace Corps Association (NPCA). Like many other witnesses 

today, I am a Returned Peace Corps Volunteer (RPCV). I served in Thailand for 

three years, 1976-79. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to comment on your important and timely legislation, S. 732, The Peace 

Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act. 

While other witnesses have more direct experience in administering Peace Corps 

programs or more current experience as volunteers, I am here to discuss two interrelated provisions of great interest to the returned Peace Corps community. These 

are the authority to double Peace Corps by the time of the 50th Anniversary in 2011 

and provide an additional $10 million to be used through a competitive process to 

fund outstanding Third Goal Projects that effectively bring the world back home. 

Given the considerable interest in your legislation, NPCA conducted an on-line 

survey. After a brief background about NPCA, in my testimony I’ll report on this 

membership survey and then devote most of my limited time to discussing the central provisions regarding doubling Peace Corps and funding Third Goal activities. 

As you requested, I will also provide suggestions regarding how Peace Corps could 

be more effective in recruiting minorities and older Americans as volunteers. 

NPCA

NPCA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 1979 and is the only national organization for Peace Corps volunteers, staff, and others whose lives have 

been influenced by the Peace Corps experience. Our mission is to ‘‘help lead the 

Peace Corps community and others in fostering peace through service, education 

and advocacy.’’ 

We seek to connect, inform and engage the Peace Corps community. In this community, there are 130 affiliates, 90,000 supporters and more than 30,000 individuals 

who participate in our national and affiliates’ activities. These individuals reside in 

all 50 states the District of Columbia, the territories, as well as living overseas. 

They continue to serve and make a difference in a variety of ways. NPCA has programs to promote service, enhance understanding of other cultures, and advocate 

around issues of importance to our community, such as this legislation. 

MEMBERSHIP SURVEY

From March 15 to April 15 this year, NPCA conducted an on-line survey seeking 

reaction to the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act (S. 732). Our survey was 

divided into sections that roughly paralleled sections of the legislation, asking individuals to indicate if they agreed or disagreed with key proposals. 

Four hundred thirty three individuals took part in the survey, representing at 

least 41 states and the District of Columbia. Survey respondents provided more 

than 1,300 comments. They served (or currently serve) in at least 80 of the 139 total 

Peace Corps countries. For those who provided information, nearly half (44%) served 

in the Peace Corps during the current decade of the 2000’s. Twenty percent served 

in the 1960’s, 15% in the 1990’s, 11% in the 1970’s and 10% in the 1980’s. Although 

this is by no means a rigorously scientific survey, we are confident that it is generally representative of the interested and engaged Peace Corps community. 

Overall, the respondents were extremely supportive of the provisions in the legislation, although expressing some cautions. With the Chairman’s permission, I would 

like to have a copy of the survey results submitted into the hearing record. 

71 

Broadly speaking, the cautions were that whatever Congress does should not impede the fundamental mission, independence and operations of Peace Corps, nor 

negatively affect the volunteer’s role in the community. 

DOUBLING PEACE CORPS

Section 401 of S. 732 provides authority for a significantly expanded Peace Corps. 

As we heard earlier today, Peace Corps is at a near three-decade high of 7,700+ volunteers. However, this is just half of its size in 1968 when Peace Corps had 15,000 

volunteers and trainees. At that time, our country was 50% percent smaller, with 

a population of 200 million as opposed to 300 million today. So, relatively speaking 

Peace Corps is 1⁄4 of its size four decades ago. 

This small size is not because Peace Corps has solved the problems it was created 

to address, nor is it ineffective, nor is there is insufficient demand from countries 

or potential volunteers. With more than 2 billion people in the world living on less 

than $2 a day, poverty is every bit as endemic as it was when President John F. 

Kennedy created the Peace Corps in 1961, 46 years ago. The Office of Management 

and Budget gives Peace Corps agency its highest rating for effectiveness. There are 

more than 20 countries that have requested Peace Corps and more than three applicants for every Peace Corps volunteer position. As public attention to Peace Corps 

inevitably increases in the next years leading up to the 50th Anniversary in 2011, 

the demand from countries and from Americans to serve could expand dramatically. 

From the vantage point of the U.S. standing in the world, as the Pew Global Attitude survey suggests, U.S. standing in the world has plummeted. As the Freedom 

from Terror survey also suggests, when there are direct people-to-people contacts 

there is a dramatic increase in how Americans and America is viewed. Furthermore, 

those perceptions appear to persist long after the initial engagement. 

Given that Peace Corps is one of the most effective faces that we show to the 

world, expanding Peace Corps is extremely timely. This expansion can also help respond to a major U.S. national challenge, assist in addressing persistent global poverty, and is strongly supported by the Peace Corps community. 

THIRD GOAL COMPETITIVE FUNDING

As the Chairman and many others in this hearing room know well, since its inception Peace Corps has had three overriding goals. I paraphrase: 1) help others 

help themselves, 2) help them understand our country better, and 3) bring that experience back home. 

For a variety of very good reasons, Peace Corps has invested the great preponderance of its resources in addressing goals numbers #1 and #2, primarily through recruiting, training, and placing volunteers overseas. 

With generally constrained budgets, goal #3—to bring the Peace Corps experience 

back home—has been consistently under-funded (based on the most recent analysis 

by Congressional Research Service, today’s annual Peace Corps budget for 7.7k volunteers of slightly less than $320 million is roughly equal to 30 hours of funding 

for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan). 

