PROJECTS PLANNED IN RELATION TO OTHER ACTIVITIES This appropriation_request represents a carefully planned and balanced program. It is balanced in terms of the political significance and the size of the various country programs. It is balanced according to the proportion of American and foreign grantees deemed to be most effective for each situation. The number of grants has been determined according to the types of activity which will further projects that are expected to make the greatest contribution to our objectives with the most efficient use of the resources available. Full use has been made of all available foreign currencies and of nongovernmental financial resources as well. And our plans have taken full cognizance of the exchange activities in each country conducted under other auspices so as to avoid possible overlapping or duplication of effort. In this connection the committee may recall the report of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations last year on the Mutual Security Act. In that report, the distinctions as to specific objectives, activities, and approaches between this program and related programs of the Foreign Operations Administration were carefully analyzed. VALUE OF HAVING FOREIGNERS VISIT US As to the ratio of foreign to American grantees, the proportion is nearly 3 to 1 in favor of foreign nationals coming to the United States. The Department believes, as our budget shows, that this greater proportion of the program being devoted to the bringing of foreign nationals to this country is desirable because among other things, it permits them to see us at firsthand. Needless to say, in order to give a maximum number of foreign nationals the opportunity to visit the United States, the Department does not award grants to persons who have been here before, except in very unusual cases where their prospective contribution to a specific project clearly justifies such a grant. How rarely this happens can be seen from an analysis of the 5,286 people brought here in 1953. Only person had received a previous grant from this Government, and only 2 percent had ever visited the United States before. RECIPROCAL VALUE OF PROGRAM However, we believe also in the value of sending Americans abroad. In the first place, the basic legislation authorizing this program-the Smith-Mundt Actdirects that it shall involve a reciprocal exchange. Our experience also indicates clearly that this program would be much less acceptable to the other countries involved if we did not include Americans whom they very much want to come to their countries. In the second place, the basic legislation also states that one of its objectives is to increase "mutual understanding" between ourselves and the peoples of other countries. Why should we shortchange ourselves, when by sending representative Americans abroad we can accumulate and spread among our fellow citizens a more realistic understanding of other cultures, their problems, and values? In our position of leadership on the international scene today, we badly need a greater number of persons who have firsthand knowledge of affairs in other countries. The majority of our American grantees return to teaching positions in our schools and colleges where their knowledge about foreign countries can be spread to thousands of other citizens. Others are using their skills in the service of the Government and civic and educational organizations. For example, in assessing the importance of sending Americans abroad for graduate study, it should be noted that these grantees are carefully selected through rigorous nationwide competitions on the basis of their suitability to carry out projects of significance to the goals of this program. They therefore differ from the relatively unplanned general flow of Americans studying abroad. FOREIGN STUDENTS ARE MAINLY PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE Since about 34,000 foreign nationals are studying in the United States and less than 10 percent of them are financed through the Department's exchange program, a question might be raised as to why the Department should include study grants for foreign nationals in its program. First, I would invite your attention to the fact that some 5,000 of the overall total come from Canada where the Department has no program, still others are here with immigration visas and intend to stay in the United States, and a considerable number are refugee students from Iron Curtain countries. In many countries, in which it is particularly important for us to develop better understanding toward the United States, the Department's foreign student program represents from 15 to 50 percent of the total number of foreign nationals from those countries who are studying in the United States. Moreover, the foreign nationals we bring here to study are selected through rigorous competition to specialize in fields of particular importance to this country; for example, American studies. Some students are brought in small groups for especially tailored projects at universities having special resources in certain fields; for example, projects in comparative law, representative government, labor-management, and the like. All of these projects also include courses in American studies. These grantees also differ from the general run of foreign students in that approximately 75 percent are young professional people in the 25 to 35 age group, and many are already actively engaged in their careers at home, where they may be teachers, journalists, representatives of labor or of management, lawyers, or government officials. In 1953-54, for example, 549 of these students were actually teachers