Peace Corpsman was there helping them drill water wells. This was the first trip that he ever made to his capital. And, what he wanted was just one volunteer. Mr. Chairman, the impact that these volunteers have made throughout the world has just been tremendous. This is the reason why we are now asking for a moderate increase in the number of volunteers, not the staff, so that the image of America can be further projected throughout the world with such credit to all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from Ohio [Mrs. FRANCES P. BOLTON] has brought out the fact that we are gradually reducing the number of employees in Puerto Rico. The training center has been reduced by 25 percent.

What we are trying to do and what the Peace Corps is trying to do is to reduce the number of staffing and increase the number of volunteers so that the benefitcost ratio to the U.S. taxpayer will reflect that we could not have a greater or better investment.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GALLAGHER. I am delighted to yield to the distinguished majority leader.

ance before them despite the three volumes received by every member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Three volumes that clearly set forth the record of the Peace Corps.

In paragraph 2 of the minority report, the impression is given that some sort of bureaucratic bungling forced a reduction in stated goals. Not so. Not so. Good administrators should set their sights as high as possible. Once you begin work, high as possible. Once you begin work, you adjust the program in the light of you adjust the program in the light of experience and reality.

Moreover, part of the reduction of the number of volunteers resulted from higher standards imposed by the Peace Corps. This is to its credit. Recognition of the need for higher standards is something we should applaud. proved recruiting techniques will help to overcome the losses which occurred when standards were raised.

Im

Paragraph 3 is just plain wrong. It

talks about 100 volunteers for secretarial and clerical duty abroad which the and clerical duty abroad which the Peace Corps can now take on.

The distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS] is well known as a staunch defender of the public purse. However, this paragraph of the minority However, this paragraph of the minority report if enacted would cost Uncle Sam money. In fact, it would prevent the saving of $250,000.

Mr. ALBERT. The gentleman is mak- money. ing a very fine statement.

In my opinion Sargent Shriver is a dedicated public servant and one of the finest administrators in the Government. Mr. Chairman, I heard Sargent Shriver say not long ago that he wanted to work these dedicated young men and women who have been volunteers into the administration of the Peace Corps and eliminate the "bureaucrats," as he calls himself.

I would like also to advise the House that the University of Oklahoma has trained and furnished some of the volunteers who have been sent to various places throughout the world. One girl went to Brazil and went high into the mountains to work among the Indians where the tuberculosis rate was extremely high. She herself contracted tuberculosis, but to this day has refused to come home and will not come home until she is ordered to do so by someone in higher authority.

Mr. GALLAGHER. I thank the majority leader.

Mr. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment.

Mr. Chairman, an enthusiastic supporter of the program from the beginning, I am more convinced than ever of the importance of the Peace Corps. Accordingly, I oppose the pending amend

ments.

Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BARRY. I gladly yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. DERWINSKI. I think it would help the House if the gentleman would tell us what amendment he is objecting to.

Mr. BARRY. With pleasure. I am objecting to both amendments. I alluded to paragraph 1 of the minority report where the minority claimed they did not have any evidence of perform

During the Peace Corps hearings I asked Mr. Shriver about the 100 clerical persons to be recruited. He stated that in Kuala Lumpur, for example, instead of having two American girls there who were paid secretaries, receiving from $5,000 to $6,000 a year, they would have two Peace Corps volunteers receiving the normal Peace Corps honorarium.

Then I asked Mr. Shriver what would be the estimated savings under this innovation. Mr. Shriver said, "If we do Mr. Shriver said, "If we do this, which I hope we can, we will probably save $250,000 of the taxpayers'

money."

Yet the minority report appears to be against the hiring of 100 secretaries as volunteers.

Paragraph 4 has already been answered.

The last paragraph has already been alluded to by the gentleman from New Jersey. I can think we should be enthusiastic about programs that serve America well. Toward the end of this paragraph, the language is somewhat lurid. The remarks of former Congresswoman Church concerning enthusiasm in the Peace Corps is a point it would be well to pay a great deal of attention to.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS] this: He mentioned members of the Peace Corps sent to Indonesia. Mr. Virgil M. Hancher, president of the State University of Iowa, of his beloved State, had this to say about the Peace Corps trainees. I quote:

Along with the trainees, they are learning-learning how to teach languages in the new method, how to teach new languages, how to teach area studies better, and how to adapt old and test new methods. project is deepening the international dimension of the State University of Iowa. This international dimension is being shared,

The

in various ways, with the people of the State, the eastern area in particular.