Mr Chairman, your provision to authorize up to $10 million for a competitive 

grants program for outstanding Third Goal projects organized by individuals and 

groups in the Peace Corps community is the first serious effort to address the perennial under-funding of this key Third Goal. 

I am confident that your approach can generate significant leverage within the 

Peace Corps community and that any U.S. government resources would be matched 

by comparable in-kind and direct contributions from community members and organizations that are committed to meeting the Third Goal. This provision can build 

on the modest but effective programs already in place through Peace Corps and the 

network of more than 130 groups in the Peace Corps community that organize Third 

Goal activities in schools and communities across the country, especially around 

Peace Corps week-the first week of March. 

Understandably, some critics of your provision will suggest that any funds for this 

activity will come at the expense of goals #1 and #2, seeing this as kind of ‘‘zerosum’’ circumstance. 

I see this very differently. Since we have chronically under-invested in the Third 

Goal, Americans know far too little about Peace Corps (in fact, many Americans are 

unaware that it still exists) and its highly efficient use of U.S. taxpayer resources. 

If our fellow citizens knew about Peace Corps, especially what results it achieves 

with modest resources, I think they would be clamoring for a significantly expanded 

Peace Corps. 

So, dedicated funding for 3rd Goal Activity through a competitive process would 

provide resources ensuring that the Third Goal can be finally addressed and met. 

72 

Regarding administration of this Third Goal Grants Fund, I understand that 

while Peace Corps is generally supportive of this-especially if it involves additional 

funding-the agency may be reluctant to take on this responsibility since administering a grants program is not its core competence and may detract from Peace 

Corps’s focus on recruiting, placing and supporting volunteers. If that is the case, 

there are other alternatives. Congress could provide this authority to either the Corporation for National Service or U.S. Agency for International Development, perhaps 

through the Volunteers in International Prosperity program. The former directly administers grant programs, the latter does so through a consortium of volunteer-placing organizations. Another alternative would be to have an independent organization, such as the National Peace Corps Association or another organization closely 

connected to the Returned Peace Corps Volunteer community, administer this role. 

There are some distinct advantages to either approach, which I would be glad to 

discuss further if the Committee is interested. 

Regardless of where this Grants Fund is administered, I strongly believe that 

scaling up successful Third Goal Activities through these resources will help raise 

Peace Corps’ profile, assist in recruiting highly motivated Americans, and generate 

needed public support for an expanded Peace Corps. 

RECRUITING MINORITIES/50+ VOLUNTEERS

The other witnesses have presented comments about what is being done and what 

steps we might take to improve recruiting minorities and older Americans as volunteers. Based on our survey and many conversations with members of the Peace 

Corps community, there are three steps to recommend. First, I think the critical 

step is to once again make service in Peace Corps a national priority and part of 

an overall strategy of restoring this country’s role as a trusted international leader. 

Second and related to this, there should be an aggressive campaign to double Peace 

Corps. Third, with that kind of policy commitment in place, the recruitment process 

can be improved through greater transparency regarding the length of time and the 

required steps in the process, especially related to the medical clearance process. As 

your legislation provides, we also need to find ways to offset the high costs associated with the medical clearance process that are borne by applicants. 

For example, one of my colleagues, Ravi Shah, submitted a statement to the Committee about his experiences as an applicant. Let me summarize briefly, after serving as an intern at NPCA, Ravi applied to Peace Corps last November. Ravi just 

completed the medical and security clearances and last week was invited to be a 

volunteer in Ukraine. He will leave on September 28th. Ravi’s statement indicated 

that he had to pay $439 in out-of-pocket expenses to complete the required tests. 

Of this amount, $197 was reimbursed, less than half of the costs associated with 

his medical clearance. This is a significant barrier to service for many. We recommend that these medical clearance costs be provided by Peace Corps. Recognizing 

the potential expense and the need to avoid disincentives, perhaps the best way to 

do this is through a modest increase to the readjustment allowance to retroactively 

compensate volunteers for these costs after she or he has completed service. 

CONCLUSION

Chairman Dodd and ranking member Corker, the Peace Corps community thanks 

you for addressing the issue of expanding Peace Corps and providing funding for 

Third Goal Activities—which have been long-held aspirations for our community. 

We are also grateful for the many other creative provisions you are proposing for 

empowering volunteers and lowering the barriers to service so that many more 

Americans can serve in a Peace Corps. With these changes, Peace Corps can have 

an even greater impact in addressing the problems of poverty and under development. As Chairman Dodd said in his statement introducing this legislation, this will 

make ‘‘make the Peace Corps even more relevant to the dynamic world of the 21st 

Century.’’ And for that reason, we strongly support it. 

The National Peace Corps Association is committed to working with you and others to generate the resources required so that Peace Corps can be expanded in future years, providing many more Americans with the opportunity to serve their 

country through the Peace Corps and to bring that experience back to America in 

ways that help shape our place and improve our standing in the world. 