at various levels or educational administrators in their home counties. EXCHANGES OTHER THAN STUDENTS Student exchanges, important as they are, comprise less than half of the Department's exchange activities. The balance of our program is devoted to equally effective projects. They involve the interchange of primary and secondary teachers, intensive university training and practical experience for groups of foreign teachers, grants to foreign leaders for short trips in the United States to observe our institutions and consult with their colleagues, and planned programs of training or practical experience for foreign specialists, such as that for foreign newsmen to spend short periods in American newspaper offices. We also send American specialists abroad for general lectures about the United States or to advise foreign organizations which have requested such help. The interchange of professors and research scholars brings about closer cooperation among universities and professional groups in our own and other countries. Many of our grants are directly related to an explanation of American institutions and practices; for example, the sending of lecturers in American studies abroad. For 2 years a single grant to Switzerland was used to send a visiting lecturer in American history and literature to the University of Fribourg, which is attended by students from many countries. American history and literature had not been offered at this university prior to this time. The lecturer was able to introduce these courses and has had a steadily increasing number of students attending. Because the courses were given in English, there was an increase in the number of students in the English language classes. The lecturer also gave a course in French on American political institutions for those students who did not know English. Some students did research in American studies with a view toward making American studies their major subject for examinations, and one student prepared his doctorate in American literature. USE OF AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ABROAD The appropriation request for 1956 calls for 1,354 grants to enable foreign nationals to attend American-sponsored institutions abroad, as authorized by Public Law 584, the Fulbright Act. No more than 222 of these grants, costing $35,154 or about $160 each, will be used for citizens of 1 country to attend an American-sponsored school or seminar in another foreign country. These seminars or workshops, modeled after the well-known Salzburg seminar, have been established under the sponsorship of a council or committee composed of United States citizens and foreign nationals. Their overall purpose is to introduce or emphasize American subjects and methods of teaching. The faculty is primarily composed of American professors, usually those sent abroad under this program. These courses are given periodically and last an average of 1 month. They are for key persons, teachers, and others. Thus, these modest foreign-currency grants provide an especially effective and economical means of satisfying the increasing need overseas for courses in American studies. COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES AMONG OUR FRIENDS Too often the exchange program is viewed simply as a defensive force which need be applied only in unfriendly countries to counteract Communist influence. Certainly the importance of the program in combating communism is primary. However, while we reduce our programs with the countries of Western Europe and with countries in other parts of the world that are generally regarded as friendly, the Communists have intensified their efforts to win these peoples away from us through their own version of an educational exchange program. Moreover, we should not lose sight of the effectiveness of our program in countering other dangerous anti-American and neutralist tendencies in countries that are generally regarded as friendly, and in building up cooperative projects and relationships among significant groups. STRENGTHENING POLITICAL ALINEMENTS One of the most essential and difficult tasks of our diplomacy is the maintenance and strengthening of political alinements with our free world partners. This is illustrated by the fundamental importance of our relations with the NATO and Manila Pact countries, stretching from Western Europe, across the Middle and Far East, to Australia and New Zealand. Here exchanges can contribute substantially to the strengthening of the idea behind these compacts and the promotion of mutual understanding between the United States and the other participating countries. We must also recognize the most "friendly" nations are so considered because of the official policies of their governments. In each of them, however, there are sizable elements hostile to or ignorant of the United States. In France and Italy, the Communist parties polled 35 percent and 26 percent, respectively, of all votes cast in the national elections of 1954. Unpublished public opinion polls in Britain in October 1954 and February 1955 showed a serious decline in good opinions of the United States while the U. S. S. R. rose much higher in public esteem. In October, 49 percent of the British public professed a good opinion of the United States and 6 percent professed it about Russia. In February, the United States percentage dropped to 24 percent while Russia's rose to 29 percent. Officially, Britain is one of our closest allies, but if public regard for this country is so changeable and unsteady a thing in a democratic country, it surely needs the more solid foundation of understanding to which the exchange program can