Experience is the best teacher, and the nations of the world will provide the platvolunteers' experiences in the developing form for their education of how things really

are.

Incidentally, the Peace Corps volunteers who are going to Indonesia are being trained at the State University of Iowa-a fact which should make the gentleman's chest swell with pride. At the University of Iowa, the Peace Corps volunteer will learn the language, politics, customs, culture, and traditions of the host country.

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

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

Mr. GROSS. I can argue with President Hancher as quickly as I can argue with the gentleman.

Mr. BARRY. Apparently the gentleman in his own State is not supported insofar as his views of the Peace Corps are concerned.

In conclusion, I should like to refer to a statement of Sargent Shriver which I

think sums up exactly what the Peace Corps is to us:

We, as a nation, were in danger of losing our way among the television sets, the supermarkets and the material abundance of a developing and emerging nations of the rich society. Our debt and gratitude to the

world is that they have reminded us of our own traditions, and given us a treasured opportunity to sacrifice and work once more for those principles which created our own Nation. By letting us participate in their struggles they have given us a chance to find ourselves.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close at 4:30.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. GALLAGHER).

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. FOGARTY).

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. FOGARTY].

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to both the amendment and the substitute.

Mr. Chairman, the leading paper in my own State of Rhode Island, the Providence Journal, recently summed up the basic character of the Peace Corps. It said that "unlike Topsy, the Peace Corps is not going to just grow."

The Journal knows that many Government agencies have a tendency to grow like Topsy, but they are also aware that the Peace Corps can be distinguished from the usual Government agency. First, Sargent Shriver and his staff turn back unused money from last year's appropriation to the Treasury, and then before the taxpayers recover from this unusual example of fiscal responsibility, Mr. Shriver comes to the Congress and says the Peace Corps will not need all

the money asked for in its original budget. He says the Peace Corps wants to maintain its high standards and therefore will select fewer people. These are just two examples of how Mr. Shriver has made himself the taxpayers' best friend.

Mr. Chairman, the Peace Corps has established itself as the no-waste, no-nonsense agency. The people know that they are getting their money's worth from the Peace Corps. It is a sound investment. Now it would seem somewhat strange if we were to go to the people and say we no longer feel it necessary to invest your dollars in a wise manner. We are not going to invest more money in the big-return Peace Corps. That would not be good business.

We have a worthwhile product in the Peace Corps. More than 7,000 of our citizens are showing that American ingenuity is the key to success in the underdeveloped world. They are provThey are proving that the force that motivated earlier Americans is not dead; and they are showing us that same force can be the foundation for progress in other parts of the world.

We are not giving anything away in the Peace Corps. We are investing the We are investing the initiative, adaptibility, and hard work of American volunteers in an effort to create stability in the areas of the world that are being shaken by social and economic revolution. It is in our interest to do so. The Peace Corps is an economical and efficient way to do it.

The Providence Journal says the Peace Corps owes its reputation to the quality of its performance. That is true. That is the only reason we support it. The Peace Corps is effective in carrying out the mandate Congress has given it. We should not obstruct the very purpose for which we created the Peace Corps. It seems the least we can do is to continue with even greater emphasis a program that has done exactly what we wanted it to do.

The Providence Journal calls the Peace Corps the pride of the United States and a marvel in the world. The people are not given to such love of Government programs easily. They know when they are getting their money's

worth.

Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, as one of the coauthors of the minority report, I believe it practical to return this debate back to the point at which it originated. We have two amendments before us. I oppose the Gross amendment and support the Thomson amendment. As a matter of practical arithmetic, here is the situation. The Peace Corps is placing people in the field at the

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. O'HARA].

Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, that is a great idea. Save the Peace Corps by choking it to death. That is the plain intent of the amend ments. A vote for the amendment is a vote to kill the Peace Corps. Mr. Chairman, a statement was made in the debate that a newspaper in Ghana was attacking the Peace Corps. Let me inform the gentleman from Iowa that the newspaper in Ghana he referred to recently carried a prominently displayed article calling the Peace Corps a godsend. I put it in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD and I hope the gentleman from Iowa will look it up and read it.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CURTIS] for 12 minutes.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, my concern is the level of these programs

and the fact that in our entire society we do a great deal of this missionarytype work. The bulk of it has been done traditionally in the private sector. The question is, what is the relationship between the governmental sector and the In the committee hearings and in the private in doing missionary-type work, reports and in the debate one has no concept at all of how much is being done dollarwise or otherwise in the private sector and whether or not the Peace Corps itself is geared to encourage further efforts in the private sector. Let me illustrate. In regard to the student exchange program where I once had the details, we all hear about the Fulbright scholarships. One would almost think the only student exchange programs were through the Federal Government.

much should be done through the private sector.

