ination of the structural condition of such west central portion, to make reports of findings, and to make recommendations with respect to such remedial measures as may be deemed necessary, including the feasibility of corrective measures in conjunction with extension of such west central portion." "

The motion was agreed to.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement. The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 33: On page 23, line 17, insert the following:

"PLANNING FOR RESTORATION OF OLD SENATE CHAMBER AND OLD SUPREME COURT CHAMBER IN THE CAPITOL

"To enable the Architect of the Capitol to prepare working drawings, specifications, and estimates of cost for restoration of the Old Senate Chamber on the principal floor of the Capitol and the Old Supreme Court Chamber on the ground floor of the Capitol substantially to the condition in which these chambers existed and were furnished when last occupied in 1859 and 1860, respectively, by the United States Senate and the United States Supreme Court, $37,500."

Mr. STEED. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. STEED moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 33 and concur therein.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STEED. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. I note in the report that it has been agreed to spend $4,500 for the illumination of the dome of the Capitol from midnight to dawn.

Does that mean illuminating it from the interior or exterior?

Mr. STEED. As the gentleman knows, under the present practice the dome on the outside is lighted from dusk until midnight and then only the statue on the top of the dome is lighted from midnight until dawn.

There has been some interest shown in the fact that the dome should be lighted throughout the night. This small earmarking of funds will enable the lights to stay on the entire dome all night long.

Now, we are told that while this is not only desirable from the esthetic point of view, it acts also as a desired navigation aid for aircraft in bad weather after midnight which come through this area. Since it does not add any cost to the total of the bill, we agreed with the Senate request that we go along with having the dome floodlighted all night long.

Mr. GROSS. This is not, then, a safety measure for lighting up this entire area because of crime in close proximity to the Capitol? It is not being done for that purpose?

Mr. STEED. I live up here on the Hill, and if it will help in adding safety in that regard, I am glad to have it.

Mr. GROSS. But that is $4,500 of the taxpayers' money that will be spent. I sympathize with the gentlemen living on Capitol Hill but I am not interested in spending that kind of money for electricity to light the dome simply for that

purpose.

Mr. STEED. That is not the purpose. The main purpose is to have the dome

illuminated all night long. It is perhaps the most popular symbol of our Government.

Mr. GROSS. I do not know how many people are going to be looking at the dome after midnight, but that is neither here nor there. I think we ought to take a second look at this $4,500 expenditure. You just do not pick $4,500 off the bushes around here. Personally, I do not see much point in illuminating the dome of the Capitol after midnight, and I hope the committee will take another look at this next year.

The motion was agreed to. Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STEED. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to amendment No. 37 which, of course, has been acted on: do the House and Senate have any authority to recommend the kind of books that may be purchased?

Mr. STEED. I would say we probably do. And there is a Joint Committee on Mr. STEED. We will consider it in the Library of the House and Senate its proper perspective next year.

The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma.

The motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the next amendment in disagreement. The Clerk read as follows:

Senate amendment No. 39: Page 33, line 9, add "together with $6,450,000 to be derived by transfer from the appropriation 'Acqui

sition of site and construction of annex.' Mr. STEED. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. STEED moves that the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate numbered 39 and concur therein.

Senate..

who are supposed to supervise the activities of the Library. That is one way that influence can be brought to bear.

Mr. HALEY. May I say to the gentleman from Oklahoma that in the purchase of these books I hope the gentleman from Oklahoma and the people who have the proper authority here will take into consideration in the purchase adding nine Holy Bibles to that collection so the Members of the U.S. Supreme Court may have the privilege of reading them.

Mr. STEED. Mr. Speaker, under leave to extend, I include a summary of the conference bill with appropriate comparisons.

