Z46 NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN o

TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE PEACE CORPS *

GOVERN MENi —......................

Storage

H E A R I N G

BE FO RE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELA TIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY -NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON T H E

NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN, OF VIRGINIA,

TO BE DIREC TOR OF THE PEACE CORPS

FEBRUARY 9, 1966

Printe d for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

59-105

U S. GO VE RN MEN T PR IN TIN G O FFIC E 

W A SH IN G TO N : 1966
J- ’ V J f

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

J . W . F U L B R IG H T , A rk an sa s. Cha irman

J O H N S P A R K M A N , A la bam a 

M I K E M A N S F IE L D , M o n ta n a 

W A Y N E M O R S E , Orego n 

R U S S E L L B. L O N G , Louis ia na 

A L B E R T G O R E , Ten ne ss ee 

F R A N K J . L A U S C H E , Ohio 

F R A N K C H U R C H , Id aho 

S T U A R T S Y M IN G T O N , M is so uri 

T H O M A S J. D O D D , C onnec ticut 

J O S E P H S. C L A R K , P en n sy lv an ia 

C L A IB O R N E P E L L , R ho de Is la nd 

E U G E N E J. M cC a r t h y , M in neso ta

B O U R K E B. H IC K E N L O O P E R , Io w a 

G E O R G E D . A IK E N , V er m ont 

F R A N K C A R L S O N , K an sa s 

J O H N J . W IL L IA M S , D el aw ar e 

K A R L E . M U N D T , S outh D akota 

C L IF F O R D P . C A S E , N ew J er se y

Car l M arc y, Chief of Sta ff

Art hu r M . Kuh l, Chief Clerk

I I

K S P iV O O Z i . i! V C '

c t . 'X G T >:a *w
NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN, OF VIRGINIA,

TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE PEACE CORPS

W EDNESD AY, FEB R U A R Y 9, 19 66

United States Senate,

Committee on F oreign Relations,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursu ant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (chairman) 

presiding.

Present: Senators Fulbright, Sparkman, Morse, Lausche, Clark, 

Pell, Hickenlooper, Aiken, Carlson, and Williams of Delaware.

The Chairman. The Committee on Foreign Relations is meeting 

this morning to consider the nomination of M r. Jack Hood Vaughn 

to be Director of the Peace Corps.

Mr. Vaughn is presently th e Assistant Secretary of State for In terAmerican Affairs. Prior to tha t he was the American Ambassador 

to Panama. He has also had experience with the Peace Corps.

Mr. Vaughn, will you come forward, please, sir?

I am sorry there has been a delay, but you were here yesterday 

and know the deep interest tha t the committee took in Mr. Gordon’s 

nomination. We just couldn’t help the delay. We are very pleased 

to have you.

Do you have a statement you would like to make first, Mr. Vaughn?

STATEMENT OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN, NOMINEE, TO BE DIRECTOR, 

PEACE CORPS

Mr. Vaughn. I do have two or three points I would like 

Mr. Chairman.

D E V E L O P M E N T U N D E R A L L IA N C E FO R PR O G R E S I^AR

8966 jH

In the past year I have been struck by the great abundance of Latin 

American experts tha t I have met, at least until trying 

comes around.

I have been struck by the fact t ha t good news seems to be n£

I was surprised really in coming to the Alliance for Progress to find 

and see at first hand the really revolutionary and enormous progress 

which is being made. Much of this is apparently not either noteworthy or newsworthy. But I was personally very gratified to work 

with such a distinguished group of men, both in Latin America and 

here, and to see the progress tha t they were making.

We suffered, I know, from being at the operative, you might say, 

phase of the Alliance for Progress. In the early part, when we were 

in the “whereas” phase, it was full of great hope and spirit and
2 NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN

charisma—whereas we would join together to try to carry out a revolutionary program of accelerated progress in many fields.

But when 1 joined the Alliance we were at the “therefore” phase— 

now therefore, we will work harder and we will make reforms and we 

will make the tough decisions. This is, has been, very gritty business 

with less spirit but, in my opinion, a great deal more progress.

I would like to comment on what I consider to be, Mr. Chairman, 

the new dimension of our dealings with Latin America, a new dimension that stems directly from the Alliance for Progress. When we 

undertook this commitment, I think, we lost some of our own sovereignty and some of our own flexibility and even maneuverability in 

terms of our decisions. When we signed the charter of Punta del 

Este with our Latin American friends, we agreed to do certain things 

together. We agreed to do certain things as peoples—to create new 

institutions, multilateral institutions and multilateral arrangements 

and multilateral organizations. The objective of all this was to help 

the people of Latin America.

If you review the scene today, you see th at almost half of the Latin 

American nations are not what we would consider to be constitutional 

democracies. There are varying degrees of authoritarian regimes in 

this spectrum, and yet we are working with all these people.

I think we have to work with them. We made a commitment to 

work with them, to build the institutions, to train the people, to 

develop the leaders, so t hat real democracy can take place.

I was really very unhappy at Senator Morse’s comment tha t when 

the chips of democracy are down in Latin America we walk away. 

Unhappy because I don’t think it is true, and I don’t think the facts 

will bear that out.

I am not suggesting that we pin badges on military leaders, as we 

have done in the past. But at the same time, I don’t think tha t if, 

by some accident, one ambitious colonel comes on the scene that we 

should throw our badge in the dust and walk away.

1 i liink our commitment in the Pun ta del Este Charter is with and 

for i He people. I think we must realize our objectives are long range, 

and. therefore, we are going to suffer through a lot of unsatisfactory 

political arrangements until such time as we can achieve the broad 

base of education and the broad base of sophistication and the 

understanding which permit a constitutional democracy to work.

D O M IN IC A N R E P U B L IC N O T READY FO R DE MOC RA CY

I, as you know, have been in a sense the Dominican Republic desk 

officer for the past 10 months, and I perhaps have a different reading 

of the situation than some of my friends and critics in this sense: I 

don't, think that the Dominican Republic and its people were ready 

for democracy. I am not sure they are today. But they did have a 

chance, and when they finally got rid of Trujillo, we made, on a relative basis perhaps, the most significant contribution tha t we have 

made to any Latin American country in terms of trying to help them 

build a society. Our input was really enormous, for there was nothing 

to work with. It was in a sense a nonsociety. It didn’t have the 

institutions or the training or the traditions or the trained people to 

run a modern society. We tried to help them develop the institu ­

tions, to create the minimum industries, to build the schools, to train
NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN 3

the leaders. We were going to develop a TVA kind of auth ority 

with them, we wanted to give the peasants land.

Being such a major effort and starting at such a low level, this took 

time to the point where we had finished the plans, done the blueprints, 

obligated the money, signed the contracts, and then just about this 

time, as I recall, when we had obligated some $65 million, Bosch was 

deposed. At tha t point, as you remember, we discontinued all our 

aid.

I think the chips were down for democracy at tha t time. I think 

the chips were down for the people, yet we pulled the rug o ut toinlly, 

except for the Peace Corps; the Peace Corps volunteers stayed.

I think tha t at this point the die was cast for what happened in 

April of last year. That is my own belief. I don’t think the Dominican people had a chance after this. They were wallowing in a. nonsociety, a leaderless society, and they never were able to get up any 

momentum, never were able to have any real hope. As I have worried 

about what has happened in the Dominican Republic, as you gentlemen have, and as I have tried to assess what brought this about, I 

have reached the firm conviction that the downfall came when Bosch 

left. I think it was probably a mistake to penalize the long-sufb-i ing 

Dominican people because of the accident of an inept President.

T H E A LLIA N C E FO R PR O G R ESS---- IN GO OD HANDS

Upon a more positive note, I would like to reassure you thai t tie 

Alliance for Progress is in good hands. 1 think with Lincoln Gordon 

at the helm it will continue to flourish.

I don’t feel, Mr. Chairman, obligated to rest my case on what has 

happened in the last year in Latin America. But if I did rest it, 

J would like to rest it at least partly with my Latin American colleagues.

I think the best critics are those people who are working with us 

and for whom we are working, and I would be pleased to have «ny 

of you or any of my fellow citizens or your colleagues query the 

Latin American foreign ministers, the Latin American ambassadors 

to Washington, the President of the Inter-American Development 

Bank, the President of CIAP or any of the people to whom we have 

such a profound commitment to make the Alliance for Progress 

successful. J think they would tell you tha t they think that 1 and 

my colleagues are democratic and cooperative and tolerant and 

helpful to them in their effort to build a bette r society throughout 

Latin America.

PEA C E CORPS PRO M O TES U N D E R ST A N D IN G

One final word, Mr. Chairman. I have been in a sense away from 

the Peace Corps for a couple of years. I am really delighted at the 

prospect of coming back. The Peace Corps, in mv opinion, is one 

of those rare items which is better than most people thought, and in 

a sense better than most people think today.

I think its impact is more significant. We are in a situation of crisis 

in the world, of crisis of conscience or moral crisis, groping for peace, 

wondering if we can ever achieve it and if we can, how.