As I said during the debate on the rule, regrettably the committee has not the information presented to us to evaluate whether this program should be doubled or cut in half or whatever.

I think the matter should go back to the Foreign Affairs Committee so that we can get the kind of data we need to enable us to vote with intelligence.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana [Mr. OLSEN].

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of the committee bill.

Mr. Chairman, 40 Peace Corps volunteers from Montana are helping America to show the world that a free society can produce the kind of men and women, who by their own initiative, perseverance, and just plain hard work, can make the world a better place.

These Americans are proving in every corner of the globe that progress is the result of hard work. Through their example developing nations have seen that it is not American dollars which really do the job, but rather the ability to get down to the grassroots and do the work that needs to be done.

Mr. Chairman, it is not difficult to imagine the impact 7,000 Americans are having on the underdeveloped nations. In the words of a church official in the Philippines "one Peace Corps volunteer is worth a whole boatload of corn." One has to agree when he sees that a single Peace Corps volunteer in Pakistan saved a million-dollar rice crop. This single Peace Corps volunteer is costing the American taxpayers $75 a month in addition to a small living allowance. Certainly he is well worth the investment.

This great return on a small investment can be magnified many times in the areas of Latin America, Asia, and

Africa where Communist lies fool millions every day. Peace Corps volunteers

are serving in the very nests of the Com

munist agitators in these areas. By their presence alone they expose the fraud being perpetrated by the Communists.

Mr. Chairman, these Americans are our

greatest asset in the pivotal area known as the developing nations. We are fortunate to have citizens such as these. We are fortunate they are willing to serve. And we are fortunate they are serving so well. I hope we give them the support they need.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.

ADAIR].

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the

the field. In the 8 months remaining of the year, they could add 1,200. That would give them approximately 8,400 people. Multiplied by the $9,000 per man that we are told it would cost, they cannot possibly spend more than $75 million. The gentleman from Wisconsin proposes that we authorize $81 million

ment student exchange programs there were $10 in the private sector, and I suspect the ratio is somewhat similar in this great missionary work. It is a problem of the use of such personnel as we have. The work is great, but the issue is how much should be done though the governmental mechanism and how

think are important. In 1961, in August and I shall speak only in round numbers there were about 500 members in the Peace Corps. A year later, in 1962, there were about 3,500 members. Again a year after that, in 1963, there were about 6,600 members. Today, in mid-November, there are about 7,200

members in the Peace Corps. If that progression is to be continued, and if we assume that a fair standard of cost is $9,000 per year per Peace Corps individual, then it is quite apparent that there will be enough money at the level proposed by the gentleman from Wisconsin, that is, $81 million, to carry on the program for the balance of this fiscal year.

If Members support the amendment of the gentleman, they will be granting an increase over expenditures in the last fiscal year of more than 40 percent, which is certainly a rather large increase for any program.

I am convinced after studying the matter carefully that the reduction proposed will not injure the program and will in fact tighten it and make for a more effective Peace Corps operation.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. FASCELL].

Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I have heard some very unusual discussions with respect to the pending matters. I am opposed to the amendment and the substitute and support the committee bill. It strikes me as somewhat unreasonable to say that the Peace Corps is doing a good job and because it is, it should not be expanded or should not be given the opportunity to expand and do a better job. It seems rather unreasonable to me to argue that because nothing can be said in criticism about the program that it should be cut down or discontinued.

I find it very difficult to understand the reasoning that says because taxpayers' money is not being spent fast enough by the Peace Corps in the first 6 months of this fiscal year, therefore this authorization should be cut down and the program not given an opportunity to expand or continue its good work. It has been implausibly argued that it is impossible to get people into the Peace Corps at a rate faster than that which they are now being recruited.

But there is given no evidence to support this allegation. I say the Peace Corps should be given the opportunity to recruit more.

