Remarks at a Meeting With the Headquarters Staff of the Peace Corps.

Sarge, Governor, Fowler:

I never thought I would get such a warm hand at the Chamber of Commerce, and I don't think I ever will again.

I wanted to come over here this morning to express my very great appreciation to you for all that you have done to make the Peace Corps such an important part of the life of America and, though I hate to use this word which we have inherited from other days, the image of America overseas.

I don't think it is altogether fair to say that I handed Sarge a lemon from which he made lemonade, but I do think that he was handed and you were handed one of the most sensitive and difficult assignments which any administrative group in Washington has been given, almost, in this century.

The concept of the Peace Corps was entirely new. It was subjected to a great deal of criticism at the beginning. If it had not been done with such great care and really, in a sense, loving and prideful care, it could have defeated a great purpose and could have set back the whole cause of public service internationally for a good many years. That it has turned out to be the success that it has been has been due to the tireless work of Sargent Shriver, and to all of you. You have brought to Government service a sense of morale and a sense of enthusiasm and, really, commitment which has been absent from too many governmental agencies for too many years.

So that while the Peace Corpsmen overseas have rendered unusual service, those of you who have worked to make this a success here in Washington I think have set an example for Government service which I hope will be infectious. Government service should be, in these days when so much depends upon the United States, the most prideful of all careers. To serve in the United States Government, to be a public employee, to be a bureaucrat in the critical sense--that should be the greatest source of satisfaction to any American.

I hope that when the times are written and when we have moved on to other work inevitably the sense of having worked for the Government during important days will be the greatest source of pride to all of us.

You remember, in the Second World War, Winston Churchill made one of his speeches--I think at Tripoli, when the 8th Army marched in there--and said, "they will say to you 'What did you do during the great war?' and you will be able to say I marched with the 8th Army!'" Well, they may ask you what you have done in the sixties for your country, and you will be able to say, "I served in the Peace Corps, I served in the United States Government," and I think that people will recognize that you have made your contribution.

There have been three Peace Corpsmen who have died already in the service of their country and in a larger sense in the service of peace and the service of all people, one in the Philippines, and two in Colombia. And I suppose through the hazards of fate, living as these young men and women do, and not all of them are young, on the horizon of experience that others will find themselves giving up their lives.

I can imagine if that must come, no cause--cause of peace--is more worthy of that kind of a great contribution. To be able to make a maximum effort to serve peace in a time of maximum danger, I would consider the most satisfactory of human experiences.

I am particularly pleased that the first enthusiasm for the Peace Corps has not given way to a sense of disillusionment. The fact is that we are getting more and better recruits than ever before. The standards have been maintained and at an increasingly higher pitch. This has not become a routine assignment as so many other experiences become. I hope this sense of participation in a new and important cause will be maintained over the years.

So I want you all to know that you--most of you are young in the service of the Government-that you have set a very high standard for the Government, that even those who have worked in other agencies for years, who have come here, have found themselves caught up in this tide, and therefore all of us are indebted to you. I hope that this spirit is maintained, and I hope all of you realize that this country, and countries far beyond, are most indebted to you, and that you are playing a part in an activity. and an adventure that goes far beyond the shores of the United States. We appreciate all that you are doing.

[At this point, Mr. Shriver stated that the President had indicated that he would answer questions from those who would like to ask them. He pointed out that the President had said that the questions did not have to deal with the Peace Corps exclusively, but could be on any subject including any aspect of foreign policy.]

[1.] Q. I wonder if the President may discuss briefly the relationship between the Peace Corps and present U.S. Foreign policy.

THE PRESIDENT. Well, to speak about only one area, I think that the United States, because the defense of the free world rests in the main upon the United States, the military defense, the emphasis has been continually, of course, upon alliances and upon the military strength of our country and our willingness to sustain our words with our deeds.

In addition, this inevitable requirement is subjected to continual attack by those who are opposed to us as a matter of propaganda, and as a matter of attack-that the United States is essentially militaristic, that the emphasis that has been placed upon the use of atomic weapons, all of this has presented the United States in many key parts of the world as a rather harsh, narrow-minded militaristic, materialistic society.

This, of course, has its adverse effects, particularly upon intellectuals, students, and others who have a--hold a power in a sense disproportionate to their numbers, if not their importance, but certainly far greater than their opposite numbers do in the United States. They are key groups who are the object of a concentrated Communist or Marxist assault in these areas of the world which hang on the razor's edge of decision.