Thank you. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Mr. Quigley. We appreciate it very much. I note that in terms of expanding the Peace 

Corps overseas, and this is not an easy problem to solve, but there 

are 22 Muslim countries in the world. We have Peace Corps proVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
73 

grams in two—in Morocco and Jordan. And at a time when we 

need to know a lot more about them, and they need to know a lot 

more about us, there have got to be creative ways in which we can 

have far greater interaction with that community and our own if 

we’re going to effectively understand and deal with these issues in 

the coming century, in this century. 

Thank you. 

Ms. Nicole. Nicole Fiol, thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF NICOLE FIOL, APPLICANT TO THE PEACE 

CORPS, BAYAMON, PUERTO RICO 

Ms. FIOL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Good morning. 

It’s an honor to appear today as a Peace Corps nominee to testify 

in support of the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act. 

I’m here today to share with you my experience with the Peace 

Corps application process, my thoughts on effective ways that 

Peace Corps could approach recruiting minorities as volunteers, 

and how this bill will benefit future Peace Corps applicants. 

My name is Nicole Fiol. Currently, I work as an intern in the 

U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau. Earlier this year, I 

received my bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Puerto Rico, and now I intend to pursue my ambition of becoming a Peace Corps volunteer, with the anticipated departure for 

June 2008. 

On my professional goals is to—one of my professional goals is 

to obtain a master’s degree—international political economy and 

development—and embark on a career in public service. Peace 

Corps service enables us to develop skills and experience many government agencies need. These include learning foreign languages, 

cultural awareness, and professional skills on—in an international 

environment, while making a distinguished contribution to the 

community. 

As a former intern in the U.S. House of Representatives, I had 

the opportunity to work closely with the Foreign Relations, LA, and 

participate in briefings that involved discussions in—on international issues. These briefings helped me learn about variety of 

bills that were involved in international economic development. 

Fortunately, I had the opportunity to attend a briefing about the 

Peace Corps congressional budget justification for fiscal year 2008. 

It was there where I had the opportunity to meet the Director of 

Peace Corps, Mr. Ronald Schneider, and other returned volunteers 

who informed my decision to join Peace Corps. 

I was overwhelmed with the passion and commitment the return 

volunteers had for this organization. It was in that moment when 

I decided to start my vocation that same night, on April 12, 2007. 

It took me 4 days to complete and submit my application for the 

Agency. During the same week, I had the opportunity to meet my 

wonderful recruiter, Chris Wagner, who has given me immense 

help and support through my application process. After revising all 

the documents and passing my interview, my recruiter nominated 

me, on June 29, 2007, to volunteer in Africa region with anticipated departure date for June 2008. 

74 

If all my medical screening process goes well, and with no unforeseen delays, my time in the application process will be estimated nearly 14 months. I’m currently on my fourth month into 

my application. That’s why this bill will benefit future Peace Corps 

volunteer applicants. Even if you fully commit to the process to volunteer 27 months, it’s a big sacrifice to add a year or more with 

application process. 

On the medical screening process, applicants like myself, who 

come from low-income families and are full-time students and 

workers, have more challenges ahead. My personal experience with 

the medical screening process presents serious difficulties, due to 

my economic status. My health insurance, Preferred Health, does 

not include coverage in the United States. That means I will have 

to travel back home to finish my medical screening process between 

my summer and fall internship in the U.S. Census Bureau. While 

discussing this issue with my recruiter, I was informed that the 

maximum reimbursement fees the Agency gives to females under 

40 years is $160. The most cost-effective way for me to fly back to 

Puerto Rico will be to travel through bus to New York—that will 

cost me around $37—and fly roundtrip from JFK to Luis Munoz 

Marin Airport—that will be $322. The travel costs I incur to meet 

the guidelines could be just the beginning, as our reimbursement 

fee may not cover the cost I incur during my physical examination, 

my dental examination, the eyeglass prescription and measurement, plus my second pair of glasses required by the Agency. This 

means I anticipate spending more on the medical screening process 

of the application than what the Agency will currently be able to 

reimburse. This is a huge economic sacrifice for a person like myself, and make it more an impediment for young people that are 

already struggling to get basic needs for their lives. I support the 

section of this bill that will guarantee full reimbursement of the 

medical tests required by Peace Corps and applicants, and establish a process for applicants and other interested parties to propose 

changes for the medical screening guidelines. 

On the other hand, Peace Corps has been involved on working 

with colleges and universities in the States to expand recruiting activities. An effort to expand the applicant pool also includes reaching out those in diverse age groups with different ethnic backgrounds who were previously under-represented in the Peace 

Corps. The reality is that, out of 187,000 Peace Corps volunteers 

that have served, 16 percent are minorities and 85 percent are 

from ages 20 to 29. Even worse, Puerto Rico has only 366 Peace 

Corps volunteers since the beginning of the organization, and only 

7 are currently active in the service. 

My experience as a student in the University of Puerto Rico is 

that the average young adult thinks that Peace Corps was only a 

program that ran in the Kennedy administration, and don’t recognize the existence of the organization. Unfortunately, a staff member from the Atlantic—Atlanta regional office comes to the university for only 1 day a year to recruit. I—if I had not happened to 

walk by the Peace Corps table on that day, I would not have 

learned about the opportunity to serve, I would not be here before 

you. 