Summary of legislative branch appropriation bill, 1964 (H.R. 6868)

Group

House of Representatives.
Joint offices and items..
Architect of the Capitol.
Botanic Garden...
Library of Congress..
Government Printing Office

Grand total..

dealt with in the conference report-to conference. 1 Many of the items were concurred in by the House on Nov. 8 just prior to sending the remaining amendments

2 By custom, House omits all items under the Senate heading and those items under the Architect of the Capitol pertaining solely to the Senate.

A motion to reconsider the votes by which action was taken on the several motions was laid on the table.

CALL OF THE HOUSE

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.

Johnson, Wis. Minshall Jones, Ala.

Karth
Kee
Kelly
Keogh
Kilburn
King, Calif.
Kluczynski
Laird
Landrum
Latta

Long, La.
MacGregor
Mailliard

Morrison Morse

O'Brien, Ill.

Pilcher

Powell

Quillen

Rains

Reid, N.Y.

Rivers, Alaska Rivers, S.C. Roberts, Ala.

Rodino Roybal

Selden

Shelley
Short
Sickles
Slack

Smith, Va.
Stubblefield
Talcott

Thompson, La.
Thompson, N.J.

Thornberry

Udall
Ullman
Utt

Wallhauser
Willis

The SPEAKER. On this rollcall 345 Members have answered to their names,

a quorum.

By unanimous consent, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with.

THE NEED FOR CONGRESSIONAL REFORM AND REORGANIZATION Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

There was no objection.

Mr. JOELSON. Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the Congress of the United States is operating under rules and procedures that are outmoded and ineffective. In some instances, they even are undemocratic.

How can we expect to pass effective laws to govern our Nation when we are failing in our responsibility to govern ourselves?

I have today introduced an act identical with one introduced in the Senate by Senator CLIFFORD CASE, who has been actively engaged in the struggle for congressional reform and reorganization.

This bill would provide for a commission which would study and make recommendations for improvement in our committee system, regulation of conflicts of interest, regulation of lobbying activities, congressional travel, and other related matters.

Unless we clean our own house, we will forfeit the confidence of the American people which is so vital.

It is high time that the Congress of a democracy shake off the cumbersome and often undemocratic rules and regulations under which we now labor.

AMENDING THE PEACE CORPS ACT Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 565 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that

the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 9009) to amend further the Peace Corps Act, as amended. After general debate, which

shall be confined to the bill and shall con

tinue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such

amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. ST. GEORGE], and, pending that, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 565 provides for consideration of H.R. 9009, a bill to amend further the Peace Corps Act, as amended. The resolution provides an open rule with 2 hours of gen

eral debate.

H.R. 9009 would authorize $102 million to operate the Peace Corps in fiscal year 1964. As the Peace Corps operation has expanded and the number of volunteers has increased, the portion of the Peace Corps costs devoted to administration has declined. If the level of funds requested is made available for fiscal 1964, it is estimated that only 19.9 percent, or

$20,300,000 will be used for administration and the remainder will go to support volunteers. In fiscal year 1963, 28 percent of the funds available were utilized for administration.

The annual cost per Peace Corps volunteer is $9,000—the figure estimated at the time the original presentation of Peace Corps financing was made to the Congress in April 1961. At that time this included volunteer costs of $6,300 and administrative expenses of $2,700. The current estimate for fiscal 1964 is $7,000 for volunteer costs and $2,000 for administrative expenses. The increase in volunteer costs is due to an extension of the training period to increase language proficiency.

The countries in which the Peace Corps is in operation have requested more volunteers, and additional countries are seeking Peace Corps assistance. The number of qualified applicants is larger than ever even though the standards have been raised, and there have been no incidents which have made the conduct of our foreign policy more difficult.

In the short period that has elapsed since its beginning, the Peace Corps has already made a significant contribution to the attainment of U.S. foreign policy objectives.

Mr. Speaker, during consideration of this bill before the Committee on Rules

I asked some questions with reference to administrative costs and to what extent we may be developing into a situation where, for example, we were getting too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Because of my inquiries and questions, I have done some additional research work and have been given some additional figures which would indicate this is not happening.