What are the instruments tha t can be effective? I think we have 

in the Peace Corps one of the few and one of the effective instruments
4 NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN

for bringing about real understanding and real communication and 

real empathy and tolerance. These are so lacking in the world today— 

even in Latin America.

I felt when I was Ambassador to Panama that the Peace Corps there 

was more significant and more helpful in terms of understanding between the United States and Panama than all of the rest of the U.S. 

effort combined. I would guess this is the case of many other countries around the world.

I am very proud to have been associated with the Peace Corps and 

very excited about the prospect of being associated with it again.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. I understand Congressman Ottinger wishes to say 

a word about Mr. Vaughn. I didn’t see you there when we started, 

Congressman Ottinger. If you were there, I apologize.

Would you care to make a statement now?

Representative Ottinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. OTTINGER, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 25TH DISTRICT

Representative Ottinger. Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for 

this opportunity to come over and warmly endorse the nomination 

of my good friend and colleague and former boss, Jack Vaughn, for 

this position. I would like your permission to submit my statement 

and speak to you informally.

The Chairman. Your statement will be included in the record.

Representative Ottinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I come here as a great admirer of yours, Mr. Chairman, both for 

your initiative in starting a real discussion of the vital issues tha t are 

involved in Vietnam and as well for your raising the questions tha t 

ought to have been raised with respect to our Dominican Republic 

adventure.

I came over and particularly wanted to be heard because I think 

I can shed some light for the committee on the nature of the man 

you will be questioning. I sat through a good part of the questioning 

of Ambassador Gordon and I think tha t this kind of questioning is 

good, it is healthy and it is very important tha t the Senate, the 

Congress as a whole, and the public should know the positions of the 

men who bear our most important responsibilities for foreign policy.

I have known J ack Vaughn from the beginning of his participation 

in the Peace Corps in 1961. I have worked with him. He was my 

Chief when I was Director of Programs for the West Coast of South 

America, and I think tha t in view of the questioning tha t is about 

to ensue and the hot seat tha t he is about to undertake perhaps I 

could shed a little light on his method of operation.

VAUGH N O PE R A T E S Q U IE T L Y , PE R SU A SIV E L Y

In am one who shares very strongly with Senator Clark and Senator 

Morse and, perhaps, some of the others like Senator M cCarthy on the 

committee, deep reservations about our past Latin American policy, 

deep reservations about the ideas put forward and the practices 

instituted by Secretary Mann, the feeling tha t somehow or other the 

only thing Latin Americans respect is brute stren gth. Strength is
NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN 5

important, but the manner of exercise of tha t streng th is also very 

important. The way to gain respect in Latin America is not to act 

like the bully in the schoolyard, and go around clipping everybody on 

the head because you are stronger than he is. I don’t think that is 

ever going to gain us any respect with the Latin American people and 

is going to get us into untold trouble.

Jack Vaughn entered the State Department after the Dominican 

crisis was already well underway.

He was in a position of being a part of the State Department organization, and if he were going to be effective he couldn’t very well act 

like a bull in the china shop and th at isn’t his way. It wasn’t his way 

in the Peace Corps.

A bull in the china shop tends to break a lot of china. A lot of 

pieces go flying around with a lot of blood being let. The blood you 

let may be your own, without any compensating constructive result.

Jack Vaughn’s way in the Peace Corps was one of quiet effectiveness. 

He and I at times had our disagreements with Mr. Shriver whom, 

we both highly respected. In the course of carrying out the policy 

in any agency there are times when the way you think things ought to 

be conducted are different from the ideas of the director. It was not 

Jack Vaughn’s way to make loud noises or to oppose violently the 

policies with which he disagreed. He had a different and very much 

more effective method of operation. In his own very quiet way, 

working within the organization, with an uncanny ability to gain the 

respect of everybody, including those with whom he disagreed, he 

would work things out in such a way t hat all of a sudden Mr. Shriver 

would find himself floating down the river in Mr. Vaughn’s boat, 

doing exactly what Jack Vaughn had intended tha t he should do and 

thought was sound policy, and Mr. Shriver was liking it. This is his 

method of operation.

He is a very quiet man but a very persuasive man. He is no t the 

man to sta rt disruption within the organization, to try and rally the 

public in direct opposition to the leadership of the agency. His 

method of operation is one of very effective, quiet persuasion. I 

think this has worked in the short tenure tha t he had as Assistant 

Secretary of State for Latin America. Without any noise or fanfare 

all of a sudden we found tha t the aid tap was turned on in a country 

like Peru, whereas it previously had been turned off, very improperly 

I think, because of the feud between the International Petroleum Co. 

and the Peruvian Government.

There was no great public conflict th at surrounded this b ut in the 

last few weeks we have seen that substantial aid commitments have 

been made again, and everybody seems to be happy about it. This 

is Jack Vaughn’s way of operation.

I think it quite unrealistic to expect tha t a man who joins the 

administration as an assistant secretary should publicly oppose the 

policies of his department and the administration with which he may 

disagree. To do so would destroy the effectiveness of his influence. 

I think Jack Vaughn did an effective job of steering our policy constructively. He can be expected to continue to do so as Director of 

the Peace Corps.

I would like to say a word to elaborate on my testimony with 

respect to the importance of this position. I think there are still too 

many people involved with the foreign affairs of our country and with
6 NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN

the administration and perhaps in Congress itself, who look at the 

Peace Corps as a kind of frivolous operation, as a minor operation 

within our overall foreign assistance commitment, who feel this is 

somehow or another an idealistic outlet for some of the do-gooders in 

our society.

I think it is far more important than that. A good index of its 

true value, I think, is the fact tha t one of the highest officials, a principal adviser to the President, Bill Moyers, who was Depu ty of the 

Peace Corps, looks upon this job to which Jack Vaughn is aspiring 

as “the Everest of his ambitions.”

PE A C E CORPS IM PO R TA N T IN ST R U M E N T OF FO R E IG N POLI CY

The Peace Corps is really the only arm of the U.S. Government 

today t hat is making meaningful contact with the peoples of the underdeveloped world. It is the only organization tha t is really identifying itself with the aspirations of the people rather than with the 

aspirations of the Government, and I think it is exceedingly important 

in this respect. It is the one arm of our foreign policy tha t is really 

apolitical, was able to stay in the Dominican Republic through its 

crisis, tha t was able to stay in Panama through its upheaval.

In my view, the future of these Latin American countries, African 

countries, Asian countries, is not tied up with what the governments 

at any one time, and very frequently they are unpopular governments, 

may have to say about ns, whether they vote with ns in the United 

Nations, whether they happen to make anti-Commnnist noises or 

pro-American noises.

The future of these countries is tied op with the ability of the 

hundreds of millions of people tha t live in the horrible slums which 

surround the capital cities and in the countryside to achieve recognizable progress under a free society. We measure our poverty here in 

terms of thousands of dollars of family income per year. They 

measure it in tens or hundreds of dollars. If they don’t feel progress 

which affects their lives directly, the chances are great tha t they will 

turn to communism, regardless of the positions of their governments.

The only force within our Government tha t is really reaching these 

people and helping these people to feel tha t kind of progress is the 

Peace Corps, tha t is actually out in the peasant communities and 

living with the peoples in the slums in the capital cities. Indeed, I 

think the success of the Peace Corps teaches a lot of lessons on how 

to work effectively on an antipoverty program and much could be 

learned with respect to our own antipoverty endeavors from the 

community development efforts of the Peace Corps, its volunteers 

actually getting into the communities with which they are working 

and identifying with the people. Progress has always come in building 

blocks from the ground up, as I think it has happened historically 

throughout the world. It does not come from, the top down as is 

the emphasis on our AID programs. Too much of our poverty 

endeavors emanate from, outside of the communities affected and 

operate principally to build local government bureaucracies.

I think the Peace Corps is a tremendously important part of our 

foreign programs, that our emphasis in future foreign aid ought to 

be not only, as you have emphasized, Mr. Chairman, through international organizations, but as well should be much more on the building block approach, working with the communities of the slums and
NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN 7

with the peasants in the countryside; trying to build from the bottom 

up; apolitical, rath er than concentrating on the short-term political 

gains of trying to get these people to identify with us to vote with 

us in the United Nations; emphasizing frugality, as the Peace Corps 

has; having the people who represent us abroad get out with the 

people, be identified with the popular movements in the country, be 

identified even with some movements with which American business 

interests abroad may not be particularly sympathetic. I think this 

is the direction in which an increased effort on the part of the U.S. 

foreign policy ought to be directed.

I think there is really no more important area of our endeavor, 

and I think tha t Jack Vaughn will prove to be an enormously effective man as Director of the Peace Corps. He will not be the flamboyant leader. He will not be somebody who is in the news all the 

time. He will be the man who gets the things done tha t ought to 

be done, and I think you will find great satisfaction with him. I 

strongly urge tha t you consent to his nomination.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Ottinger follows:)

Testimony of Hon. Richard L. Ottinger, of New York, Relative to the

Nomination of J ack H. Vaughn as Director of the Peace Corps

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful and delighted at the opportunity you have afforded 

me to testify in behalf of the nomination of Jack Hood Vaughn for Director of 

the Peace Corps. I warmly endorse his nomination.