75 

I emphasize—I can’t emphasize enough the fact that there is a 

great pool of motivated, hardworking students who will make great 

volunteers. We desperately need to increase the minority pool in 

order to maintain a diverse ethnic background and provide a clear 

representation of U.S. population, while strengthening the Peace 

Corps agency. By reaching this goal, we will need to integrate more 

time and energy to create awareness in local universities with a 

large group of minorities. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. It’s an honor to be 

part of this hearing today. I truly hope that my experience will 

help you in any way to understand the need to fully support the 

bill. This bill will ensure all volunteers and applicants, like myself, 

get the resources they require to help those who are in great need 

of our service, which is the foundation of freedom and the condition 

of peace. 

I’ll be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Nicole Fiol follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NICOLE FIOL

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee; It is an honor to appear today, 

as a Peace Corps nominee to testify in support of the ‘‘Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act.’’ 

I’m here today to share with you my experience with the Peace Corps application 

process, my thoughts on effective ways the Peace Corps could utilize in recruiting 

minorities as volunteers, and how this bill could benefit future Peace Corps applicants. 

My name is Nicole Fiol. Currently, I work as an intern in the United States Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. Earlier this year, I received a Bachelors Degree in Political Science from the University of Puerto Rico, and now I intend to 

pursue my ambition of becoming a Peace Corps volunteer with the anticipated departure of June 2008. One of my professional goals is to obtain a master’s degree 

in International Political Economy and Development, and embark on a career of 

public service. Peace Corps service enables us to develop skills and expertise many 

government agencies need. This includes learning foreign languages, cultural awareness, and professional skills honed in an international environment while making 

a distinguished contribution to the community. 

SHARE MY EXPRERINCE IN THE PC APPLICATION PROCESS

As a former intern in the United States House of Representatives, I had the opportunity to work closely with the Foreign Relations LA, and participated in briefings that involved discussions on International Issues. These briefings helped me 

learn about a variety of bills that were involved with International Economic Development. 

Fortunately, I had the opportunity to attend a briefing about the Peace Corps 

Congressional Budget Justification for fiscal year 2008. It was where I had the opportunity to meet the Director of the Peace Corps, Mr. Ronald A. Tschetter, and 

other returned volunteers who reinforced my decision to pursue placement in the 

Peace Corps. I was overwhelmed with the passion and commitment the returned 

volunteers have for this organization. It was in that moment when I decided to start 

my application that night on April 12, 2007. It took me four days to complete and 

submit my application to the Agency. 

During that same week I had the opportunity to meet my wonderful Recruiter, 

Chris Wagner who has given me immense help and support through my application 

process. After revising all the documents and passing the interview, my recruiter 

nominated me on June 29, 2007 to volunteer in the Africa Region with the anticipated departure date of June 2008. If all the medical screening process goes well 

and with no unforeseen delays, my time in the application process is estimated to 

be nearly 14 months. 

That’s why this bill will be beneficial for future Peace Corps Applicants; Even if 

you fully commit to this process to volunteer for 27 months, it’s a big sacrifice to 

add a year or more with the application process. 

76 

REFORMS TO MEDICAL SCREENING PROCESS

On the medical screening process, applicants like myself, who come from low-income families and are Full-time students and workers, have more challenges ahead. 

My personal experience with the medical screening process presents serious difficulties due my economic status. My Health Insurance (Preferred Health) does not include coverage in the United States. This means that I will have to travel back 

home to finish my medical screening process between my summer and fall internships in the United States Census Bureau. While discussing this issue with my recruiter, I was informed that the maximum of reimbursement fees the Agency gives 

to Females under 40 years of age is $165. The most cost-effective way for me to fly 

back to Puerto Rico would be to travel to New York by bus (that would be $35) and 

fly roundtrip from JFK to LMM Airport for $322. The travel costs I accrue to meet 

the guidelines could be just the beginning, as the reimbursement fees may not cover 

the costs I incur during the physical examination, the dental examination, the eyeglass prescriptions and measurements (plus the second pair of glasses required by 

the Agency) 

This means that I anticipate spending more on the medical screening process of 

the application than what the Agency will currently be able to reimburse. This is 

a huge economic sacrifice for a person like myself, and makes it more of an impediment for young people that are already struggling to get the basic needs for their 

lives. I support sections of this bill that will guarantee full reimbursement for medical tests required by the Peace Corps of applicants and establishment of a process 

for applicants and other interested parties to propose changes to the medical screening guidelines. 

MORE DEMAND FROM MINORITIES

On the other hand, Peace Corps have been working with colleges and universities 

in the States to expand recruiting activities. An effort to expand the applicant pool 

also includes reaching out to those of diverse age group with different ethnic backgrounds who were previously under-represented in the Peace Corps. 

The reality is that out of the 187,000 Peace Corps volunteer that have served, 16 

percent are minorities and 85 percent are from age 20–29. Even worse, Puerto Rico 

has only had 366 Peace Corps volunteers since the beginning of the organization, 

and only 7 are currently active in service. 

My experience as a student of the University of Puerto Rico is that the average 

young adult thinks that Peace Corps was only a program that ran during the Kennedy administration. Others don’t recognize the existence of the organization. 

Unfortunately, a staff member from the Atlanta regional office comes to the university for only one day of the year to recruit. Had I not happened to walk by the 

Peace Corps table on that day, I would not have learned about the opportunity to 

serve and would not be before you today. 