There are almost 7,200 people in the program and the Peace Corps says the target is 11,340 people. The recruitment growth record of the Peace Corps is admittedly excellent. Progress under the program has been worthwhile and there are more pending applications than ever. In the nonmilitary, noneconomic area, this program has had a great effect and tremendous beneficial impact both for the host country and the United States. For these reasons we should give

the Peace Corps opportunity to expand, by our action in voting down the amendment and the substitute, and voting for the committee bill.

Furthermore, and in conclusion, if people cannot be brought into the program all the funds authorized cannot be spent. Therefore I cannot see any reason why we should not support the amount of the authorization in the committee bill.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. HARVEY].

Mr. HARVEY of Indiana. I follow rather closely the views of my colleague from Indiana [Mr. ADAIR]. I feel that this has been a good program. As one who has been as careful as any Member of the House, I believe, about the fiscal stability of our country-I yield to no one in that respect-I feel that this is one area where if you are a real economist, where if you want to get the most for your dollar, you should support this program.

I want to give a little personal illustration, if I may, and I hope you will pardon me for doing so. It happens that Mrs. Harvey and I were sponsors of one of the first sort of "guinea pig" students who came to Indiana, came to the United States, from one of the South American countries. This young man lived here with us during the year 1943-44. He has since gone back to his South American country and today I think is one of the great forces in that country for stability and survival of a representative form of and survival of a representative form of government such as we ourselves believe in. He is a great and effective foe of in. He is a great and effective foe of communism. This young man has written to me and said in no uncertain terms that in his humble judgment this particular type of effort and program is the best that we could possibly support; we best that we could possibly support; we are getting more for our money, we are getting more in return than we could by any other way.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the House will support this program.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recogThe Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. ZABLOCKI].

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and rise in opposition to the amendment and to the substitute. I have tried to find the logic in both proposals. Apparently no one disagrees that the Peace Corps has been a success. As a matter of fact has been a success. As a matter of fact we point with pride to the unused funds that it has returned to the Treasury because this agency did not attempt to obligate all of its funds. ligate all of its funds. Are we going to say that we will penalize the agency by cutting back its funds?

Both the amendment and the substitute minimizes the planning that has gone into the Peace Corps. Does the amendment intend to cut the amount amendment intend to cut the amount back to $81 million and provide that none of that money shall be for administrative expenses? It is not clear to me where the reductions would be to me where the reductions would be made as between operational costs and administrative costs. Further, does the administrative costs. Further, does the gentleman from Iowa, in his substitute, intend that the Peace Corps should intend that the Peace Corps should stand still and not progress, that it shall not have any planning?

gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. ZAThe CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. ZABLOCKI] has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. JOHANSEN] for 11⁄2

minutes.

Mr. JOHANSEN. Mr. Chairman, let there be no misunderstanding. I opposed the Peace Corps originally and I posed the Peace Corps originally and I oppose it now. I intend to vote for the substitute amendment, and if that fails, I shall vote for the amendment. In any event I shall vote against the passage of the bill.

We are engaged today supposedly in a conflict with world socialism. It is proposed by this Government-subsidized program to socialize missionary activity of the type that heretofore has been done by religious, lay groups, foundations, and other organizations.

Mr. Chairman, I associate myself on that score with the wisest remarks that have been made this afternoon, made by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CURTIS].

If we were to believe some of this talk, international philanthropy on our part was originated by this administration, and youthful zeal and idealism is a creation of this administration.

Mr. Chairman, I reject both premises. I think it is particularly ironical that the comments offered by my very esteemed friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. O'NEILL], about the Philippine Islands should have been made. Why, 60 years before the New Frontier was ever heard of there was a job done over there. And, while it was done under the occupation of the American Government, it was done principally and primarily by the private sector of our Nation and of our people. That support of the private sector was encouraged and not disregarded by the American people and Government.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN] for 11⁄2 minutes.

Mr. Chair

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. man, lest there be any possible misunderstanding of my own position, I feel that this is a deservedly popular program. It deserves our continued support. For that reason I rise in opposition both to the Gross amendment and to the Thomson amendment.

The Gross amendment, I think, would be particularly undesirable. It would imply not only that we disapprove of what we have been doing, but that we feel the existing level of volunteer effort should be cut back.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think a program that has proven as valuable as this one to our own country, and to the countries where we provide our help should be cut back.