While I know it is usual to speak primarily of a nominee’s qualifications at 

these hearings, I should like to concentrate first on the importance of the position, 

for I think it has been underrated both in Congress and by the public.

The Peace Corps too often still today is viewed as a mere idealistic outlet to 

absorb the energies of the starry-eyed do-gooders of our society. While under the 

brilliant leadership of Sargent Shriver it has earned universal praise from the 

complete spectrum of our society— from its most conservative to its most liberal 

elements— its weight and importance is still not generally recognized. One has 

but to ponder tha t one of the President’s highest aids, Bill Moyers, aspired to this 

post as the “ Everest” of his amibtions, to come to second thoughts about its 

significance.

In my view, the Peace Corps demonstrates an approach to success in our endeavors with the developing countries, where all other approaches have to a 

greater or lesser degree failed. I think I will meet little argument that the future 

of the world and of our role in the world lies largely with these developing nations 

of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The Peace Corps has proved the validity of working from the bottom up rather 

than from the top down in these countries. It has demonstrated the success 

potential of community development techniques of having our people live with 

the people they are assisting in the slums that surround all of the major cities of 

these countries and in the countryside in the rural peasant villages. It has 

demonstrated the importance and practicality of stimulated self-help^—and the 

economy of such programs. It has shown that work in primitive societies does 

not necessarily require top technical background— that the average citizen of this 

country can play a meaningful role in the development of a country where infant 

mortality is over 50 percent and the people dont know the significance of feces 

disposal, water impurities, or sound diet. It has proved the feasibility and efficacy 

of intensive language and cultural preparation of our foreign cadres, of having 

them live within the communities they serve rather than in isolated American 

ghettos, of having them receive compensation comparable to their host counterparts and play roles not as superior advisers but as coequals.

The future expansion of our foreign assistance endeavors should be along lines 

demonstrated successful by the Peace Corps, and no more appropriate person 

could be found than Jack Hood Vaughn to preside over this extension.

5 9 -1 0 5— 66------ 2
8 NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN

Indeed, by standards of experience, knowledge, ability, personality, character, 

and temperament, no equal could be conjured.

Jack Vaughn is a close personal friend and became so when he was my boss at 

the Peace Corps. He was regional director for Latin America and I, Director 

of Programs for the west coast of South America under him, virtually from the 

start of the Peace Corps.

I therefore am able to speak of him from a vantage point of an associate as well 

as a friend, and as a person intimately familiar with the Peace Corps operation 

he is to head, for I was the second staff member brought on board by Mr. Shriver 

to formulate the concept of a Peace Corps early in 1961. I can also speak of him 

from a personal familiarity with his knowledge of Latin America and the respect 

Latins hold for him.

What an unusual combination of experience. Jack Vaughn has served in virtually all of our oversea agencies— the State Department as Assistant Secretary 

of State for Latin America and before that as Ambassador to Panama; our 

foreign aid agency as mission director in Senegal; he started his Government 

career in the early days of USIA in Bolivia and Costa Rica; and, of course, he 

served as a regional director of the Peace Corps itself.

The geographic diversity of his foreign experience has been broad, bringing 

him in direct contact with two of the three continents of the world with which 

the Peace Corps deals— Africa and Latin America— and with incomparable 

breadth and depth where the greatest Peace Corps concentration of act ivity lies, 

in Latin America.

Jack Vaughn’s rise to responsibility has been meteoric and hard won. He 

came up the hard way, by his bootstraps. It ’s a real American success story 

worthy of Horatio Alger— how a Golden Gloves fighter from Columbus, Mont., 

going under the inauspicious pseudonym of “Johnny Hood” made good. He 

graduated from the University of Michigan in 1943 and volunteered for the 

Marine Corps where his talents earned him promotion from private to captain 

in just 3 years. He got a master’s degree from Michigan when he got out and 

taught there and at the University of Pennsylvania. In 1949 he offered his 

services to USIA and from there had the spectacular span of Government service 

and rise of personal success previously recounted.

In the Peace Corps, Jack Vaughn built the Latin American program from insignificance to the dominant program. He was a man who was universally respected in a highly competitive organization and whose advice and counsel were 

sought by all. As a boss, he encouraged his associates to innovate and inspired 

from them an indescribable devotion which led to uncanny productivity . This 

human quality no doubt played an important part in his continuing series of 

successes and his warm following among his associates and the foreign peoples 

with whom he worked. He was immensely popular and respected both as Ambassador to Panama and previously as IC A mission chief in Senegal as well as at 

his other posts. The universal acclaim he received from all Latin capitals during 

his recent trip as Assistant Secretary of State is well known and recognized as a 

major contribution to our Latin American relations.

It gives me great pleasure to give this nomination my unqualified praise and to 

urge upon you and the committee the confirmation of a most unusually well 

qualified man for this job of great national and international importance.

The Chairman. Thank you, Congressman Ottinger.

Mr. Vaughn, how long were you in the Peace Corps before?

Mr. Vaughn. I joined the Peace Corps, Mr. Chairman, in October 

of 1961 and left in April of 1964.

The Chairman. What was your particular responsibility?

Mr. Vaughn. I was regional director for Latin America, sir.

V O LU N T EE R S R ETU RN TO PE A C E CO RPS H EAD Q UARTE RS

The Chairman. In response to an inquiry recently, I am told tha t 

there are 254 former Peace Corps volunteers in the headquarters of 

the Peace Corps here in Washington; is tha t correct?

Mr. Vaughn. I am not sure of the figure.

The Chairman. I received a letter from Sargent Shriver which 

says:
NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN 9

Another 156 volunteers are working in local or Sta te government offices; 600 

volunteers are working for the Federal Government, including 254 here at the 

Peace Corps.

Mr. Vaughn. I see.

The Chairman. How many are here in the Peace Corps headquarters altogether?

Mr. Vaughn. About 680 today, sir, in headquarters—as of December 31, about 1,100 here and overseas.

The Chairman. It approaches 50 percent, at least 40 percent of 

the total. What do you think of tha t?

Mr. Vaughn. I like that very much. I have recruited, Mr. Chairman, both for overseas staff and Washington staff. I think th at their 

presence and their realism and energy and knowledge of what the 

Peace Corps is and should be is very, very helpful to some of the older 

tired bureaucrats like myself.

The Chairman. Originally, if my memory serves me right, it was 

contemplated tha t a Peace Corps volunteer would serve 2 years. 

Is tha t correct?

Mr. Vaughn. That includes training.

The Chairman. I had assumed tha t after tha t they would re turn 

to what we call private or normal occupations in the civilian life of 

our Government, and of our country. Is that correct?

Mr. Vaughn. I don’t think tha t assumption was ever made, 

Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. It was not?

Mr. Vaughn. No, not to my knowledge.

O B JE C T IV E S OF T H E PE A C E CORPS

The Chairman. I wonder if you could try to state as succinctly 

as possible what you believe the objective of the Peace Corps is.

Mr. Vaughn. I don’t believe tha t the objectives of the Peace 

Corps have changed in the minds of those who have gone abroad as 

volunteers and those who have been on the staff or have changed 

since the beginning. Our legislation and the purposes for which the 

Congress gives the Peace Corps money are three:

The first is to provide trained manpower on request around the 

world.

The second objective is to permit foreign nations, the people of 

foreign nations, to know us, our people, our best people.

Third, and the reverse of th at, is to permit good Americans to know 

foreign nations and foreigners better.

I feel tha t in many cases there is another, not an objective, but 

another happening winch has to do with social change and even economic development. Volunteers who just happen to be in the right 

situation at the right time can really influence the building of an 

institution or increase the standard of living. But tha t is not a 

stated objective, Mr. Chairman, of the Peace Corps.

The Chairman. I wasn’t so much interested in the legislative 

state ment of its objective. I thought perhaps in view of your experience in it you had a fairly well-developed concept as to what 

the Peace Corps’ objective is.

Mr. Vaughn. Yes; I do have.

The Chairman. Your personal objective?
10 NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN

Mr. Vaughn. My personal belief is that the Peace Corps has lived 

up i<> its name.

The Chairman. You don’t think it has brought peace, do you?

Mr. Vaughn. Well-----

'I'tie C hairman. Just what do you mean by this?

Mr. Vaughn. I mean this: First of all, I think you must agree or 

we must agree as to what the impediments to peace are today. At 

leas i part of the impediments is a lack of understanding between 

peoples and governments, and a lack of communication among 

peoples, governments, and cultures. This impediment can be removed by volunteers as well as by any other group or institutions of 

people of which I know. I think they do bring understanding. I 

think thev do bring real communication, and in many cases, Mr. 

Ch airman, to areas that have never even been touched before, where 

people have never seen a North American, much less lived and worked 

with a North American. I think tha t there are obviously other 

pieces, other ingredients, to peace, but certainly understanding and 

better communication are two of the badly needed elements.