contribute. POSITIVE RESULTS OF EFFECTIVENESS The Department, in fact, believes that this program has been effective. In order to determine the extent of its effectiveness in reaching goals set for it by legislation, three kinds of evaluation materials have been developed: regular reports from our overseas posts on individual achievements and on the total significance of the program; reports from private research groups awarded contracts to study the program here and overseas; surveys developed in the Department, including a census each year of certain former grantees. From these studies, substantial affirmative evidence has been gathered on the program's effectiveness, and guidance obtained as to ways in which it can be still further improved. For example, studies have revealed the advantages for foreign students to live with American families. As a result orientation centers have made appropriate arrangements for foreign students to live with local families during their orientation period. In addition the Department has had the benefit of a number of studies made by the legislative and executive branches of this Government, All of these have recommended expansion of the program. SERIOUS EFFECTS OF REDUCING THE PROGRAM The House allowance of $12 million is a reduction of $10 million below the amount requested, and $6,577,547 below the amount available in 1955. This will drastically curtail the educational exchange program throughout the free world. It will mean no exchanges with 31 of the 75 countries where programs are now in operation. However, the disastrous effect of the cut can best be seen by considering how it will upset the carefully planned balance of the program. As I have already mentioned, the 1956 request called for a much needed expansion of the program in the Far East, Near East, and Latin America. This reduction will not only make expansion impossible, it will mean cutting back below the present level. In the Near East, South Asia, and Africa, for example, the program will have to be cut 53 percent below the present level. NEED FOR DOLLAR APPROPRIATIONS The serious imbalance which this reduction will produce is further aggravated by the disproportion between the $8 million in foreign currencies allowed by the House and the $4 million dollar amount allowed. We had requested $8,299, 124 in foreign currencies in proportion to $13,700,876 in dollars. This disproportionate 'foreign currency allowance will force us to restrict 63 percent of the total appropriation to the 20 countries where these foreign currencies are available. Moreover, in the case of grants to foreign nationals these foreign currencies can only be used to cover their travel expenses. These same individuals need dollar grants to cover their expenses while they are carrying out their projects in the United States. The sweeping reduction in the dollar request eliminates 90 percent of these dollar grants. Thus the number of people who can be brought to the United States from the 20 countries where foreign currencies under Public Law 584 are available is reduced by 1,318. The lack of sufficient "hard" dollars will very seriously affect two other types of exchange grants also. In 1956 we had planned to bring 1,284 foreign leaders and specialists to the United States for observation or practical experience. This cut would reduce the number to 221 and would make it impossible to bring any such people from 31 countries. The projects under which we bring groups of foreign teachers and school administrators from 49 countries to the United States for specialized training will be eliminated in 12 countries and curtailed in many others. It is clear that the Congress has authorized "hard" dollars for this program. The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, like the Act for Cooperation With the Other American Republics (Public Law 355, 76th Cong.) of 1939, authorizes dollar appropriations for these activities and makes no mention of the use of foreign currencies. FOREIGN CURRENCIES ARE USED WHEN POSSIBLE However, it should be emphasized that we use foreign currencies when at all possible for all expenses of the educational exchange program as well as those under the Fulbright Act, where they are made specifically available under Executive agreements. It is the Department's policy to use foreign currencies in every case where it is to the fiscal advantage of the United States Government to use them and where general financial agreements permit. In countries where the United States does not have local currencies of foreign credits that may be utilized in connection with exchange programs, it is often possible to pay the transportation expenses in currencies of another country where such are available provided the transportation company will accept payment in such currency. This is done whenever it is feasible and economical. The House placed a limitation of $2,400,000 on administrative expenses for the $12 million program it approved. The Department had requested $4,110,377 for the proposed $22 million program. The amount allowed by the House will be entirely inadequate to service the 1956 program. primarily because many of these services will be needed in connection with the grantees who have received awards this year under a program of considerably larger scope than that allowed by the House for 1956. The request of $4,110,377 for this purpose in 1956 represents 18.7 percent of the total appropriation request. However, administrative services are also needed for the Finnish program (Public Law 265, 81st Cong.) of $266,622 and to enlist and service the private funds of $9,263,378 which support the program of grants included in