Actually, they are improving the efficiency of the operation from the standpoint of administrative costs. In comparing the average administrative cost to the number of people in the field I find the administrative cost to be substantially lower in the Peace Corps than in almost any other agency of Government.

The average grade of the Peace Corps domestic staff is GS-7.9. If you look through the 1965 budget, you will find that this is considerably below other agencies in the foreign or domestic field. To mention a few: USIA, 9.5; Foreign Agriculture Service, 9.3; House and Home Finance Agency headquarters, 9.0; Federal Trade Commission, 9.1; General Accounting Office, 8.2.

It is charged that the agency has become a "burgeoning bureaucracy." Nothing could be more inaccurate. The Peace Corps has only one administrative person for every eight volunteers. If Congress appropriates the money authorized in the bill-$102 million-the Peace Corps will have one administrative person for every 10 volunteers. No agency has ever come close to those figures. Remember during World War II it was said there were "35 people behind every man with a gun.” They have accomplished exactly the opposite already "eight men with a gun," so to speak, for every man behind him. This record has

been submitted to the church missionary groups, to industrial concerns which operate overseas like Standard Oil, and none of them come close to these figures. The danger, in fact, is not that they will become a burgeoning bureaucracy, but rather that they will provide too little mature leadership for our volunteers.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SISK. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. The Director of the Peace Corps, testifying before our committee, said they had only one administrative person for each seven volunteers.

Mr. SISK. As I recall, when it was discussed before the Committee on Rules yesterday, this was the figure that was cited in the report. At that time I raised the question with the chairman about some of the complaints that had been made. As a result I have done some checking. They tell me they are now operating with 1 administrative person to 8 volunteers, and with this new program they feel with increased efficiency they will be able to do it with 1 administrative person for 10 volunteers. The gentleman is on the committee and heard the testimony.

Mr. GROSS. One to seven is big, as far as I am concerned, altogether too many chiefs with two few Indians.

Mr. SISK. I think my good friend from Iowa will agree with me that if you look at most agencies of the Government and make a comparison, you will find that in the administrative field they are much heavier on administrative personnel as against the active people in the field than these figures would indicate. This, of course, is the basis on which I was making my statement.

Mr. Speaker, because of this very fine record I feel that this program is doing an outstanding job for America. I believe it is a program we should continue. It seems to me the request which is now made to increase the number of volunteers to 11,300, which was the exact number given to Congress in 1961 when the Corps was first proposed, would be a figure which we could live with and which should be adequate.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may require.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution makes in order the consideration of H.R. 9009, to amend further the Peace Corps Act, as amended. I can see no objection to this rule and I think the Rules Committee passed it out unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, the Peace Corps appears to have done a very fair job up to date. It is only 2 years old. Many of us who may have some doubts as to its efficacy still feel that it should be given a fair chance. Certainly 2 years is not long enough.

There is a question as to whether the very big leap forward in appropriations is altogether warranted. We go in this bill from $63,750,000 to $102 million. This may seem slightly excessive. However, I think the House can consider that in the general debate and can hear the pros and cons of this amount.

There is one section that I am a little bit dubious about, and I asked some

questions which to my mind were not satisfactorily answered. I refer to title III, "Encouragement of Voluntary Service Programs." Here it is stated in section 301, on page 5, line 19, of the bill, that

The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States and a further purpose of this act to encourage countries and areas to establish programs under which their citizens and nationals would volunteer to serve in order to help meet the needs of less developed countries or areas for trained manpower.

I am always a little dubious about this kind of a statement. We have become the "Meddlesome Mattie" of the world and although we seem to have very few women in the Congress of the United States, we seem to act like old women in regard to the care we take of other people's business. I doubt very much that this is necessary. I am quite certain from what I have read that the German

Government is doing an extremely good job right now in the underdeveloped countries. This situation also applies to Great Britain, Israel, and to many other countries. I think we might as well let them carry on their own programs without help from us.