The Peace Corps, it seems to me, gives us an opportunity to emphasize a very different part of our American character, and that which has really been the motivation for American foreign policy, or much of it, since Woodrow Wilson, and that is the idealistic sense of purpose which I think motivates us, which is very important and a real part of American character, and has motivated a good deal of our international policy in the private church groups, in the aid groups, and all the others. It is a part of American character and purpose and policy which is submerged frequently by the press, by political speeches, by the political dialog that goes on in this country. But the great efforts which have been made by American missionaries in so many parts of the world, the AID programs and all the rest, have their roots not only in the national self-interest of the United States, but also in this quality.

The Peace Corps, it seems to me, gives this particular side of American life a channel for expression and also gives us a chance to express it overseas.

I am not saying that we have enough teachers to teach all the people English who are today unable to speak it; that we have enough engineers to survey in Tanganyika every road; that we have enough people who are familiar with farming to teach farming to everyone who needs it. I know that foreign aid has been subjected to criticism recently, because they say there are not enough capital resources in the free world to materially affect the lives of all the millions of people who live on the edge of starvation. That may be true, but it does indicate a sense of hope, and it does indicate the Peace Corps, even though there may be only a thousand scattered thinly around through millions of people, it does give us a chance to call attention to a side of our life which is extremely important, and which is so frequently ignored.

This is unrelated, now, to your question, but another side of American life which is ignored is the cultural side of American life. More people play musical instruments probably in the United States than any other country in proportion to our population. More people go to concerts in the United States than, almost, go to ball games. The best chamber music in the world is played in the United States, in Vermont, in a small town. There are more boys orchestras and girls orchestras and choirs in this country than probably any place in the world. Yet it is a side of American life which is almost unnoticed.

When my brother came back from his trip, particularly to Japan and Indonesia, what struck him so remarkably was the impression of America which is half a century old, which is in many places unsatisfactory, which is held by so many of the students who will be the future leaders of these countries.

This side of American life--the Peace Corps, the great emphasis which has been placed in our country on the development of cultural assets--these are terribly important things when people are determining which represents the best hope for them.

So, in answer to your question, I think the Peace Corps, a vivid and obvious demonstration of this side of American life, is of great material help to the foreign policy of the United States, and therefore to the peace of the world.

[2.] Q. Mr. President, for some of us not quite so educated on the subject, I wonder if you could give us some of your understanding of this fluctuation of the stock market as related to our national economy?

Mr. Shriver: That question, obviously, is not very closely related to the Peace Corps. But Mr. President, would you like to talk about the market?

THE PRESIDENT. I suppose in a sense there is a relation, because so much of the strength of the United States and its foreign policy abroad is related to its domestic economy at home. I think as I stated the other day the market was selling at an average of about 23 times earnings. Some stocks were selling at 40 times earnings, which is an extremely high ratio when you consider it would only represent a sound investment if you were going to have a tremendous increase in the cost of living, or if you were having a tremendous inflationary pressure. As wholesale prices have been relatively stable, in fact the wholesale price index is almost the same as it was in 1958, you do not have a strong inflationary pressure, and in fact have not had it for a period of 3 or 4 years.

But nevertheless, a good many people thought we did have it. I think in my speech in New Haven on Monday, when I went into great detail about some of the differences between the realities and the myths of some of our economic life, I attempted to indicate what the effect was. I think because we had a deficit in fiscal 1962, it was assumed that automatically we would have an inflationary spiral. That has not been true. Inflationary pressures are not particularly strong in our economy at the present time. Therefore, you cannot justify, as I think the market has found, the selling at 23 to 1, or as I say in some cases, 40, 45, and 50 to 1, which represents, of course, an investment which most people would not regard as particularly stable at a time of stable prices.

The more basic question, of course, of the economy is whether we can maintain a forward thrust. We had a recession in 1958. We had a recession in 1960. We do not want to have a recession again.

So this represents a major challenge, of course, to all of us--members of the Chamber of Commerce, business, government, labor, all Americans. And what I have been attempting to suggest is that we should look at these problems in the sense of management of a complicated economy with a tremendous effect on what we do here and abroad, that we should think anew. We should, as Abraham Lincoln said, disenthrall ourselves, and it is to that effort that we have been attempting to carry on some dialog; and I hope, although I know Mr. Shriver does keep you busy reading, that you might have a chance to read my speech on Monday at New Haven at which I attempted to suggest some of the areas where we could usefully disenthrall ourselves, if we are going to be able to manage our economy.

