Present capacity: thirty monographs eager to serve as technical advisors. Of course, this is a means for these consultants to augment their income; but somewhat less cynically it is a rare opportunity for a US scholar to learn about his or her counterparts in the Soviet Union. Given about 750 plus curriculum vitaes of emigres with extensive academic and professional credentials, the supply of emigres will not dry up for many a year. Furthermore, the supply of emigres in Israel has barely been scratched and there are many indications that the Soviets are about to allow a large number of ethnics to leave. The supply of research analysts is also inexhaustible. The basic element of the research analyst is fluency in Russian or translation capability and Soviet area study academic background. At the present time, Delphic has a staff of 6 program managers which provides the capability for 30 monographs or 12 cluster studies per year or any combination thereoff. Delphic is currently obligated to produce from 15 to 20 monographs and 2 clusters per year, so that there exists a surplus capacity of 10 monographs or 4 cluster studies. More to the point: Delphic has on call a number of recent graduate students with Russian language capability already trained in the Delphic methodology and style. This represents the potential for an immediate expansion,, 6. Costing and Time Budget for Delphic Studies At the present time, a Delphic monograph prepared for government agencies is costed at $35,000. A cluster study of 4 or 5 essays with seminar and analysis costs $60,000. Delphic has the personnel to immediately assume responsibility for as many as 10 additional monographs and 4 additional clusters to be prepared in one year. 11 EXHIBIT NO. 5 STATEMENT OF JERRY E. HUTCHISON THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS U.S. SENATE PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S HANDLING OF SOVIET AND COMMUNIST BLOC DEFECTORS Soviet Immigrants & Defectors The issue of Soviet immigrants and defectors poses unique problems as well as opportunities for the United States. Given the ideological differences between the two superpowers, immigration or defection to the United States is an indication to the rest of the world that the democratic American society is the superior one. Thus, from a political standpoint, accepting Soviet citizens as immigrants is to America's credit. Yet, perhaps more fundamental than politics is the long-standing policy of the United States to embrace people from other societies who have been compelled to leave their homes because of political, military, or religious oppression. Soviet immigrants, then, are but a special sub-set of a larger population of the world's people who seek a better way of life by moving to America. Soviet defectors, in contrast to those who come from other parts of the world, have a special potential. Not only is there a potential for limited military intelligence information, but many come with highly developed academic and professional skills. It is the small number of Soviets, those well-educated future citizens, that is the focus of this document. The United States government should develop programs which would facilitate the transition of these people from the society of Russian language, government, and culture, to that of the United States. But if this small group is to be singled out for special attention, the first question might be--why? Should they warrant more attention by the United States government that any other group? There appear to be some substantive reasons why this special group deserves assistance and support. First, as alluded to above, it is in the best political interest of the United States to encourage defection or immigration of well-educated Russian citizens. If those who come to the United States find the assimilation process to be a salutory one, then others will be encouraged to follow. If the experience is a negative one, highly educated Soviet citizens may reconsider defection or choose to immigrate to other countries. Thus, from a political viewpoint, it is in the best interest of the United States to make the transition to the American culture an expeditious and positive experience. - 2 Second, there may be economic advantages in supporting the transitional period of these future U.S. citizens. It would be an economic loss and a loss of human resources to bring highly skilled scientists, educators, and other professionals to this country, only for them to work at menial or subprofessional jobs for the rest of their working lives. This happens all too often to immigrants from other parts of the non-English speaking parts of the world. There should be some way to bridge the language, education, and cultural gap between productive life as a Soviet citizen and even greater opportunity in the United States. A third but perhaps less compelling argument is that of consistency. The United States is one of only a few societies that believes that all of its citizens should have the opportunity to educate themselves at the highest level possible, and to contribute to that society at a level commensurate with their abilities. Only a strong, prosperous democratic nation can afford such an opportunistic policy. The Higher Education acts in the 1960's and 1970's were promulgated so that all Americans, regardless of financial or cultural background, could work toward their own personal and educational goals. Support programs which would provide education for talented Soviet immigrants would be consistent with this current educational policy. Program As At the present time there are no policies or programs which focus on the re-education of well-trained Soviet immigrants. a result, these individuals usually seek out a Russian speaking enclave in a metropolitan area and survive the best they can working in jobs much below their professional potential. What are the alternatives? First, it must be admitted that there is no single solution. One cannot establish one single debarkation process, because these immigrants land in the United States with disparate talents, language proficiency, and aspirations. Each requires a simular analysis and treatment. Despite these disparities, several generalizations may prevail. First, if these immigrants are to be assimilated successfully into the American society, they should be placed, initially, away from urban centers where Russian enclaves allow them to retain their native language. Second, they should be encouraged to live with and interact with native Americans, not other recent European immigrants. Third, it may be in their best interest to be exposed to the United States that exists outside of the large urban centers of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. For many Soviet citizens, propaganda has painted a grim picture of the American urban society. Perhaps an initial exposure to smaller communities might be advisable. Given the above, where should these future citizens be sent? One possibility, given the different educational levels of these immigrants, would be to universities in middle America. These universities can provide the intellecutal and cultural transition so badly needed if complete assimilation is desired. At these universities future citizens could work toward language proficiency, social and cultural integration, and as appropriate, professional education. As suggested earlier, the programs would have to be fashioned individually. For the few who already possess a high level of English proficiency, a short course in American studies would prepare them for specialized work as interpreters or analysts with federal agencies, or as teachers. Some would bring professional skills in science, medicine, law, and other professions, but not language proficiency. They would require training in English before making the transition recertification program in a graduate school. to Regardless of the specific prescription for each new arrival in the program, there must be some overall process of control and evaluation. Universities have learned from experience that foreign students need constant guidance and support. Offices for international programs are firmly established at all major universities, and they are accustomed to this responsibility. If former Soviet citizens were sent to a university, someone would need to help them get settled in a residence, assist with academic advising, and monitor progress. In other works, each student would need a "shepherd." Working through a university consortium might be the best way to manage a transition program. In that way immigrants could be deployed throughout a large geographical area, but some form of central control and accountability could be maintained. One such consortium is the Mid-America State Universities Association (MASUA), which is comprised of the major public-supported universities throughout the mid-west (universities in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and Southern Illinois). The consortium is experienced at placing and monitoring foreign students on their campuses, and the combined faculty strength of over 15,000 provides the necessary intellectual breadth and depth for the proposed academic program. Well over a hundred faculty have special research and teaching interests in the Soviet area. They would welcome interaction with these Soviet students and could utilize some in teaching and research activities. Process Upon entry into the United States it is assumed that there would be some level of screening of Russian immigrants for purposes of security and intelligence. After that the transition period would begin. The program could not be mandatory, but the incentives of subsistence and education would be very persuasive for these newcomers. If the individual opted for the program, a small committee of federal and university officials would work to determine each students interests and needs. After this need |