Mr. Chairman, a more serious question is the Thomson amendment, which I beThis lieve also should be opposed. amendment would provide money sufficient to maintain only 9,000 volunteers, instead of an amount sufficient to support 11,300 volunteers. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion there is a real possibility that we can find as many as 11,300 wellqualified volunteers. I think a cut of over 20 percent from the amount requested would be undesirable. It would be an

indication that we have our doubts reused hereafter, even though we must garding the selectivity which will be generally concede that a good job has been done up to this point.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I think we should oppose any cut in the authorization. We should positively oppose both amendments.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MORGAN] for 12 minutes.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to both the Gross amendment and the Thomson amendment.

During the hearings, those who attended the hearings, heard a detailed justification for adding the additional volunteers to the Peace Corps. The original proposal was for 13,000 Peace Corps members. The reduction offered by the Director was down to 11,300.

Take a look at the report, on page 4. Members will note that the two areas of the world which are in greatest need of Peace Corps volunteers are Latin America and Africa. The additional funds are needed to send volunteers to those areas.

Mr. Chairman, those who say that these additional volunteers cannot be recruited cannot show me any evidence in the presentation made by the Peace Corps that indicates that they cannot be produced.

Mr. Chairman, I say again that the two areas where there is a crying need for volunteers are Latin America and Africa. Those who took the time to read the report written by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. SELDEN], and his Subcommittee on Latin America after their visit to Latin America in 1962, will remember that they made a recommendation for an increased Peace Corps in Latin Amer

ica.

Mr. Chairman, I say both of these amendments should be defeated. I think the Peace Corps has done a good job in turning back money at the end of fiscal year 1962 when they returned to the Treasury the sum of $1.9 million, and again in 1963 when they returned $3.9 million. They obligated only as much as could be used effectively and turned back the rest.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORGAN. I yield to the gentle

man from Massachusetts.

Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, for years Members have advocated, and I agreed with them, the proposition that more work should be done at the grassroots level in these underprivileged countries. That is where the Peace Corps works. It reaches the grassroots. It is doing a tremendous job and I hope both amendments will be defeated.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. GROSS] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. THOMSON].

The substitute amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. THOMSON].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. THOMSON of Wisconsin) there were-ayes 94, noes

146.

So the amendment was rejected.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ADAIR

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. ADAIR: On the first page, beginning in line 6, strike out "$102,000,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$92,000,000".

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I propose here would reduce the amount of the authorization by $10 million. It would reduce it from $102 to $92 million.

In my opinion, and applying the best standards we have as to the cost of the program, this would make possible in program, this would make possible in the Peace Corps more than 10,000 people at the end of this fiscal year. This would make possible, Mr. Chairman, an increase greater than we have had in previous years.

As I pointed out a few moments ago, from 1961 to 1962 we increased from 400 to 3,500, from 1962 to 1963 we moved from 3,500 to 6,600. My amendment would still make possible a Peace Corps of over 10,000 people, an addition of more than any we have had in previous years, and, again having in mind that we are now speaking in mid-November, certainly more people than can be carefully added to the Peace Corps in the remainder of this fiscal year.

The Director, Mr. Shriver, has pointed out, and I applaud this, that the Peace Corps has been quite selective in the people that it has chosen to enroll. I hope this policy is continued and I believe it will be, but with this selectivity added in this fiscal year gives more than certainly 3,500 or more people to be enough leeway. Here is proposed less than a 10-percent cut in the program. If people believe in governmental economy, if they believe in economy which yet permits a good program to be carried forward at adequate levels, then this amendment ought to be supported.

in opposition to the amendment. Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise

Mr. Chairman, the House has just acted on this issue. The arguments on both sides have all been given in the discussion of the Gross amendment and the Thomson amendment. I am sure everybody recognizes that the Adair amendment is just another cut of $10 million. I ask that the amendment be defeated.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. ADAIR].

The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. ADAIR) there were-ayes 108, noes 124.

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.

Tellers were ordered, and the Chairman appointed as tellers Mr. ADAIR and

short on accomplishment," he said the exact opposite was the case.

Dr. George Cross, president of the university, called the Peace Corps one of the best programs to be initiated by the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take this opportunity to discuss briefly a few of the aspects of the Peace Corps which have particularly impressed me because they have been unexpected dividends. In supporting the Peace Corps when it was little more than an idea, I expected a great deal of it, but my expectations were confined to what I considered realistic levels and realistic areas. I expected that most of the Peace Corps volunteers sent overseas would be effective, well-motivated people who would make a small contribution to the development of other countries. I expected that their knowledge and understanding of the world we live in would be broadened and deepened and that the understanding of the United States on the part of the people with whom they came in contact would be enhanced. And I expected that these important, if limited, ends would be achieved at a lower cost than through most Government programs. If these expectations had been met, I would have been satisfied.