On questioning it was revealed that some of these countries had asked for our assistance. I suspect that mostly this would be financial assistance, and I would not be at all sorry to see that particular section eliminated from the bill. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. That provision in the bill bothers some of us very much. The gentlewoman did not read all of it. In the first place, it encourages the organization of Peace Corps operations in foreign countries. I do not know that I quarrel with that so much, if that would take the load off us and obviate the need for the Peace Corps, at least reduce the Peace Corps now in existence. If you go on to page 6, you will find that $300,000 may be used to carry out the purposes of this provision. So this seems to be the foot in the door. Then it goes further on page 6 and says that none of the money can be spent for an international Peace Corps. At least that is what it purports to do. I do not know how you can say in one place that you can spend money, authorize $300,000; and then say there will be no expenditure for this purpose. I am at a loss to understand it. I hope the proponents of the bill, and I am not one of them, will explain this to the satisfaction of those who are not members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs as well as some of us who are members of that committee.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. If the gentleman will yield there, the gentleman may remember I said I suspected that most of the aid we would give to these foreign countries would not only be in the way of counsel, but that it would be mostly financial. That is my feeling at the present time. I do hope it will be cleared up during the course of the debate on

the bill.

Mr. GROSS. If the gentlewoman will yield further, I want to state that at the

proper time I expect to offer an amendproper time I expect to offer an amendment attempting to clarify this whole thing.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. I think this section of the bill does need some clarification.

Mr. Speaker, I think, as I said before, that there is no objection to the rule. I think the bill if it is amended in some portions will be as close to perfection as we can expect to get any bill. I do believe the Peace Corps has done a good job and a useful job and has improved, to use a very modern expression, the "image" of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. ROGERS].

Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of the regular order, to revise and extend my remarks, and to include extraneous

mittee findings in Washington earlier this year.

[From the Nov. 4, 1963, issue of Broadcasting]

THE MUTABLE LAW

Six months ago, those with hardy memories may recall, the A. C. Nielsen Co., along with other ratings services, was being vili

fied before a House subcommittee.

Last week the first national Nielsen ratings for the new television season were received with such reverence and fear that they might have been carried down a sacred mount by a man with a long white beard instead of delivered by a postman with a bent back and aching arches.

The Nielsen pocket piece shapes the fates of men and their works. It or something like it will exist as long as networks and their advertisers have no other means of discovering what is happening at the receiving end of their transmissions. The hope must remain, however, that the user of ratings will pause occasionally to question their divinity before he starts lopping off programs and, possibly, heads.

[From the Nov. 11, 1963, issue of
Broadcasting]

SOME OBSERVATIONS BY TV AND RADIO EDITOR
RICHARD K. DOAN, EXCERPTED FROM THE
SUNDAY HERALD TRIBUNE OF NOVEMBER 3,
1963

Television's rage for ratings is possibly

more feverish this fall than ever before. People in the business feel it, and can't particularly account for it.

The upshot*** has been a general blur

ring of any programing standards other than the gage of mass approval as reflected in ratings of individual shows, the shares of audience they pull against other shows on the air at the same time; and the competitive standings of the networks in terms of total homes reached.

The picture is distorted.

Mrs. ST. GEORGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CURTIS).

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, before the House is the question of whether a rule should be granted to the Committee on Foreign Affairs to debate this matter. I have always felt that the function of the Committee on Rules was primarily to determine whether the legislative committee had done the proper work on a measure so that it was ready for formal debate, so that the House itself could evaluate the pros and cons involved in the matter. I must confess I was shocked to find that there was only one witness, apparently, who was heard by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. If that constitutes an adequate preparation for this House to consider increasing a program and to double its size in the space of a year-one that has increased in similar proportions in previous years then I must confess I am in complete disagree

ratings this season.

anybody who had hoped that television programing might be less of a numbers game as a result of the shadow cast over the rating services by the House Commerce Com

This will come as a disappointment to

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CURTIS. I certainly do.