SL IG H T E X PA N S IO N P L A N N E D

The Chairman. Does the Peace Corps plan expansion this year? 

Is there any increase of any substantial nature of the budget planned 

for this year’s operation, or in the coming year?

Mr. Vaughn. No, there is not, Mr. Chairman. There is a — -

The Chairman. What is the level?

Mr. Vaughn. The fiscal year 1966 level is about $109.5 million. 

The proposed budget for fiscal year 1967 is $110.5 million. I think 

I am correct. But there is a slight planned expansion of total number 

of volunteers as well as the number of countries in which volunteers 

will be serving at this time next year.

D IS T R IB U T IO N OF V O L U N TE ER S

The Chairman. How many Peace Corps people are in the field now?

Mr. Vaughn. Approximately 11,000.

The Chairman. In how many countries?

M r. Vaughn. In 46. I am hoping to add four or five countries 

to this total in the coming year.

I he C hairman. Which countries have the largest number of Peace 

Corps representatives? The three largest, say.

Mr. Vaughn. The first three are India, Brazil, and Nigeria.

The Chairman. What about the Philippines?

Mr. Vaughn. The Philippines is next.

rhe Chairman. Tt used to be the largest, didn’t it, the last time we 

inquired into it?

Mr. Vaughn. Yes; in 1962.

The Chairman. How many do you have in India?

Mr. Vaughn. 716.

The Chairman. How many in Colombia?

Mr. Vaughn. Approximately 500.

I'he Chairman. What I was trying to find out is if there is a high 

concentration, or if they are distributed rather evenly among these 

46 countries?

Mr. Vaughn. No; definitely not evenly.
NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN 1.1

The big Peace Corps countries are those tha t I have mentioned, 

plus—we have to define what “large” is here. Over 300 volunteers 

per country are the ones I have mentioned, plus Peru, plus Turkey, 

and others.

Peace Corps programs with over 300 volunteers as o f Ja n. 31, 1966

In dia ____________________________716

Bra zil_______________ ,__________ 646

Nig eria________________ 638

Ph ilip pin es_____________________ 624

Ma lay sia _______________________ 603

Tu rkey _________________________ 597

Et hi op ia_________________________585

Colom bia_______________________ 509

Per u___________________________ 415

Tan za ni a________________________ 395

Ch ile____________________________ 377

Liberia__________________________ 377

Tha ilan d_______________________ 312

The Chairman. Is it true, 1 believe i t used to be, tha t approximately 50 percent of them are teaching schools?

Mr. Vaughn. Yes. And in Africa, of course, the percentage is 

considerably higher, where the large preponderance of volunteers in 

Africa are teachers and have been from the beginning. This is not 

the case in Latin America, for example. It has been the case in the 

Philippines.

The Chairman. Senator Morse?

A L LE G ED SU PPO R T O F TY RA N N Y IN L A T IN A M ERIC A

Senator Morse. Mr. Vaughn, I have taken note of your views on 

my views on Latin America, and I want you to understand tha t I 

know nothing that could possibly concern me less than your views on 

any of my views or on any other subject. I want you to know that 

as far as I am concerned I shall vote against your nomination because, 

in my opinion, your w’ork as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin 

American Affairs disqualifies you for any appointment and I shall 

rote against this appointment.

When you talk about my views in regard to walking out on freedom 

when the chips are down, I want to say to those of you in the State 

Department who advised our President on December 10, 1963, to 

recognize tha t shocking, tyrannical, military junta in the Dominican 

Republic tha t you were advising him to walk out on freedom; and 

when on December 14 he recognized that Dominican tyranny, he 

walked out on freedom; and the policy of our Government in recognizing a military jun ta in Honduras was a walkout on freedom; and when 

we recently tlirew our support behind the new military dictatorship hi 

Brazil, I think we walked out on freedom again in Latin America; 

and when some years ago we pinned a medal on a tyra nt in Venezuela, 

we walked out on freedom, and Latin America recognized it; and when 

we recognized and worked with that tyrant in the Dominican Republic 

by the name of Trujillo, we were walking out on freedom; and when 

we proceeded also to give support to the tyr ant hi Cuba by the name 

of Batista we walked out on freedom; and I shall always be proud to 

point out tha t from the very beginning I opposed any cooperation 

with Castro because he was another tyrant. Thus we can go on 

and outline the sorry record of our Government time and time agahi 

in supporting tyranny in Latin America. The reason why we have 

a lot of troubles in Latin America is because too often we do support 

tyranny in Latin America.

So we are so far apart t hat I am delighted to agree to disagree with 

with you. I think tha t there is no question about the fact that you
12 NOMINATIO N OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN

and Mann and Rusk have given bad advice to our President and, 

therefore, I couldn’t possibly vote for you for this nomination, and 

I shall not.

Senator Hickenlooper?

C O M M EN D A TIO N O F W IT N E SS

Senator Hickenlooper. Ambassador Vaughn, in the fairly recent 

past and before that, I have followed to some extent your activities, 

especially in Latin America, and contrary to my friend, the Senator 

from Oregon, I think you have rendered great service in Latin America in the areas tha t you have served.

Mr. Vaughn. Thank you, sir.

Senator Hickenlooper. The expression of the people there during 

your period of service is quite a demonstration of your acceptance and 

appreciation of their problems and of your work in their behalf.

I don’t know—I don’t intend to comment on what the Senator 

from Oregon has said, because it probably would be out of place here. 

He is more than able to express his own views. I don’t know just how 

much advice you have given or how much of it has been received, 

but I do have a feeling tha t your record has been excellent, especially 

in Latin America.

volunteers change old image united states has in panama

You are going into a new program here in the Peace Corps, and I 

would like to ask you how much association you have had with the 

Peace Corps in your Latin American experience as ambassador and 

in other capacities there?

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

When I was ambassador in Panama, I was especially eager to 

increase the numbers of Peace Corns volunteers there, feeling tha t the 

principal problem in Panama in terms of our relations was this lack of 

communication and lack of understanding. We had a very special 

kind of arrangement there which didn’t lend itself to exchange of 

ideas and what you might call modern communications. Communication between the people living in the Canal Zone and the people of 

the Republic of Panama was rather old-fashioned. I think that it 

was obvious tha t this needed correction, not only a change in our 

policy toward Panama, but the opportunity to communicate more 

fully between modern people on both sides. I think this proved to 

be correct. The presence of a couple of hundred Peace Corps volunteers in Panama was most beneficial.

Senator Hickenlooper. In what way was it beneficial, from the 

standpoint of any lasting impact which they may have made there. 

When I say ‘‘lasting impact” may I suggest that we have had thousands of missionaries all over the world who have attempted to carry 

technical and spiritual advice to people, bu t when a revolution breaks 

out the people seem to forget all they have ever learned. In many 

countries they have had a banquet on the missionaries, and I don’t 

say that facetiously either. When such emotions arise, it doesn’t 

seem tha t the missionaries have done a great deal of good.

What kind of a permanent impact do you think the Peace Corps 

may have made in some of these countries?

Mr. Vaughn. I should make one short remark beforehand.
NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN 13

I think in some cases where our foreign policy is bad, is wrong, is 

unjust, then other peoples may be justified in acting as if there had 

never been any communication before. But in terms of lasting impact, in the first place, Peace Corps volunteers are meeting Panamanians who have never had contact with North Americans.

Senator Hickenlooper. How are they meeting them?

Are they meeting them as teachers, or are they meeting them out 

in the bush, or in the jungle, or places where they are trying to grow 

crops?

Mr. Vaughn. They are meeting them in all forms. They are meeting them in the worst slum of Panama, called Hollywood. They are 

meeting them at the university. They are meeting them in normal 

and secondary schools. They are meeting them mostly in slums and 

in villages throughout the country.

Unfortunately, Senator, the Panamanians over the years have been 

in many cases given an impression of North America and North 

Americans which is linked to the old and the worst of the Panam a 

Canal Company. They are led to believe tha t all North Americans 

and today’s North Americans are like the people who lived in the zone 

50 years ago. That is the image we have to change.

Senator Hickenlooper. Do you think tha t our image has changed 

very much? Are the people more friendly to us now, do you think?

Mr. Vaughn. I do.

Senator Hickenlooper. Wha t is their attitude?

Mr. Vaughn. I do think they are more friendly toward us.

I think tha t when we changed the gold and silver dollar system and 

the discriminatory wage patte rn and made the many other changes 

tha t we made, I think these were significant changes. But to erase 

the old image held by the people who are not literate, who live in the 

interior of the country, I think it is most important that we have 

modern Americans, democratic Americans, in communication wfith 

these people.

Senator H ickenlooper. Yet we had quite a riot down there about 

a year and a half ago, didn’t we?

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Hickenlooper. It was one of the first real riots of tha t 

kind of bloodshed we have had over the years, wasn’t it?

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Hickenlooper. That didn’t seem to be on th e better side. 

It was w’orse.