I can’t emphasize enough of the fact that there is a great pool of motivated, hard 

working students that would make great volunteers. We desperately need to increase the minority pool in the order to maintain a diverse ethnic background and 

provide a clear representation of the U.S. population while strengthening the Peace 

Corps agency. 

By reaching this goal, we would need to integrate more time and energy to create 

awareness in the local universities with larger groups of minorities. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you your time and consideration, it’s an honor to be part of this hearing 

today. I truly hope that my experience will help you in any way understand the 

need to fully support this bill. This bill will ensure that all volunteers and applicants like myself get the resources they require to help those who are in great need 

of our services; which is the foundation of freedom and condition of Peace. 

I’ll be happy to answer your questions. 

Senator DODD. That’s pretty good. I think we’ll keep you recruiting, here, I’ll tell ya. [Laughter.] 

Let me turn to Senator Corker, who has to head right off, and 

then I’ll come back. 

Senator. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you very much for letting me do this. 

And I want to thank each of you for your testimony. I think it’s 

been incredibly enlightening. I look at people, who do what you do, 

77 

as saints. And two of you look more like saints than the rest of us 

today. [Laughter.] 

We thank you very much for being here. 

I really do believe your testimony has been most enlightening. 

And I think that, certainly, the bill that’s being proposed gives us 

an opportunity to talk about the various issues that need to be 

dealt with. I know that people who serve, years ago, and now are 

back, it’s sort of like—I wish I could go back to college and redo 

that. I know y’all see a lot of things now that are very helpful. I 

thank you for that. 

The country administrator, I think, points out, Mr. Chairman, 

the balance we need to achieve in this bill, to not necessarily try 

to legislate some management. Sometimes it’s all about people and 

not laws. And I think that was clearly illuminated in, certainly, 

your testimony about the medical process, and certainly the third 

goal. So, thank you for that. 

I do think there is that philosophical issue we need to wrestle 

with over the grants, that I’m sure we’ll do in other meetings. We 

look forward to talking to you through our staffs. 

Thank you all very, very much. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate that 

very, very much. 

I think the medical application screening process has been pretty 

well covered. Obviously, it’s something that’s going to require some 

real work. But, again, given the delays and costs and so forth, I 

think we’ve got a pretty good record established here of the importance of putting more emphasis and attention on that, or it’s going 

to have the adverse effect. You know, we’re soliciting applications 

from people and then imposing a process and barriers that discourages the applicant from going forward. So, clearly we’re being counterproductive, it seems to me, in some ways here, although clearly 

we need to have a medical screening process, but, to the extent we 

can, we should do this in a way that does not discourage people, 

an awful lot of people, I’m afraid, from dropping out of this process. 

One of the biggest arguments I’ve ever faced with younger people 

when I’ve talked to them about the Peace Corps, and going into 

it—and I put a smile on my face when I think of it, because it’s 

come up so often—they say, ‘‘It’s just an awful long time, 2 years.’’ 

‘‘I want to tell you something’’—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator DODD [continuing]. ‘‘You’ll find out, in time, that it’s 

nothing at all.’’ And yet, that’s the one answer I get all the time, 

‘‘This is a long time.’’ Well, you’re adding almost a year to what 

they consider their service. If 2 years seems like a long time, than 

a year or 9 months to go through an application process becomes 

even longer. So, at least with younger applicants, I think that is 

a barrier that we’ve got to address, or we’re going to face a problem. And the cost is obviously also important. 

Ms. Raftery, you’ve had a lot of experience doing this, and dealing with the issues raised by Chuck and Paula. And, granted, if I 

thought all of this could be done on the fly, and, again, assuming 

we get good people all the time, that listen and pay attention and 

so forth, things would be different. But as you and I both know, 

and you’ve served long enough to know, that there are—it’s not alVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
78 

ways the case, and people don’t always listen. And, my intention 

is, of course, not to give anyone veto power, here, but to make sure 

that there’s going to be the input that you insist upon, as I listen 

to you testify, about what you require, in site selection and choices 

and programs and evaluation of staff, and the like. But it seemed 

to us that this was sort of spotty, and that we needed to institutionalize this a bit more. And, again, I want to make it clear to people, I’m not suggesting that any one group of people ought to have 

veto power, but certainly, when we look back, there is a value in 

this. I think you’re suggestion on how this gets handled and who 

actually is privy to these conversations could be important, or you 

invite some difficulties with all of this. But do you have any difficulty with the idea of institutionalizing this requirement of Peace 

Corps volunteer participation, by requiring it? 

Ms. RAFTERY. I do think that it’s very difficult to legislate respect. I think it’s difficult to legislate people to listen. I would hope 

that this would be a management challenge that is handed over to 

the senior management of the Peace Corps, so that, in the selection 

of country directors, in the supervision of country directors, in the 

training of country directors, each country director spends a considerable amount of time during their training program talking about 

a Volunteer Advisory Council. And the point is made, numerous 

times, that a volunteer is doing themselves a serious disservice by 

not engaging the Volunteer Advisory Council in every step of the 

operation and every step of the volunteer’s life. If the country director does not choose to take that advice, which is provided by the 

Peace Corps, then I think the management of the Peace Corps, in 

their review of the country director each year, should include that. 