Mr. MORGAN. We looked, begged, and borrowed and could not find any more witnesses. No one was interested

in testifying on the bill except the execu

tive branch of the Government.

Mr. CURTIS. I was going to ask that question. Inasmuch as the gentleman made that statement, may I ask whether or not any of the private charitable

agencies who are in this kind of business and in the missionary programsand I happen to know many of them who are deeply concerned by this-were contacted about this? What efforts were made by the staff of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to find out whether people had knowledge that they wished to give on this subject in the discussions? I am going to go on and point out some things you might well have gone into, but will the gentleman give us that information?

Mr. MORGAN. Why, certainly. Mr. CURTIS. What happened? Mr. MORGAN. As far as the charitable organizations that communicated with us are concerned, they were in agreement with the Peace Corps 100 percent and did not feel it necessary to testify in front of the committee.

Mr. CURTIS. May I ask the gentleman, were letters sent to various groups and, if so, will you supply for the RECORD the names of the organizations you notified and asked whether they wanted to be heard and also the letter sent to them?

document a little of this within my own knowledge. The publicity the Peace Corps is getting for itself and the cost involved and we all in Congress are in this business, so we know the cost of publicizing things, because we all have to conduct political campaigns and are aware of the costs involved. The costs of this publicity are not just directed to the publicizing of the Peace Corps favorably, but a lot of it is apparently being spent being sure that unfavorable publicity does not see the light of day, or even constructive critical publicity.

I may direct attention to some specifics. The Peace Corps came before the Committee on Ways and Means at the time of its inception to ask for special privileges for its own people; the privilege that no other employee or group in the United States gets, in two instances: one, to average their income over the period of time for which they are paid a lump sum at the end of 2 years so that they could put it back into the year in which it is earned. No one can do that, because you have to pay your tax on your income when you get it; and the second tax privilege which was even more of an exception I thought, and an unwarranted one. During the time that they train in this country and the income they received, or whatever is in lieu of income, is not counted as income. And yet our Foreign Service people and people who go abroad Mr. MORGAN. Will the gentleman for our private enterprises have to pay yield?

Mr. MORGAN. No letters were sent. We do not go out and solicit witnesses.

Mr. CURTIS. I think it is about time, if I may suggest so, that our committees begin going out and soliciting witnesses and not just sit back and expect people to know when the committees are going to hold their hearings.

taxes during their training periods for

Mr. CURTIS. Let me finish this the moneys and allowances they receive thought first.

If we want to get the proper information so that Congress can legislate with intelligence on these programs, we have an obligation to do something about it rather than just sit back and say that there was nobody who was interested in it and that the only person who came in was Sargent Shriver.

I want to ask some questions. A year ago our subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations that had to do with the Peace Corps had a statement in there

and I think it was a unanimous report saying that the overhead costs of the Peace Corps, if I recall the figure, were 42 percent. Indeed, if they were 42 percent or anything like that, I suggest that a great deal of looking into is needed, because I can tell you those private missionary programs-and I am not just talking about religious missions but I am talking about medical missions and educational missions like the university at Beirut, for example, and sanitary missions certainly have no overhead costs of that nature. I might say, this being around Community Chest time, that one of the things we pride ourselves on when we go around soliciting funds for our private charities is that you can count on the fact that over 90 cents of each dollar you contribute is going to go to that charity and is not going into the overhead aspects of the operation.

I am very much interested in knowing about one thing the Peace Corps has been strong on, and the only thing I am sure they are strong on, which is publicityself-serving publicity. I have also noticed this, and I am going to go on and

just like everyone else.

I got into this matter before the Committee on Ways and Means in order to try to find out, as a member of the committee and for the benefit of the House, what the facts were. I took the floor of the House during that debate to point out this very important tax privilege we were granting to the Peace Corps personnel. There was not one smidgeon of that criticism, and it was constructive criticism against the Peace Corps, printed in the papers of the United States. I have made these points I am making here in speeches in my own community time and again. Somehow or other, anything that seems to be a little bit critical of the Peace Corps, when we try to understand what it really is, does not get publicity. So I suspect that not only is the taxpayers' money being spent to publicize this organization but some of it seems to go to see to it that no fair criticism of it is reported.