Mr. Vaughn. I think it was a very clear danger signal to us as to 

what was wrong and what had been wrong for many years.

emphasis on teachers has increased

Senator Hickenlooper. It is my understanding that the original 

concept of the Peace Corps was tha t a lot of young people from 

this country would go out into the hinterlands of various backward 

countries which needed some kind of a stimulus, and work right 

with the people at the lowest echelon where they could maybe help 

them produce food and other products a little bit better.

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Hickenlooper. We seem to have changed that attitude 

now, and we are sending a lot of teachers. Didn’t I understand t ha t
14 NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN

about 50 percent of the volunteers are teachers and not actual workers 

in the boondocks.

Mr. Vaughn. Actually, if you include those who teach part time, 

you know, who in the evening teach literacy classes or English or teach 

on weekends, it is much higher than 50 percent.

But the fact is, Senator Hickenlooper, tha t they go to do what the 

host country and the host institutions want them to do, feel their most 

acute needs to be, and we have some 300 specialties tha t are being 

performed by volunteers.

We have many volunteers in Latin America teaching at the university level. In a sense this is fully as important as working in a 

slum, building latrines, or whatever may be necessary. So that I 

don’t think tha t tha t initial image of going only to the boondocks 

to do rural community development, as we call it, is the image today, 

and I am sure tha t it shouldn’t be.

The Peace Corps is much more diverse, and we try to be responsive 

to what host countries want, whether it is nursing or something rather 

more sophisticated than working in a peasant village.

Senator Hickenlooper. Well, I think probably that is what you 

are doing. I don’t say that it doesn’t have benefits, but it seems to 

me that it has diverged a great deal from the original concept upon 

which the Peace Corps was set up. Sanitation at the local levels, 

agricultural methods that would fit in with what might be considered 

crude agricultural methods that were not very productive, help along 

those lines; but it seems tha t at least half of our effort has been 

diverted and diluted from the original standpoint and we have devoted 

much time to countries tha t in many ways have much sophistication 

themselves.

Let’s take India, for instance.

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

D E V E L O PIN G C O U N TR IE S D O N ’T M A K E E F F IC IE N T U SE OF T H E IR PH . D .’s

Senator Hickenlooper. It is a vast country and it is very true 

that there is a tremendous amount of work tha t has to be done at the 

local level. Yet one of the complaints tha t one often hears about 

India is tha t they have too many Ph. D’s. who don’t have jobs in 

India. There are many educated people in India who don’t seem 

to be working at what they are proficient at, and yet we send people 

over as teachers when they have an awful lot of teachers in India, 

but, perhaps not enough.

Colombia is in many ways not an unsophisticated country, except in 

certain segments. There are certain areas and certain ethnic groups 

who may not be as sophisticated as others, but Colombia is a fairly 

well-developed country.

Mr. V aughn. One of the symptoms of being underdeveloped is 

having too many Ph. D.’s and too many lawyers. We find that 

throughout the developing countries, and we, by and large, don’t send 

Ph. D.’s and lawyers there.

We send people always to the local level to do the things-----

Senator Hickenlooper. I don’t think you send Ph. D.’s and lawyers, b ut a Ph. D. ought to be able to teach-----

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Hickenlooper. He ought to be able to teach the people of 

his country. I don’t know th at the Ph. D.’s do not necessarily teach,
NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN 15

but you hear frequent complaints tha t there are many educated 

people in these countries, and tha t the country really doesn’t use them 

in the capacity for which they are educated.

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Hickenlooper. We see in many of these countries people 

who are educated to be doctors and lawyers and go into higher education, and then go into politics or into something else. They don’t 

go into the line for which they prepared themselves for professional 

service, except insofar as politics might be considered professional 

service.

Mr. Vaughn. Another thing, Senator, when you look at these poor 

people in the developing countries, they are struggling for status so 

hard that they haven’t reached the point tha t we have. Many of our 

fine young people are struggling more for service, and opportunity and 

contribution instead of mere status, which the people of the backward 

countries feel they need so badly.

Senator Hickenlooper. You mentioned Nigeria in the group of 

those countries tha t get the most volunteers. We were told, and 

there seemed to be some supporting evidence in the last few years, 

tha t Nigeria was one of the showcases of nations emerging from 

colonialism which had some ability to take care of itself. 1 et they 

had quite a rumpus over there a few weeks ago.

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Hickenlooper. And they seemed to disrupt their supposedly ordinary government, and confusion ensued. I don’t blame 

it on the Peace Corps, nor do I credit the Peace Corps with it—th at 

isn’t the point.

IS D E V E L O PM E N T LA ST IN G OR T EM PO R A R Y ?

Do you think the Peace Corps is worth $112 million a year in 

practical, permanent, affirmative progressive development?

Mr. Vaughn. Yes; indeed I do.

Senator Hickenlooper. 1 anticipated tha t you would say tha t 

but I thought I would ask the question.

Mr. Vaughn. I think it is the biggest bargain that the U.S. taxpayer has in our foreign activities, by far.

Senator Hickenlooper. I have some doubts about tha t myself; 

but I have voted for the Peace Corps each time, and probably will 

vote for it again. But I have yet to be convinced of the monumental 

advances tha t the Peace Corps is going to bring to these backward 

countries.

Mr. Vaughn. We don’t claim monumental advances at all.

Senator Hickenlooper. I think the connotation was obvious 

tha t if we would send the Peace Corps to these countries, they would 

spring almost full-blown from a very primitive situation into the 

modern world. I am not so sure they have done th at, and I am not 

convinced that the progress has been very great.

Mr. Vaughn. T am convinced that it has on a relative basis, 

Senator. In one of your favorite countries, Bolivia, I have noted 

really enormous progress in a large number of villages where the 

volunteers have been working. That can be traced almost directly 

to them, as far as innovation and really great and broad progress goes.

Senator Hickenlooper. Can’t you trace some of tha t progress
16 NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN

to the technical cooperation program and other programs of tha t 

nature?

Mr. Vaughn. Surely.

Senator Hickenlooper. The situation is rath er troublesome. I 

could be more enthusiastic if I didn’t get so many reports of sort of a 

neutral development in these countries. I frankly haven’t been able 

to recognize any substantial or material evidence of affirmative results 

as a direct result of the Peace Corps. I don’t think it has been negative—I don’t mean to say that—but I think other agencies have done 

a great deal toward whatever progress has been made. And I keep 

returning to the proposition that we have had over the years literally 

hundreds of thousands of missionaries in these countries who brought 

medical information, agricultural information, and technical information to these people—and usually the missionary gets right down into 

the worst part of the country involved—and yet, for some reason, 

when the pressure gets on and the emergency occurs, it seems tha t 

they revert back and forget all of the things that they have learned.

Mr. Vaughn. I think tha t you have to recognize the basic difference. The Peace Corps volunteer is proselytising for progress and 

not for some special religious belief. He is there to help build institutions and develop self-reliance and democratic action. These are 

quite apart from the objectives of the average missionary, as worthy 

as they may be.

Senator Hickenlooper. Well, time won’t permit a long argument 

on this score—and I might lose the argument anyway if I got into too 

detailed a one with you—but I don’t quite agree with you on tha t 

point. I think the missionaries of various faiths and groups have 

not only tried to carry their own spiritual concepts, bu t they have 

also tried to carry the practical human and physical development that 

has to go along with the spiriitual development; and I think they 

have done great work in a lot of places. But the unfortunate thing 

is, as I say, when emotion strikes, and when an emergency strikes, 

tha t progress doesn’t stick very long. The progress is land of veneer 

on the outside, and I am concerned as to whether the results of Peace 

Corps are not in the same category.

I think tha t is all, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Senator Lausche?

Senator L ausche. Mr. Chairman, I was attending the Commerce 

Committee meeting and, therefore, did not come here at 10 o’clock. 

Not having heard Mr. Vaughn’s testimony, I will yield to Senator 

Clark at this time.

Senator Clark. Thank you, Senator Lausche.

Mr. Vaughn, I would like to endorse the comments made about 

you by Congressman Ottinger. I think you were a first-class Ambassador to Panama, and the work you did with the Peace Corps was 

outstanding. We can’t hit every ball over the fence.

Nevertheless, I think in your present position you have been substantially more sinned against than sinning. As I commented the 

other day, one of the obligations of a subordinate is to carry out the 

orders of his boss. I will leave it with tha t comment, and turn to a 

question which you may not be able to answer in open session.

Feel free to say you can’t if tha t is the case.
NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN 17

POLIC Y IN DO MINICA N REP UBLI C

When are we going to get those generals out of the Dominican 

Republic?

Mr. Vaughn. I feel, Senator Clark, tha t there is a belief and 

agreement among all of the members of the foreign ministers meeting 

of the OAS, of the members of the special ad hoc committee of which 

Ambassador Bunker is our representative, of the rest of the staff there 

tha t these generals are going to have to leave.

Senator Clark. You are familiar with the old Spanish phrase, 

hasta manana. It is taking a long time.

Mr. Vaughn. I am also familiar with the phrase adios muchachos.

Senator Clark. Very good.

Mr. Vaughn. This is the one I hope we are going to be shouting 

the next few days and I fully believe this, Senator Clark.

Senator Clark. You believe the commitment will be kept to get 

them out?