the 1956 estimate. Thus, the request for administrative expenses for 1956 actually represents only 13 percent of the total of $31,530,000 which will be available in that year. WIDER GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION IN THE UNITED STATES Last year this committee recommended more widespread distribution among colleges and universities throughout the United States of the grantees under this program. The efforts made to implement this recommendation and the problems involved have been presented in detail in a report sent to the committee last week. The broadest possible distribution of grantees has always been our goal. To achieve that goal specific policies have been established and numerous steps have been taken. Efforts made over several years have resulted in a distribution of grantees which is much better than the spread of American resources (institutional facilities, private scholarships, and interested applicants) would lead one to expect. Since June 1954, these efforts have been intensified, administratively and in relation to the many institutions and agencies which are concerned with the program. The results of these efforts cannot yet be ascertained concretely because of the time schedules for the award of grants. However, there is reason to believe that they have been productive. The attention of the committee is respectfully called to that report, and I hope that you will note especially the resolution of the United States Advisory Com mission on Educational Exchange (authorized by Public Law 402), the members of which are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. I also invite your attention to the resolution also contained in the report of the Board of Foreign Scholarships, which is charged with the selection of individuals and institutions to participate in the program under Public Law 584. I should like to call attention also to the resolutions of the National Association of Foreign Student Advisers and of the Commission on Education and International Affairs of the American Council on Education. The council is composed of the colleges and related organizations in all parts of the United States. All these resolutions, in effect, indicate that the Department and the Board of Foreign Scholarships have taken every reasonable step to effect an ever-broadening distribution of grantees. The Board, the Commission, and the Council have specifically endorsed this report. However, the efforts made to implement the committee's recommendation will be very seriously hampered by the House allowance of $12 million for 1956. The drastic cutback in dollars available for the United States expenses of foreign students will place an even greater burden on private groups to provide such support if those students for whom the Department can provide only travel costs in foreign currencies are to come here at all. This will inevitably restrict distribution since the universities best able to offer such financial assistance will be the larger ones. So few full grants for foreign students will be available-for example, 13 in Europe that the matter of broadening further the distribution of grantees will be impossible. The cut will also limit the efforts of the Department and its contract agencies to circulate necessary information broadly enough to encourage more applicants from all parts of the country and to broaden geographic representation on screening committees. Since the distribution of grants parallels closely the spread of applications for them, the restriction of our efforts to encourage applicants will have an adverse effect on distribution. I have spent some time in explaining what we are trying to do through this program, the success of our efforts and the crippling effects of the reduction recommended by the House. I have done this because we believe that the international educational exchange program is not only valuable, but a necessary arm of our foreign relations. The mutual understanding, the respect for and confidence in our country which this program is creating among key people make it a necessary component of our national security. I respectfully request that the amount of $22 million be restored and that the limitation of $2,400,000 for administrative expenses be removed. STATEMENTS FROM ASSISTANT SECRETARIES Mr. RILEY. All right. Also, since this program covers the entire free world, I have statements from the various assistant secretaries in charge of the four regional bureaus in the State Department: Mr. Henry F. Holland, the Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs; Mr. Livingston T. Merchant, the Assistant Secretary for European Affairs; Mr. George V. Allen, Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs; and Mr. William J. Sebald, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Far Eastern Affairs. Senator KILGORE. Do you want to put those in the record? Senator KILGORE. They will be put in. (The statements referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTER-AMERICAN AFFAIRS, MR. HENRY F. HOLLAND, IN SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE ACTIVITIES, FISCAL YEAR 1956 It has been our belief that our foreign policy as related to the other American Republics has found vital support in an augmented program of educational exchange. With that in mind a further strengthening of the program was asked of Congress for the fiscal year 1956 in order to raise it to a level more nearly commensurate with the crucial importance of Western Hemisphere relations. Today the same political situations exist which prompted Congress to approve a supplemental appropriation of $300,000 for 1955, with the proviso "That not |