The people who are supporting this organization have had plenty of time, but there are very few people who are willing to take the floor and say anything against this holy cow that receives all of this favorable publicity. It is not It is not a pleasant thing to try to shed light on this subject, because I am deeply sympathetic with the objectives of the Peace Corps and the motivation of our young people in joining it. I think it is a wonderful thing. But let me say that this motivation has been going on in our society for hundreds of years. This is our missionary type of program, and I again emphasize not just not just religious missions.

Back in 1954 I authored an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code to increase the tax deduction by an additional 10 percent which would go to medical institutions, educational and religious institutions, and what I had in mind at the time and said at the time had to do with the right to channel our private funds into the real person-toperson programs, our private programs. This Peace Corps program is no personto-person program. Sargent Shriver himself testified that he gets the consent of the political government before he moves into that particular area with the Peace Corps. And this is as it should be, because it is a Government program.

When you go into a country that is run by a dictator, with consent of the dictator, it becomes a weapon in his hands to keep himself on the backs of the people, because a little community that will not bow under the heel of the dictator will not get the Peace Corps or any of the other foreign aid programs through their political government. But it is a different thing with our missionary programs; and again I emphasize not just religious missions, the sanitary missions, the educational missions. They go where they choose, because it is a private and a true person-to-person operation.

There is nothing in this committee report that gives us any indication of the balances between the private sector and the governmental sector in this fine missionary work, in this tremendous and wonderful field of trying to assist more unfortunate humanity outside of our shores. For the Congress to pass judgment of how much and what we should do in the governmental program, we need to know what its relation is to the private sector. If we go too far in our zeal to do good, we may actually be damaging the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, in my judgment if we got into these balances and if the committee would make these kinds of studies, which it has not done, I think we could come up with a little more realistic approach to this program.

As it is-and this is a matter of discussion on the rule, in my judgment the committee, regrettably, has not done the work necessary so that the Congress can pass any intelligent judgment upon this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the rule be voted down, and if we do further discuss it, which will not do any harm, then it might be recommitted and the Committee on Foreign Affairs may develop the necessary data so we can act intelligently on the matter.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CURTIS] has made some charges which I do not find substantiated by any record that I have been able to read.

Actually, it is my understanding that this legislation was introduced and has been pending before the Committee on Foreign Affairs now for many months. It is also my understanding that there were studies made of the matter. It is my understanding that no one was refused permission to appear and testify.

Mr. Speaker, I might say, with reference to the attitude of the various missionary organizations and other independent and private groups, there is consultation. I myself, in reading some of the reports which the Peace Corps has put out, find that they certainly indicate there is a rather broad checking and coordinating and discussion with these groups.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri infers that most of the publicity is self-serving. I would like to beg to differ with the gentleman on that statement. I doubt very seriously if the Peace Corps is in any position to bribe reporters and the press corps of this Nation.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SISK. If the gentleman will just let me finish this statement.

Mr. CURTIS. The gentleman used a very unfortunate word. No one suggests bribery.

Mr. SISK. If the gentleman will just withhold 1 moment until I finish my statement, the point I am trying to make is that the usual stories which we read about in the press of this country in regard to the Peace Corps, in my opinion, give a pretty good story of what is happening and what the attitude is.