[3.] Q. What are the chances of diverting moneys from our space program, not the military aspects, but in getting to the moon and projects like that?

THE PRESIDENT. Diverting money from those programs? Well, I support the program. I do not think the United States can afford to become second in space because I think that space has too many implications militarily, politically, psychologically, and all the rest.

I saw a survey taken the other day of young French students, asking which countries they regarded as ahead in various areas or which systems. About 67 or 68 percent regarded the Soviet Union as being first in science and technology.

I would not regard that as a very satisfactory statistic. I think the fact that the Soviet Union was ahead first in space in the fifties had a tremendous impact upon a good many people who were attempting to make a determination as to whether they could meet their economic problems without engaging in a Marxist form of government. I think the United States cannot permit the Soviet Union to become dominant in the sea of space. There are many military implications to it which are still yet unknown. And in addition, I think that the political and psychological effects are also serious.

The amount of money that we are putting in of course is substantial, but it also will bring with it a good many industrial benefits that we are only beginning to see. So I must say the decision made by the administration to make a more determined effort in space is not merely to take some man to the moon, but rather to have the capability.

As I said last year, the significance of Lindbergh's flight to Paris was not because he wanted to get to Paris but because rather it demonstrated a competence in the field of air travel which could have significance in after years.

So it is with space. Space may be the means of transportation. It has military implications and all the rest. So I must say I am completely committed to the concept that the United States must make a determined effort in the field of space, and no one can tell me that the United States cannot afford to do what the Soviet Union has done so successfully with a national income of less than half of ours.

[4.] Q. Would you care to comment, sir, on the prospects of the concept for a domestic Peace Corps?

THE PRESIDENT. Of course we have in a sense a good many areas of the Peace Corps as a formal organization. However, based upon the idea of service compensated by the National Government to work in various communities, juvenile delinquency and all the rest--is that what you are asking about?

Q. It was mentioned in a commencement address by Mrs. Shriver.

THE PRESIDENT. I saw that speech. I was interested in it. I thought the idea has merit, but she has not briefed me fully on exactly what her proposal is. One of the problems that I think we ought to be concerned about is Americans. I know juvenile delinquency is talked about all the time, but it is a major problem and it is going to become more serious. One-fourth of all the boys and girls under 20 now are unemployed. We are going to have 8 million school dropouts in this decade. We are moving into a period where the demand for unskilled labor is substantially decreasing, where the big demand is going to be for skilled labor. Now, you are going to have these millions of boys and girls, many of them members of minority groups, living in areas which are basically underprivileged, where the employment opportunities are limited, and you are going to have millions of them looking for work. Bad housing, bad social conditions, and all the rest I consider them to be major problems that this country is going to face in this decade. We face it right here in Washington, D.C.

Now, we have begun in New York City through the cooperation of the National Government and the city of New York. We have set aside an area in New York City, a geographic area where combined with the help of private foundations, the National Government, the city, and the State, a combined attack is going to be made in a small city area on juvenile problems. It is going to be done on the question of employment, education, recreation, employment counseling, motivation, and all the rest. We are going to try to see if by the expenditure of seed funds we can make an appreciable dent in the problem in that particular district.

In some of these areas, in Harlem and so on, you have 65, 70, 75 percent of the boys of school age who have dropped out of school unemployed. What is true there is also true, as I have said, in the District of Columbia. We have a very serious problem in that area in our own home town. So I think my sister Eunice and others are concerned in our zeal for sending Americans to serve overseas that we also concern ourselves with this problem here.

So I think the suggestion has merit. I think its organization and how it ought to be developed and what exactly its services ought to be should be very carefully examined. There may be an opportunity for great service on an organized basis here in our own country, and what role the Federal Government should play is one that has to be considered carefully. But I think that Mrs. Shriver's concern, and the concern of all of us, is that we meet our problem here, and particularly the problem that faces us in the area of young people who are adrift and who make a decision at 13, 14, or 15, or the decision is made for them, to drop out of school, and they never recover. They are the ones we ought to think about in the coming months and years.

So I think there is a great chance here and we ought to think about it very carefully.

[5-] Q. Mr. President, some of us have not been satisfied with the number of Negroes, Mexican Americans, and others who have presented themselves for consideration in the Peace Corps. I would suspect it is because of domestic concerns, preoccupation's, the kind of domestic cynicism. Do you have anything to say to those potential Peace Corps volunteers that might point out to them the desirability of service in the Peace Corps, or how they can face up to what appears to them to be a contradiction?