And I do feel that the feedback I’ve gotten from volunteers—which, 

again, on my performance appraisal, it gets sent to Washington, it 

does not come to me—now, that part, I think, is a management decision that, in our personnel systems, should be—perhaps be incorporated. But I think it is challenging. Not all volunteers are created equal, and not all country directors are created equal. 

Senator DODD. Right. 

Ms. RAFTERY. And what we’re trying to do is have the management systems in place that will ensure what you are, perhaps, trying to legislate in this bill. I don’t have a problem with it. I think 

it’s reaching that ends that I struggle with. 

Senator DODD. Yes. Well, and obviously, we’re doing the same, 

because I’m not overly enthusiastic about mandating things. And 

I don’t disagree with you here, that you can’t mandate respect. But 

you can somehow try to at least institutionalize, or protect against 

disrespect. And so that there are people who I’d otherwise feel that, 

‘‘I have no obligation to do this.’’ 

Ms. RAFTERY. Correct. 

Senator DODD. And that’s where you, can run afoul of it, and 

particularly if you’re moving up the chain, and it gets further and 

institutionally more inclined to avoid the comments. 

How would you respond to Ms. Raftery, here, Chuck or Paula, on 

her points? 

Mr. LUDLAM. Well, I guess I believe in systems. I believe in people also, but I believe in systems. And if you set up a system, which 

says that there will be confidential surveys of the volunteers reVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
79 

garding personnel and regarding the programs—and it has to be 

confidential, because you’re, by and large, dealing with young volunteers—— 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. LUDLAM [continuing]. Who do not necessarily speak up when 

they face managers; they’ve never, perhaps, had a manager before—so they have to be confidential—and you set up that system, 

then you know it will happen. If you have a situation where a 

country director is not a natural-born listener, or worse, but they 

have the system in place, then the inspector general will see the 

problem countries in a minute. In a minute. You will find out 

where you have managers who are not listening, who are not—for 

example, if a volunteer days, ‘‘Don’t ever put somebody on this site 

again,’’ and they do, you’ll hear about it. When they say, ‘‘This program isn’t working. I see it every day in my village,’’ they will work 

to reform that program. A manager who is not responding to the 

volunteer’s request for service, they will deal with that, as personnel matters. 

So, we believe in systems, not just in trusting in people. 

Senator DODD. Kevin, do you have any comments on this? 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Senator, you know, I see both points of view here, 

and I think they both bring a lot of wisdom and experience and 

passion for Peace Corps here. It is about people, and it is about 

systems. It is tough, as Kate suggests, to legislate respect. It’s also 

tough to have foolproof systems. So, it’s finding that, kind of, delicate balance, where you have the appropriate systems that enable 

managers to manage in ways that are supportive of the volunteers, 

so that they can accomplish the goals of—that we’ve set for Peace 

Corps. 

Senator DODD. Let me ask you, the issue of the volunteer fundraising again, Ms. Raftery, I think you make some very interesting 

and worthwhile observations. The last thing you want to do is have 

volunteers turn into fundraisers, unless they’re planning a political 

career. [Laughter.] 

Then we ought to discourage it, absolutely, in my view. [Laughter.] 

It’s the most dreadful part of this. 

Thinking about that aspect of it, what we tried to do here is talk 

about very small amounts and under very limited circumstances, 

and with the approval of a country director. So, it’s not just going 

off on your own, although I presume people do that anyway, in 

terms of getting help from back home or whatever else, in terms 

of supporting a project or an effort. 

But I remember talking to volunteer who was in the Dominican 

Republic, who just came home from his Peace Corps experience, 

he’s in law school now, but he had a very interesting project. And 

I was talking to him about it, and it actually did involve getting 

some seed money. It may have been through the existing programs 

now. They made a big difference in making that project work for 

him. 

Again, is there a way in which you could see this could be done 

in a way that would satisfy you, as a country director, aside from 

the addition of the criteria that we’ve placed in this, insisting upon 

80 

your approval before it goes forward? Are there ways of doing that 

to your satisfaction, or is this just a nonstarter for you? 

Ms. RAFTERY. No; I believe that there are volunteers who—well, 

I will say, backing up a moment, that the volunteers receive, in 

most countries, training in relation to sustainable development and 

the role that seed grants can play in that. Volunteers are also encouraged to look at their service from the point of view of institution-building, capacity-building. So, therefore, if the role of the volunteer is to facilitate a community, understanding its needs—— 

Senator DODD. Right. 

Ms. RAFTERY [continuing]. And then moving ahead, and, at the 

end, they’ve exhausted all of the local resources that could be 

brought to bear—— 

Senator DODD. Right. 

Ms. RAFTERY [continuing]. And there’s still a slight need, then I 

think that volunteers should have available to them the opportunity to work with their community in the development of a grant 

that Peace Corps could provide them some resources for. 

My experience has been—and it might be different than the experiences that were mentioned earlier—but most volunteers do not 

find a problem getting resources through Peace Corps and its partners at USAID, OGAC, etc.—— 

Senator DODD. Right. 

Ms. RAFTERY [continuing]. And the like. So, I’m just concerned 

that volunteers start to see getting the money as more important 

than bringing the community along—— 

Senator DODD. I agree. 

Ms. RAFTERY [continuing]. With them. That’s what—— 

Senator DODD. No; that’s very important. 

Ms. RAFTERY [continuing]. I’m concerned about. 

Senator DODD. It’s a very legitimate point. And how would you 

address that, Chuck? 