Mr. Vaughn. Yes, sir.

Senator Clark. What has happened to Tony Everett?

Mr. Vaughn. He is still on the island, and I understand still 

active behind the scenes as you would expect.

Senator Clark. Isn’t he pretty much on the side of the military?

Mr. Vaughn. Yes; he is.

Senator Clark. He is not playing any part whatever in the present 

Godoy government, is he?

Mr. Vaughn. No; he is not.

Senator Clark. In fact he is acting pretty much as a private 

citizen.

Mr. Vaughn. He is.

Senator Clark. You know why there is v ast disillusionment with 

our policy in the Dominican Republic—I don’t think it is fruitful to 

go into tha t any further. You and I have discussed it both on and 

off the record. I am interested in your comment that you think that the Alliance 

is in good hands. I hope it is, too—I have great hopes for Ambassador 

Gordon. At the risk of being redundant, I would like to say again—and 

perhaps Ambassador Gordon will read this record—that I do hope 

we pay more attention to our friends down there. I do hope we will 

do something more effective about this unfortunate Peruvian situation 

with respect to suspending aid there in order to put some pressure on 

the Government of Peru to come to an understanding with the Sta ndard Oil Co. subsidiary down there. I think th at does a vast amount of 

harm.

You know my views so I don’t need to reiterate them here.

There are a couple of questions about your new job I would like to 

ask you.

TR AIN IN G OF LOCAL OPP OSI TE S TO VOLU NTE ER S

First, are you doing, in your judgment, as much as needs to be done 

in terms of training what I would call local opposite numbers to 

Peace Corps volunteers—in other words, attem pting not only in 

Latin America but more particularly in a place like India to find qualified local individuals who will be able to pick up the torch and carry 

it on, rather than leaving it almost entirely to our boys and girls.
18 NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN

Mr. Vaughn. My feeling, Senator Clark, is tha t we are not doing 

nearly enough. At the outset we had, as a general yardstick, to try 

to have a counterpart, as we call them, or counterparts, with each 

volunteer, in some cases assigned by the Government, in other cases 

assigned by the agency and sometimes picked out by the volunteer 

himself.

This really has not worked to our satisfaction, and I am sure tha t 

in many, many instances we can do more in trying to make sure tha t 

each one trains one or two or three so th at there is something more 

substantial, more specific left behind him when the volunteer departs. 

I think we could do a good deal more in this field.

Senator Clark. Senator Hickenlooper raised a point which interested me, too, in connection with India where, of course, the need is 

enormous. There does seem to be an awful lot of educated people 

there who are a little reluctant to go to work in the villages in various 

programs which the Peace Corps and our other aid missions are supporting.

Do you have any views about how we could make the program 

more effective with Indian assistance?

Mr. Vaughn. No, I don’t.

I have worried about this attitude on the part of the people who 

have arrived, so to speak, in newly developed countries. The magnet, the pull to work, to live in the capital city is so strong. This is 

where the power is. This is where the 20th century is. This is 

where the good jobs are, and the status. This is where their wives 

want them to live. After they have come in from the back country, 

and have tasted this, and feel tha t they are modern people, it is 

awfully hard to get them back on the farm. As an interim measure, 

I think, Peace Corps volunteers are going to have to be doing what 

the local people should be doing, if they were just aware of what the 

problems are and could go back.

Senator Clark. This is just one of the very difficult problems th at 

confront us all over the world and to which there are no easy answers.

But you do agree tha t our policy should be to get the maximum 

amount of local participation and to train local people wherever we 

can to pick up the program.

Mr. Vaughn. I think we are kidding ourselves if we don’t do th at.

Senator Clark. I guess you know Frank Mankiewicz?

Mr. Vaughn. He is one of my good friends.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES CHANGES

Senator Clark. Would you concur with this statement he made 

with respect to the Latin American program? I quote:

The ultimate aim of comm unity development is nothing less tha n a complete 

change, reversal—or a revolution if you wish—in the social and economic pattern s of th e coun tries to which we are accredited.

Do you agree with tha t as an objective?

Mr. \ aughn. This is what the Charter of Punta del Este says 

and to the extent that is consonant I certainly do.

Senator Clark. Would tha t objective be part of your endeavor in your new job?

Mr. Vaughn. To promote fast revolution, yes.

Senator Clark. Fast, peaceful democratic----- Mr. Vaughn. Yes.
NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN 19

Senator Clark (continuing). And social as well as economic—and 

political, democratic revolution?

Mr. Vaughn. I think we have to do much better than we have 

done before.

Senator Lausche. Will you yield?

Senator Clark. I will yield.

Senator Lausche. Do you believe your function is to stimulate 

political revolution?

Mr. Vaughn. No; we are talking about one central theme, Senator, 

which is a theme tha t was agreed to in the Charter of Punta del Este. 

Tha t theme is reform, land reform, tax reform, administrative reform, 

education reform, social reform, and bette r distribution of the wealth. 

All of this spells, certainly in a relative sense, spells revolution. It is 

radically different from what has existed in Latin America and other 

undeveloped countries in the world for so many years.

Senator Lausche. Doesn’t the tota lity of which you have just 

described mean tha t you consider your function to be the stimulation 

of a political revolution?

Mr. Vaughn. No, sir.

Senator Lausche. Doesn’t it all come within the definition of 

politics?

Mr. Vaughn. I don’t think so. I am not talking about politics 

at all.

Senator Clark. Would the Senator yield back?

I read the quote and I got Mr. Vaughn’s response with my thought 

tha t the word “revolution” is like our American Revolution, like the 

revolution represented by the New Deal, by the policies of Franklin 

Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John Kennedy and Lyndon 

Johnson—the kind of a revolution which will make a Communist 

coup impossible because we arranged to have the people of these 

countries participate in their own government and have an opportunity 

to advance their own social and economic affairs.

Is tha t more or less what you think?

Mr. Vaughn. Exactly, and in tha t sense I am a real revolutionary.

Senator Clark. Good for you, Mr. Vaughn.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Morse (presiding). Senator Aiken?

PE A C E CORPS PU B L IC R E L A T IO N S a . .

Senator Aiken. Mr. \ aughn, as an original supporter of vhe Peace 

Corps, I would like to say tha t the members of this com m it ^ have 

received more unsolicited correspondence from the Dire ctoS c^ pie 

Peace Corps than from the head of any other agency in Govenrat^iW, 

This correspondence from the Peace Corps public relations department 

seems to fall into two categories: One classification calls attention to 

the significant statements which have been made praising the Peace 

Corps, and the second group purports to give the facts concerning 

certain criticisms which have been made of the Peace Corps.

I am just wondering how many persons in the Peace Corps are 

engaged in this kind of activity—either setting forth the virtues or 

denying unjust allegations—how many do you have in your public 

relations department?

Mr. Vaughn. I don’t know, sir. I can find that out for you. It 

is a very small staff.

i)
20 NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN

Peace Corps congressional liaison and public info rmatio n employees

as of Ja n. 31, 1966

Office of Public Affairs Professional Clerical

Congressional liaison__________________ __________ _________ ______ 1 2

Division of Public Inform ation_______________________ . 14 5

Senator’Aiken. You don’t have any estimate of how much unsolicited correspondence with Members of Congress costs the agency, 

do you?

Mr. Vaughn. No, I don’t.

Senator Aiken. Is it possible t hat this activity exceeds the normal 

function of keeping Congress informed and borders on propagandizing 

the Members of the Congress? This is the question which has been 

raised.

Mr. Vaughn. I would hope not, Senator Aiken. I realize that you 

get many different opinions as to what fully keeping someone informed 

might be. The best way to keep Congress informed, I think, on the 

Peace Corps and on foreign aid is for them to visit personally the 

activity, the volunteers in this case.

Senator Aiken. Yes.

Mr. Vaughn. But tha t isn’t always possible and I would hope to 

be able to keep you informed, perhaps n ot in the same way you have 

cited, but to your satisfaction, and fully as to what some of our 

successes and some of our problems are.

Senator Aiken. Yes.

I will say over the years I have had almost no complaint on the 

operations of the Peace Corps members in the field, and I wouldn’t 

have known tha t there had been a complaint except from the denials 

put forth once in a while by the Peace Corps agency itself.

It seems to me tha t if you tell us when you make some mistakes, 

or when you suggest tha t you can do things bette r—and I know it 

is very hard for people in Government, particularly some people 

in Government, to admit when they are off the right track—you 

have to be of pretty good stature to admit mistakes.

Mr. Vaughn. I have had tha t feeling myself.

Senator Aiken. I wanted to ask you, are you familiar with the release of biographical information which the Public Information Department of the Peace Corps gave out on you on January 17, 1966?

Mr. Vaughn. No; I haven’t seen it.

Senator Aiken. I think it is just as well you didn’t. You might 

get quite conceited. I am interested in reading it. This was issued 

on Janu ary 17 and describes you as the new Director of the Peace 

Corps. This is F ebruary 9, so we can’t say tha t they were backward 

in coming forward with your virtues.