But instead, the Peace Corps has presented a far more striking picture. For one thing, it has appealed to the people of this country on a scale which I had

not imagined. Many people felt that once the initial flood of applications had abated, the young people of this coun

try-and the older ones as well-would continue to apply, but in a flow that amounted to little more than a steady trickle. But applications for Peace Corps service have been received at an increasing rate over 20,000 in 1962, almost 30,000 so far in 1963 with over a month to go. And new records continue to be

established.

These impressive figures on quantity are more than equaled by measures of quality. Of some 7,000 volunteers sent overseas by the end of last month only about 6 percent had been terminated early, and many of those had returned before the end of their term of service for reasons beyond their control. The Peace Corps is to be congratulated on its unprecedented achievement in developing so sound a selection process for dealing with such a large volume of people. And I am even more heartened to learn that selection standards are being tightened still further and that Mr. Shriver and his staff deliberately lowered their yearend goals for the past year in order to insure that the quality of the Americans sent maintained or even increased. overseas as Peace Corps volunteers was

I received more than I dared to expect, too, in impact of the Peace Corps, both in this country and overseas. Not only

are the volunteers themselves enriched

by the experience of Peace Corps service, but hundreds of communities throughout the United States have become deeply involved in their activities overseas. The activities of dozens of American uni

Versities have been broadened through the training of Peace Corps volunteers, and the families, friends, and organizations of the volunteers and are receiving

new insights into ways of life quite different from ours.

Today, isolationism has become an anachronism, and the Peace Corps has done more than any other program I know of to remove its last vestiges from the most remote corners of this country.

The impact of the Peace Corps abroad has also been greater than I had imagined. The reputation of the volunteers at work has spread far beyond the people with whom they work directly, and even beyond the bounds of communities as a whole. A measure of their impact lies in the fact that the Ramon Magsaysay Award-the Asian equivalent of the Nobel Peace Prize-was given to the Peace Corps volunteers at work in 11 Asian nations. This was the first time this award has been given to a nonAsian group.

Finally, my expectations have been more than fulfilled in the economy with which the Peace Corps program has been implemented. In these days of rising costs, it is immensely gratifying to find that the average cost of a Peace Corps volunteer has remained at a level of $9,000 since the program began. It is even more gratifying to note that the proportion of the budget allocated to administrative expenses has declined steadily, and that the Peace Corps has been as good as its word in turning funds which were not clearly necessary-but which could certainly have been spent with relative ease-back to the Treasury.

These are just a few examples of areas in which the Peace Corps has more than justified the support of those of us who were enthusiastic in its initial stages. And I must say, Mr. Chairman, that it is not often in the course of my work that I get so much more than I bargained for. The Peace Corps clearly deserves to be authorized the full amount recommended by the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows:

SEC. 2. Section 5 of the Peace Corps Act, as amended, which relates to Peace Corps volunteers, is amended as follows:

(a) In subsection (b), insert the following sentence immediately after the first sentence: "Supplies or equipment provided volunteers to insure their capacity to serve effectively may be transferred to the government or to other entities of the country or area with which they have been serving, when no longer necessary for such purpose, and when such transfers would further the purposes of this Act."

(b) Strike out subsection (c) and substitute therefor the following:

"(c) Volunteers shall be entitled to receive a readjustment allowance at a rate not to exceed $75 for each month of satisfactory service as determined by the President. The readjustment allowance of each volunteer shall be payable on his return to the United States: Provided, however, That, under such circumstances as the President may determine, the accrued readjustment allowance, or any part thereof, may be paid to the volunteer, members of his family or others, during the period of his service, or prior to his return to the United States. In the event of the volunteer's death during the period of his service, the amount of any unpaid readjustment allowance shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Act

of August 3, 1950, chapter 518, section 1 (5 U.S.C. 61f)."

(c) In subsection (f) (2), strike out "termination payments" and substitute therefor "readjustment allowances".

(d) In subsection (g), add immediately after "may determine" the following proviso: ": Provided, That not to exceed one hundred volunteers in the aggregate may be assigned to carry out secretarial or clerical duties on the staffs of the Peace Corps representatives abroad".