Mr. LUDLAM. First, on the seed funding, I well know of programs 

where there are no SPA grants from USAID—don’t exist in the 

country. We know of cases where there are no embassy funding 

through the ambassadors fund. And we know of cases where there 

is essentially no funding available, there’s no reimbursement—basically, there’s no reimbursement, because the country director 

doesn’t believe in it. In those cases, the bill provides there is 

money, there will be money. And it may be small amounts. We’re 

not often talking about $1,000. We’re often talking about $50. 

In terms of fundraising, the same issue. Going through Peace 

Corps Partnership takes, probably, an average of 6 months. If 

you’re in the middle of a project, and you need 50 bucks for something, the volunteers go to their friends and family. Now, that is 

technically illegal today. That is illegal, to go directly to friends and 

family to fundraise. Now, under the bill, it’s legal. And it basically 

codifies what the volunteers do anyway. Now, if they get caught 

fundraising from friends and family today, they could be administratively separated. That is just not correct. It’s just not right. I 

mean, it—it’s normally just a small amount of money just to do 

something simple to keep a project alive, to demonstrate—not to 

become—I mean, the—— 

Senator DODD. You don’t disagree with Ms. Raftery’s point? 

81 

Mr. LUDLAM. Completely agree with her philosophy, but there is 

nothing in the bill that turns the Peace Corps into a 

grantmaking—— 

Senator DODD. Yes. 

Mr. LUDLAM [continuing]. Agency—— 

Senator DODD. No. 

Mr. LUDLAM [continuing]. In any way. 

Senator DODD. Or that that becomes the priority, all of a sudden. 

There’s always danger of, I don’t know if they still use the same 

language we did 40 years ago, but a danger of ‘‘felt needs,’’ when 

a volunteer tries to assess what a community’s priorities are. And 

so, there’s this game that goes on for a while as to finding out what 

really are the priorities, ‘‘Did I really set them, or did the community set them?’’ And, obviously, the ones we want are the ones that 

are set by the community. 

Well, I think that could be accommodated. It’s a good point you 

raised, in terms of how we do this. And I agree totally. I mean, the 

idea of discouraging people who want to participate and help out 

as they try and move something along has great value, as well. 

Let me turn to Senator Coleman, and then we’ll try and wrap up, 

here. But I thank all of you. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the things that I just find so fascinating about the Peace 

Corps—and it’s represented by this panel, here—is the level of 

commitment, from folks who are just signing up to the folks who 

have been there a long time, in management, and in the folks who 

have been there. And I think it’s pretty remarkable. 

It is very different, Mr. Chairman, from the State Department, 

by the way, in a lot of ways. In, you know, the State Department, 

you have ambassadors who may be political appointees, you have 

career civil servants who may have come in under one administration, may have a different philosophical view than the other administration. What I have seen in my experience with the Peace Corps, 

dealing with present staff, members, those involved in the system, 

has almost got a unity of purpose. They all believe in—and 

wouldn’t sign up unless you—and wouldn’t continue doing it, 

wouldn’t stay connected, unless you saw that belief that it’s important to show the heart of America, and it’s important to make this 

contribution to serve. 

I just think it’s remarkable. And I applaud the focus of this bill 

to expand the presence here so folks understand what we’re doing 

to simplify the process, whether it’s in shortening the application 

period, in dealing with the medical issues, like medical—costs of 

medical records, et cetera. So, I think this is a pretty unique organization. As I said before, the chairman brings a unique perspective to it. 

There was—Director Tschetter raised a concern about—I want to 

take you up, Mr. Quigley, on something you offered to provide— 

and that is, in talking about a grant process, the Director very— 

you know, obviously says the Agency is going to administer a process, they’re going to have to do, you know, regulation, oversight, 

bureaucracy, et cetera. Is there a better way to do it, Mr. Quigley? 

And can, you know, past volunteers—can your association—tell me 

how you would structure something to facilitate some of the thirdVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:11 Oct 21, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\45008.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
82 

goal grant processes that would avoid, perhaps, the bureaucracy 

and regulation that you’d encounter if the Agency did it. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you very much, Senator. That’s a great 

question. And I don’t think there’s an easy answer here, but let me 

take a stab at some of the elements that I think that would be part 

of it. 

One thing that has to be underscored, this is a very diverse community of 187,000 very different people, with different sets of motivations, and that, in our community, many of those individuals are 

extremely passionate about their particular approach to an issue or 

problem-solving. So, I think one of the key elements is that whatever the process is has to be fully transparent, it’s got to be a process where there’s a great deal of communication about who it is, 

how it goes about what—its criteria selection, what—the timetable, 

the processes. So, clarity of purpose, as you’ve said, but clarity 

about operations, I think, is incredibly important. 

I think it’s also important that, as we talked at the start of the 

hearing, that this mechanism be perceived as independent, outside 

of politics, committed to the—committed to the mission of advancing the third goal. 

I think it also—a fourth element, that I would say I think is really essential, is that there have to be opportunities for all kinds of 

different solutions, from big to small. Director Tschetter talked 

about the range in the Peace Corps private—Peace Corps Office of 

Private Sector Initiative, the partnership office. And, actually, I 

think, in some cases, it’s actually larger. There’s one of our groups, 

the Madison RPCV group, provides about $80,000 in support for 

things that, in effect, relate to third goal. 