Mr. Vaughn. I am sorry for that. I was not aware of it.

Senator Aiken. If you haven’t read it I jus t want to tell you how 

they described you, at least by inference, as a person possessing 

superior intellect, notable compassion, immense virtues, indomitable 

courage, international understanding, and exceptional administrative ability. If you don’t look out you are going to lose this writer to 

some other part of the Government. [Laughter.]

Mr. Vaughn. Sort of international Boy Scout?
NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN 21

Senator Aiken. I know you don’t believe anyone is that good. 

[Laughter.]

You might find it worth reading.

Mr. Vaughn. All right.

SC OP E OF PE AC E CO RPS IN LA TI N AM ER ICA AND SO UT HE AS T ASIA

Senator Aiken. Well, what is the Peace Corps doing in the Dominican Republic now?

Mr. Vaughn. They haven’t changed their thrust which was in 

the rural area.

Senator Aiken. Yes.

Mr. Vaughn. The scope there is as broad as any Latin American 

country. They have been working in everything from well drilling to 

co-ops to secondary education, but the main emphasis is today and 

has been on rural community development, working with small 

villages. There have been some really exciting small accomplishments 

there, and they have had a very tough time, really emotionally, and 

in many ways, and they have stuck it out and done well.

Senator Aiken. Is the Peace Corps doing any work in southeast 

Asia outside the Philippines?

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Aiken. In Korea?

Mr. Vaughn. No.

We plan to go in Korea this summer or fall. There are two other 

programs in this area, one in Malaysia and the other in Thailand. 

Both, from recent reports, are doing quite well.

Senator Aiken. As I understand it the Peace Corps was quite 

successful in Indonesia until it was invited to leave.

Mr. Vaughn. Yes, sir.

Senator Aiken. It worked with the people there without interference or danger?

Mr. Vaughn. This became about as difficult as any Peace Corps 

country for a while just before the volunteers left.

Senator Aiken. This has been, as I understand it—and I do understand something of your work in Latin America—on the whole 

quite successful, in spite of the mistakes which were made in individual 

circumstances.

Mr. Vaughn. I think so And speaking of mistakes, Senator. 

Looking back over the last 5 years, I don’t recall any real volunteer 

mistakes. I know a lot of staff mistakes, unrealistic planning and 

unrealistic programing, insufficient staff, unqualified staff at times, 

but I would never fault the volunteers tha t I have seen for making 

mistakes. We have had some on the staff side.

Senator Aiken. Well, in spite of my feeling that no such person 

exists as is described in this biographical release on you under date of 

Janu ary 17, I expect to approve your appointment.

Senator Morse. The Senator from Ohio.

DR ES S AND AP PE ARANCE OF PE ACE CO RPS VOLU NT EE RS

Senator Lausche Mr. Vaughn, several weeks ago I read an 

article about the head of one country threatening to drive the Peace 

Corps workers out unless they observed greater care in the type of 

dress that they had. What country was that?
22 NOMINAT ION OF JAC K HOOD VA UG HN

Mr. Vaughn. I believe this was in Malawi.

Senator Lausche. How many Peace Corps workers did you have 

there?

Mr. Vaughn. There are, I think, about 240 there at the present 

time.

Senator Lausche. Who was the head of the Government that 

made that statem ent?

Mr. Vaughn. His name is Dr. Hastings Banda.

Senator Lausche. Will you please tell the committee what was the 

basis of his threa t to drive the Peace Corps workers out unless they 

reformed their dress and their conduct?

Mr. Vaughn. My understanding of the situation, Senator, is tha t 

he felt tha t some Peace Corps volunteers dressed in too casual form. 

They being low level workers in communities, tended to wear levis, 

and khaki pants and T-shirts, and he felt tha t this, especially for 

teachers, was unbecoming attire. Given his background and his 

standards of dress, I can understand why he would feel this way, and 

certainly it is his privilege to set, to try to set, the standard for dress 

in his country.

The volunteers in Malawi who are teachers are now wearing ties.

Senator L ausche. Have you had any complaints about the oddity 

of dress of some of the Peace Corps workers?

Mr. Vaughn. I have made my own complaints. I have seen 

volunteers on occasion who I thought were not as neat in their dress 

and appearance as they should be.

Senator Lausche. Doesn’t it go beyond neatness, doesn’t it go 

really to the charge tha t there has been oddness of the greatest 

character. Don’t you have many of what you call the mustached 

people around? [Laughter.]

Senator Morse. Don’t you like mustaches? [Laughter.]

Senator Lausche. Yes.

Senator Morse. It would be attractive on you. [Laughter.]

Mr. Vaughn. Senator Morse, I can hit him from the left if you 

will hit him from the right.

Senator Morse. That is one thing Vaughn and I agree on. 

[Laughter.]

Senator Hickenlooper. 1 think it would be good to have a definition of what are mustached people.

Senator Lausche. I saw some of them in Afghanistan.

Mr. Vaughn. T think, Senator Lausche, this is the meanest thing 

you have ever said to me. [Laughter.]

I have, as I mentioned, seen individual cases of untrimmed beards. 

This kind of look hasn’t pleased me at all, and where 1 have been in 

charge I have corrected this very fast.

Senator Lausche. Then, you did give concern to this problem.

Mr. Vaughn. Yes; since so many of these volunteers live in the 

back woods and don’t have hot water and a lot of the facilities tha t 

would make neater grooming easy, occasionally there is a tendency to 

let down a bit on standards of dress.

Senator Lausche. What was done about the Malawi situation by 

you or by the Department?

Mr. Vaughn. I haven’t done anything. I haven’t been confirmed 

as Peace Corps Director as yet, and there are certain limitations to 

what I can do. But I have informed myself as to what the situation 

is and I think corrective action has been taken.
NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN 23

Senator L ausche. Corrective action has been taken?

Mr. Vaughn. Yes, sir.

Senator Hickenlooper. Would the Senator yield?

Senator L ausche. Yes.

Senator Hickenlooper. What kind of corrective action? Corrective action can take a wide spectrum.

Mr. Vaughn. Senator Hickenlooper, this has to do with dress and 

appearance, and the volunteers who were offending some or who were 

out of line have been told what the standards for dress appearances 

are to be.

Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you.

Senator Lausche. All right.

Getting back to the subject of promoting social revolution-----

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

volunteer’s political participation limited

Senator L ausche (continuing). Do you allow your Peace Corps 

workers actually to participate in the discussion and promotion of 

social revolution in the countries in which they serve?

Mr. Vaughn. We don’t allow them to participate in politics, political movements, political demonstrations, rallies. This is absolutely 

forbidden. In a sense, Senator, everything they are doing at the 

community level in trying to get the people to do something for 

themselves, to organize, is revolutionary in a social sense, but the 

volunteers don’t participate more than that.

Senator Lausche. Tha t is by deed if they are encouraging the 

expansion of school systems?

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Lausche. And constructive agricultural work?

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Lausche. And sanitary services?

Mr. Vaughn. And the creation of PTA’s.

Senator Lausche. Tha t is one thing.

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Lausche. But what I am trying to find out is, do you 

tolerate their going into a country and participating in the discussions of what is called social revolution?

Mr. Vaughn. I am not sure tha t I quite understand your question 

yet as to participation in discussion of social revolutions.

Senator Lausche. Expressions of discontent with the incumbent 

government?

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Lausche. About the economic situation?

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Lausche. You find some who are content with what is 

in existence, and others who are discontented.

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Lausche. Do you allow your Peace Corps workers to 

participate openly in the discussions urging the achievement of 

certain conditions politically in the government?

Mr. Vaughn. No, we do not.

Senator Lausche. How far do you allow them to go in openly 

participating in the promotion of what you call revolution?
24 NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN

Mr. Vaughn. We help train the people. We allow the volunteers 

to participate in the establishment of local institutions, of local civic, 

social, and even governmental institutions. This is the extent of it. 

We do not allow the volunteers to participate in politics, in the 

formal sense or the informal sense. We don’t allow them to promote, 

to join, or have anything to do with local political, as political, movements or institutions. We have made this clear on a number of 

occasions.

Just a few days ago Secretary Rusk sent out an instruction to all 

Peace Corps staff and ultimately to volunteers making very clear 

what the limits of their behavior and participation could be. Obviously then can discuss with friends political concepts, describe our 

political institutions, compare and contrast on an individual basis, 

but not in terms of getting mixed up or getting themselves involved 

in a local political situation. This is not in our ball park.

Senator Lausche. I do want to caution you tha t the semantics 

which you use are most dangerous, and cause dangerous inferences 

to be drawn about what is tolerated-----

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Lausche (continuing). By the supervisors of the activities 

of these workers in foreign countries. I do know tha t the word 

“revolution” in itself does no t imply violence or overthrow of governments, b ut there has been language used that is most dangerous.

I would like to read to you from the New Republic. This is the 

February 5, 1966, issue:

Promotion of social revolution abroad—assuming th at it is possible, which is 

yet unproved—raises enormous questions for American policy, and makes the 

Peace Corps too politically vulnerable.