(e) In subsection (h), strike out "and for the purposes of" immediately after "tort liability statute," and substitute therefor "the Federal Voting Assistance Act of 1955 (5 U.S.C. 2171 et seq.), the Act of June 4, 1954, chapter 264, section 4 (5 U.S.C. 73b-5),

and".

(f) Add a new subsection at the end of section 5 as follows:

"(k) In order to assure that the skills and experience which former volunteers have derived from their training and their service abroad are best utilized in the national interest, the President may, in cooperation with agencies of the United States, private employers, educational institutions and other entities of the United States, undertake programs under which volunteers would be counseled with respect to opportunities for further education and employment."

SEC. 3. Section 6(1) of the Peace Corps Act, as amended, which relates to Peace Corps volunteer leaders, is amended by striking out "termination payments" and substituting therefor "a readjustment allowance".

SEC. 4. Section 7(b) of the Peace Corps Act, as amended, which relates to the compensation of persons engaged in the United States in activities authorized by the Act, is amended by striking out "so" in the first sentence thereof.

SEC. 5. Section 10(a) of the Peace Corps Act, as amended, which relates to general powers and authorities, is amended by inserting immediately after "or otherwise" in paragraph (3) ", and transfer such property to the government or other entities of the country or area with which the volunteers are serving, when such transfers would further serving, when such transfers would further the general purposes of the Act".

SEC. 6. Section 13 of the Peace Corps Act, as amended, which relates to the employ ment of experts and consultants, is amended as follows:

(a) In subsection (a), strike out "Peace Corps" and substitute therefor "President".

(b) In subsection (b), strike out all that appears between "shall not" in the first clause thereof and "be considered" in the second clause thereof.

SEC. 7. Section 19 of the Peace Corps Act, as amended, which relates to the Peace Corps seal, is amended by striking out the short title and substituting therefor "Exclusive Right to Seal and Name", by inserting “(a)” before "The President may", and by adding a new subsection as follows:

"(b) (1) The use of the official seal or emblem and the use of the name 'Peace Corps' shall be restricted exclusively to designate programs authorized under this Act.

"(2) Whoever, whether an individual, partnership, corporation, or association, uses the seal for which provision is made in this section, or any sign, insignia, or symbol in colorable imitation thereof, or the words 'Peace Corps' or any combination of these or other words or characters in colorable imitation thereof, other than to designate programs authorized under this Act, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. A violation of this subsection may be enjoined at the suit of the Attorney General, United States attorneys, or other persons duly authorized to represent the United States."

SEC. 8. The Peace Corps Act, as amended, is amended to add after title II thereof a new title as follows:

"TITLE III-ENCOURAGEMENT OF VOLUNTARY
SERVICE PROGRAMS

"SEC. 301. (a) 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, and to encourage less developed countries or areas to establish programs under which their citizens and nationals would volunteer to serve in order to meet their needs for trained manpower.

"(b) Not more than $300,000 may be used to carry out the purposes of this title in fiscal year 1964. Activities carried out by the President in furtherance of the purposes of this title shall be limited to the furnishing of knowledge and skills relating to the selection, training, and programing of volunteer manpower. None of the funds available to carry out the purposes of this Act which are used in furtherance of the purposes of this title may be contributed to any international organization or to any foreign government or agency thereof; nor may such funds be used to pay the costs of developing or operating volunteer programs of such organization, government, or agency, or to pay any other costs of such organization, government, or agency.

"(c) Such activities shall not compromise the national character of the Peace Corps."

Mr. MORGAN (interrupting the reading of the bill). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of words.

the chairman of the committee a quesMr. Chairman, I take this time to ask tion or two concerning the language on pages 5 and 6. On page 5 of the bill, beginning on line 19, it is stated:

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, and to encourage less developed countries or areas to establish programs under which their citizens and nationals would volunteer to serve in order to meet their needs for trained manpower.

I have no objection to that statement. I would like to see the other countries get into this program and get off our backs so that we might save the taxpayers of this country a little money. Then on page 6 it is stated:

Not more than $300,000 may be used to carry out the purposes of this title in fiscal year 1964.

I shall not read the remainder of paragraph (b), but it stipulates that none of these funds shall be used for certain purposes.

Is it the understanding of the chairman of the committee that no part of