Let me say to the gentleman from Missouri that I seemed to have touched a tender nerve with him. I am not charging that the gentleman himself has bribed anyone. I am simply saying the Peace Corps is not in a position to dictate to the press what the press prints about this program.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

some doubt as to whether it would be possible for several thousand men and women from the United States, most of them of college age, to live and work in the less-developed countries of the world without creating a lot of incidents which would result in unfavorable publicity and add to the problems of carrying out our foreign policy. Two years of operation have proved this fear to be groundless. The only case that has made headlines and stirred up sentiment in any foreign country was the case where the Peace Corps girl in Nigeria lost a postcard which she had written describing to a

today. On the cost of administering this program there is the figure of 19.9 percent for the administration of the proposed program. This program has never been heavy in administrative costs. In fact, that was the point I intended to make originally. In comparison with other agencies of Government, it has a much lower cost for its administrative operations than most agencies of the Government. Actually, the majority of the money is going into the field to assist the volunteers and back them up in doing a job in whatever country they may be. This is an important facet of the Peace friend in the United States the conditions Corps. which she found in Nigeria in a manner Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the which was accurate but which was disgentleman yield? pleasing to the people of that country. Mr. SISK. I yield to the gentleman This happened more than a year ago. from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. I wonder if it is just a coincidence that we got these copies of a booklet from the Peace Corps yesterday, the day before the bill comes up for consideration? Some Members have stated they received this propaganda in the mail this morning. I just wonder if this is purely by coincidence?

Mr. SISK. I cannot say about that. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, so that the House may be permitted to go into the Committee of the Whole for a full explanation of the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.

This incident, although widely publicized, did not interfere with the Peace Corps program in Nigeria where Peace Corps operations are going forward in a manner most satisfactory to all concerned.

Out of approximately 7,000 Peace Corps volunteers now overseas, only 21 have been sent home for misbehavior. The total number who have had to return to America for personal reasons is about 4 percent. There have been 64 who came home for medical reasons; 68 have been dropped because of their inability to adjust to work or living conditions overseas; 65 have come home for compassionate reasons, such as death of

Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I move the a parent or a family problem requiring previous question.

relations.

Mr. SISK. I agree with the gentleman on that.

Mr. CURTIS. It is not a question of bribery. It is limited to exactly what I said, the amount of money that is spent and is being spent to publicize the Peace Corps and its visits around to various countries. This costs a good bit of money.

There is no implication of bribery or anything of that nature. It is not meant in that sense. It is simply a question of how you do get the public information to the people and to the Congress about this particular program.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by citing the figures which the report sets out and which are the figures that we have before us

CLX-1362

The motion was agreed to.

IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill H.R. 9009, with Mr. NATCHER in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill. ing of the bill was dispensed with. By unanimous consent, the first read

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 9009 authorizes funds to finance the operation of the Peace Corps for fiscal year 1964 and also includes 16 amendments to the basic Peace Corps Act, none of which involves any major change in policy, organization, or operation.

I am glad to be able to report to the House that the Peace Corps has completed more than 2 years of successful operation. The bad things that many of us were afraid might happen have not happened, and the reaction to the Peace

Corps everywhere it is in operation is

favorable.

I suppose that 2 years ago, when the original Peace Corps legislation was under consideration, every one of us had

the return of the volunteer to the United States; 56 have been brought back for personal reasons, such as marriage or divorce while in service. This record is remarkably good. The percentage of people brought home is lower than for other branches of Government service or, according to the information available to us, than the records of corporations conducting large-scale oversea operations.

Let me emphasize again the fact that in none of these cases has there been any case which produced headlines or anti-American sentiment.

concerned with when the Peace Corps Another problem which all of us were began its operations and which has

failed to materialize was whether or not the countries would find the Peace Corps volunteers useful and would make them welcome. Here again the results have been most favorable.

We at present have Peace Corps volunteers located in 48 countries, and there is no case in which any country has asked to have the Peace Corps program terminated. The largest number in any one country has been the Philippines where the latest number reported was 628. Most of these are teachers. In every country where volunteers are now working, the country wants to have their number increased, and there are several additional countries who want to be included.

Let me say in passing that the program for fiscal 1964 provides for sending Peace Corps volunteers to only three additional countries: two in Latin America and one in Africa. The expansion which is desired will be in the direction