In our community, we estimate that we provide somewhere be- tween $1 and $2 million a year in third-goal-related activity, of direct costs, not counting sweat equity. Some of those are very small 

projects. They may involve a group of people going around to a 

local library or talking, doing a series of conversations about—with 

their local Rotary or their church, et cetera. So, a key criteria, I 

think, would have to be that there is a lot of opportunity for innovation, for flexibility, and being nimble. 

Now, your next question might be: Is that possible to do in a government agency? And I think that’s one of the issues you have to 

explore. There are some models out there, where various government agencies run very effective grant programs, and others where 

it’s less so. 

Senator COLEMAN. Ms. Raftery, let me have—we had a discussion about the—trying to find some balance, in terms of expressing 

personal perspectives, personal opinion. We live in an age, now, of 

blogs and Internet, and you certainly don’t want to be suppressing 

that, you know, but I certainly understand the concerns of the Director, in terms of—you represent the United States of America, 

you represent the Peace Corps. Can you talk to me a little bit 

about that balance, and how you see it playing out? 

Ms. RAFTERY. It’s intriguing to see what the volunteer experience 

is like today. When I was a volunteer, in 1973, it was, I think, a 

very individual experience. I joined. My family wasn’t sure if I was 

in Paraguay or Uruguay. It was a ‘‘guay’’ word. And they—— 

[Laughter.] 

83 

Ms. RAFTERY. That’s where I was. And there were letters that 

were sent back. Today, it’s ongoing, it’s constant, the flow of information that volunteers are sharing with their family and friends. 

I think that’s positive for Peace Corps, because of the fact that we 

are—we are engaging, not really 7,000 people in Peace Corps, but 

thousands and thousands of grandparents, relatives, community 

members. 

I have found that volunteers are very reasonable, they are as 

committed to this organization as I have been. And when we walk 

through what they might consider when they do their blogs, when 

they do their e-mails to family and friends, when they do their 

journals, that are now electronic, all of that, when we talk about 

safety and security, and you standing there with a photograph of 

the name of your site in your address, next to your head, that 

might not be the most appropriate communication. But sharing 

what you’re doing, the struggles and the achievements, I am proud 

of what volunteers, for the most part, put up on their blogs and 

their other forms of communication. 

I think volunteers are very reasonable. The Volunteer Advisory 

Council in the Eastern Caribbean, in Peru, both helped me to craft 

my message around electronic communication. I think their guidance was probably better than what was going to put forward. So, 

I think it’s a dialog between the staff and the volunteers, which 

then can result in—I would not say ‘‘censorship,’’ I would say a mutually agreed upon set of guidelines, so that the volunteer is putting forth the best message about what they’re doing, so that people can celebrate that, but also taking into consideration the limitations that that kind of communication would bring. 

Senator COLEMAN. And I appreciate the—you know, it’s always 

tough to figure out, how far do we mandate? What do we—you 

know, what do you prohibit? How do you, kind of, strike that balance? And particularly in an age where it’s just so much easier to 

communicate, and everything gets that much quicker. I recognize 

the challenge. But I appreciate the perspective. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what you’re trying to accomplish here, and this is a great agency, and we need to expand it 

and grow it and make it easier for folks to participate, and make 

folks back home more aware of the great things that are being 

done. So, thank you. 

Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Senator. 

And thank you for that, Ms. Raftery, that’s one of the reasons 

why I’m reluctant to have this sort of be from ‘‘on high’’ on down. 

I have a lot of confidence, that this is being handled at the country 

director level with the volunteers, and again, putting the emphasis 

on the volunteer side of this. That’s a better way of proceeding here 

than having some stiff criteria coming from ‘‘on high,’’ which I 

think would be more harmful than not. 

Well, this has been very helpful. Nicole, we thank you very, very 

much. I don’t have a question here for you. You laid it all out in 

your testimony, and made your case very, very well. 

Ms. FIOL. Thank you. 

Senator DODD. We admire you for doing this. And it’s very important. We’ve got to make a real effort here. When I was in the 

84 

Peace Corps, and the training program, of course, was done around 

Arecibo and Camp Crozier. 

Ms. FIOL. Right. 

Senator DODD. And we had our training programs in Puerto 

Rico, for those of us who were going to Latin America in those 

days, and it was very valuable, couldn’t have been more hospitable. 

And whenever I travel anywhere in Latin America, and if I’m 

speaking Spanish, I always point out, ‘‘If I make any grammatical 

mistakes, you have to blame Puerto Rico,’’ because you were the 

ones who taught me my Spanish along the way. And so, I thank 

you immensely. We all thank you for your service. We wish you the 

very, very best in your service to the country. 

And I can’t tell you how pleased I am that Chuck and Paula 

made this trip, not only the trip you made to come here, but the 

trip of 40 years, as volunteers a long time ago, and back at it again 

today. Very proud of both of you, and please extend our best wishes 

to the volunteers in Senegal. 

And we’ll pursue this legislation. It’s very important. And it’s a 

priority for me, here. And so, I look forward to working with my 

fellow committee members and, obviously, volunteers, the Peace 

Corps, Peace Corps Associations, in coming up with a final product, 

here. But I’m very grateful to all of you for your testimony today. 

The committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