Now, this is the New Republic speaking.

How do you interpret the basis of this statement by the New 

Republic—that the Peace Corps becomes politically vulnerable 

because of its promotion of social revolution?

Mr. Vaughn. I don’t know what interpretation to give to that.

Senator Lausche. Let me read it again.

Prom otion of social revolution abro ad------

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Lausche (continuing):

assuming th at it is possible, which is yet unproved—raises enormous questions 

for American policy and makes the Peace Corps too politically vulnerable.

Mr. Vaughn. I don’t think it does.

Senator Lausche. You don’t. Now then-----

nominee favors social reform, not violent change

Mr. Vaughn. I think especially—I realize this is just one p art of 

the world—tha t if you consider what is stated in the Charter of Punta 

del Este which contains the precepts of the Alliance for Progress, you 

will find tha t what it talks about is social reform and social revolution, 

economic reform and economic revolution. To be affiliated with this 

set of objectives, precepts, I think is most appropriate for the Peace 

Corps.

Senator L ausche. Now then, how do you believe th at you will be 

able to set the limits of what is supposed to be social reform—how
NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN 25

will you have the power to keep the revolution from reaching proportions far beyond what is in the best interests of our country?

Mr. Vaughn. I think in 5 years this has been very effectively 

handled.

Senator L ausche. All right.

Let me read to you further on this particular thought tha t I have 

just raised.

In many cases, th e results of community development may run directly counter 

to the objectives of State Department policy. Jack Vaughn has often said th at 

if the Peace Corps had sent 450 volunteers to the Dominican Republic in 1962, 

as it was asked to do when Trujillo was overthrown, the military adv enture of 

April 1965 m ight not have been necessary.

Did you make tha t type of statement?

Mr. Vaughn. Not in those words.

Senator Lausche. In substance?

Mr. Vaughn. I was quoting a Dominican citizen who said this.

Senator Lausche. All right.

Now then, the New Republic goes on further to say:

Th at might be true. If Vaughn is right, the Peace Corps approach to development will always result in nonviolent change.

Now, you do not contemplate violent change?

Mr. Vaughn. No, sir.

Senator Lausche. This is the significant part.

It seems logical, however, th at when revolutionary forces are pu t in motion, 

the forms they will take a re largely unpredictab le, and uncontrollable.

Give your answer to that, please.

Mr. Vaughn. I have never suggested tha t the Peace Corps was 

going to set revolutionary forces hi motion. What we are talking 

about, Senator, is getting people involved in local government, getting 

people involved and trained to participate effectively in local institu ­

tions, getting people to the point of being effective citizens. Really, 

this in most underdeveloped countries of the world is revolutionary 

because the people have never participated before. They never had 

the institutions to participate in. So I don’t think we are really 

talking about unleashing revolutionary movements. We are talking about building across the board in the villages, in the slums, and 

in the towns democratic action, forces of democratic action, so tha t 

the people can participate in their society and in their government.

I don’t think tha t the kind of language used in that article is 

especially appropriate to what the Peace Corps is doing.

COMPOSITION OF PEA CE CORPS

Senator Lausche. May I ask this: How many Peace Corps workers 

are there now?

Mr. Vaughn. Approximately 11,000.

Senator Lausche. And the annual cost is how much?

Mr. Vaughn. About $110 million.

Senator Lausche. And that is how much per Peace Corps worker? 

It was about $9,500 originally.

Mr. Vaughn. Yes; it is down below that now but-----

Senator Lausche. Approximately how much does it cost now for 

each worker?
26 NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN

Mr. Vaughn. In fiscal 1966 the average annual cost per volunteer 

is estimated at slightly under $8,000.

Senator Lausche. I am glad to hear that.

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Lausche. Originally—when this program was presented— 

it was argued tha t the Peace Corps workers would go into the undeveloped countries-----

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Lausche (continuing). Into the schools and teach and——

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Lausche (continuing). Advise how to develop projects 

that would improve the sanitation, help the farming, and help generally in direct teaching. Is that principle still adhered to?

Mr. Vaughn. That is just p art of the principle, Senator.

Senator Lausche. How many Peace Corps workers do you have in 

the Philippines?

Mr. Vaughn. I think something over 600. I am not sure.

Senator Lausche. What do they do there mainly; are they school 

teachers?

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Lausche. How many are school teachers?

Mr. Vaughn. I think most of them.

Senator L ausche. How much are the local school teachers paid 

in the Philippines?

Mr. Vaughn. I do not know.

Senator L ausche. All of them are teaching. Do they teach 

English or what?

Mr. Vaughn. They teach a variety of subjects.

Senator Lausche. All right.

Now, I believe on the whole, tha t the Peace Corps has demonstrated tha t it is doing good work. But I caution that you are 

running into dangerous ground when you feel that you are the missionaries to induce revolution.

Mr. Vaughn. Yes.

Senator Lausche. Because you don’t know what the ultimate 

will be in tha t revolution, if it comes. You are there to teach and 

to help and not to participate in political revolutions.

R U SK D E F IN E S PO LIT IC A L RO LE OF V O L U N TE ER S

Mr. Vaughn. Senator Lausche, and Mr. Chariman, I think on 

this point tha t it might be helpful to include in your record a very 

recent statement by Secretary Rusk to all volunteers and overseas 

staff as to what their role is to be in staying out of politics. This is 

a restatement in effect.

Senator Lausche. All right, put it in.

When was that statement issued?

Mr. Vaughn. February 3.

Senator Lausche. And wasn’t it because Rusk was getting alarmed 

about what was happening?

Mr. Vaughn. No; I don’t think so.

Senator Lausche. Why did he issue it?

Mr. Vaughn. He says this-----

Senator Lausche. Why did he issue it?
NOMINATION OF JACK HOOD VAUGHN 27

Mr. Vaughn. I have no idea.

Senator Lausche. You don’t know?

Mr. Vaughn. No.

Senator Lausche. Well, isn’t it odd that it was issued after 4 

years, and he puts a limitation upon what might be done?

Mr. Vaughn. No, he didn’t put a limitation on it and really it had 

been issued before. It is just a reaffirmation.

Senator Lausche. All right, that is all.

Thanks very much.

The Chairman. Without objection it will be put in the record.

To: All diplomatic and consular posts.

From : Secretary of State.

Subject: Peace Corps and political activities.

lte CA-11154 of April 9, 1963, or CA-10410 of March 25, 1963.

More t ha n 2 years have passed since I last issued general policy instructions on 

this subject. Our experience since t he n makes it desirable to reaffirm th at policy 

and to complimen t the Peace Corps on its handling of a potentially difficult 

problem.

The purpose of th e Peace Corps, as defined by Congress, is to “promote world 

peace and frie ndship” by helping host countries “in meeting their needs for trained 

manpower” and by prom oting “a bette r understanding of t he American people 

on t he part of th e peoples served and a better understanding of other peoples on 

the part of the American people.”

Presiden t Kennedy an d President Johnson have both determined th at the tw in 

goals of service and mutual und erstanding can best be served if th e Peace Corps 

is strictly nonpolitical. Thus, neither Peace Corps volunteers nor Peace Corps 

staff members are to be associated in an y way with any U.S. or foreign intelligence 

activities or with any other U.S. Government activities designed to obtain inform ation abo ut or to influence t he actio ns of host countries.

The nonpolitical natur e of the Peace Corps also requires th at volunteers and 

staff alike exercise res traint with respe ct to political matters. Thus, volunteers 

and staff m ust at all time s avoid any public or private involvement or association 

by word or act with political meetings, movements, or ideologies.

In the area of individual expression by Peace Corps personnel on political 

matters of any kind, such as the foreign policies of the United States or of any 

other nation, the nonpolitical role of the Peace Corps is more difficult to define. 

Canons of tact, good judgmen t, and commonsense apply. The general guideline 

is that, if th e Peace Corps is to carry out its mission with respect to its own twin 

goals of service and mutual understanding, it must not become embroiled in or 

identified with contentio us political issues. There is, of course, no objection to 

personal conversation which provides information abo ut or examines the issues 

in a particu lar problem.

This reaffirmation of basic policy does not arise from concern; qui te the contra ry, I have been deeply impressed by the personal conduct of the mem bers of the 

Peace Corps througho ut the world. I close with a salute to volunteers and staff for 

the ir superb record of service. I hope th at all of you find th e quiet satisfac tion 

which comes from an inspiring job well done.

The Chairman. Senator Sparkman?

Senator Sparkman. Mr. Vaughn, I am not going to take time to ask 

you any questions. I do want to say tha t I think tha t the Peace 

Corps has done a tremendous job throughout the world. I think you 

have a most challenging job, and I wish you well in it.

Mr. Vaughn. Thank you, sir.

The Chairman. Any further questions?

Senator Morse?

Senator Lausche. I don’t know whether I should say this----- -

The Chairman. When in doubt, don’t. [Laughter.]

Senator Lausche. Senator Morse and I agree for once.

The Chairman. Tha t is a great progress.

Senator Morse. Tha t was the basis of the friendly note to my 

friendly enemy.


W W W