THE PRESIDENT. I think it is not only for the reason that you suggested, but also because again motivation, the desire to go away from the country or out of the country and serve is in a sense the result of motivations which, if I may use the word, are somewhat sophisticated. And it is quite natural that growing up surrounded by endless problems, as most of them do, that they would not be as concerned about the opportunity to serve abroad as they would be about the very difficult problems that they face in their own lives, in their families' lives, and in their neighborhood.

In addition, there is a denial of opportunity and therefore we have, for example, been working very hard in trying to get a Negro to go to the Coast Guard. We don't have any Negro in the Coast Guard Academy. Well, the demand for the opportunity for those Negroes who have sufficient educational ability and have had a sufficient chance to go to school--they can do many things. There are many demands for them. They can be lawyers; they can go to many schools. They don't want to particularly spend their lives in the Coast Guard. The same is true with the Peace Corps. The kinds of boys and girls who can pass the very exacting test for the Peace Corps have so many responsibilities thrust upon them in working in their own communities and in working for their people in their own way that they really feel that they cannot afford, in a sense, the diversion of going across the ocean.

We have to meet that in two ways. One, explain to them in serving overseas they are serving their own country and their people in the best sense of the word, and secondly, to give a good deal more attention ourselves to the problems of their own neighborhoods which I spoke about earlier. Mexicans and Puerto Ricans have a special skill in language and an inborn feeling about Latin culture and background and feelings that make them very valuable in the Peace Corps.

The same is true of Negroes in many areas of the world. So we hope to have them.

In addition, my own hope is that the Peace Corps men and women will also be encouraged enough to come and serve in the foreign Service; that this will be one of the great recruiting grounds for the foreign Service after they have gotten out of the Peace Corps; that this will not be a temporary experience for 2 years, but instead will bring them in and they will then come to us so that we will have them available. They are exactly the kind of people that we want to get into the foreign Service, that we need.

One of the problems we have had in the foreign Service, of course, is the inadequacy of the so-called minority groups at the higher levels. If we can get them started through the Peace Corps and then into the foreign Service, I think this country will be much stronger.

The question really goes not to how we can get them into the foreign Service, but how we can get them to play a much fuller part in all aspects of American life--Government and private.

I am going to have a press conference this afternoon, so perhaps I can answer one more question, and then we can all go back to work.

[6.] Q. Mr. President, why does not the United States offer to send some Government food to Red China? I understand that Red China has not offered much aid but I think it would be a very good idea for America to do this to change this, this image of America to--

THE PRESIDENT. The question was why don't we offer to send food to Red China. I have stated that we do meet, as you know, with the Chinese Communists in Warsaw at a-month intervals. There are two Americans that I know about quite intimately that are still imprisoned, ever since 1951, who took part in the Korean War in Red China, one called Downey from Wallingford, Conn., the other, Fecteau from Lowell, Mass., both very young men, 21 or 22, and they've been taken prisoner and they are still there, 10 years later. I think that the Chinese Communist regime has been extremely hostile to us in their propaganda, and so on. I think that there has been no indication that they want the food. There has been no indication that they desire it. They have never asked us for it, and they have never suggested that they wish us to discuss it with them. And I must say that I think that it is only proper, given the problems that we do have, that at least some indication come from them before we decide what we should do, rather than the United States making an offer that might be summarily refused, and without any indication or guarantees that the food would be distributed in a way that would meet our desires, which would be to help the Chinese people.

So I think we ought to stick with our policy which is to do nothing on the food until there is some indication that the Chinese Communists desire it, and then consider it on an independent basis at that time. Until that time comes, it does not seem that it is fruitful for us to go ahead.

I am glad to have a chance to discuss these. I am sure you have many suggestions and proposals, and that is the reason you are here, and I think it is rather useful to have a chance to come over here this morning.

I want to express again my thanks to you all. What we want here in the National Government, what we need are some new faces with new thoughts, and I am hopeful that those of you who are in the Peace Corps, as I said, will regard this as only the first step in governmental service. I can assure you that the next 10 or 20 years are going to be among the most critical and sensitive for the United States of any in our history. I cannot believe that there is any private career that will offer you half the rewards in the sense of doing a job that is important that Government service will do, so I hope that the experience that you will gain during your service in the Peace Corps in the next 18 months to 2 years will only be the beginning in a long journey in the service of our country. It is the most rewarding--not in the material sense but in a real sense. And the place to be in the 1960's, I believe, is in the service of our country, and it is for that reason that I want to thank you for beginning that voyage in 1962.

Thank you.