This is only one instance of many in which the President has so expressed himself. He has said it in public speeches and in messages, but I think that is a typical one.

Vice President Nixon, upon his return from his far-eastern trip last year, reported on the value of the programs and the need for their expansion. He has recommended that the programs be expanded.

I participated or was present in a meeting with some 15 Senators in which he went into great detail about this and volunteered the opinion that it was one of the most effective programs that we are carrying on, particularly in the Far East.

SUPPORT OF INDEPENDENT RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

Cabinet officials and member countries of the United Nations were surveyed by an independent research organization for Time magazine. This was entirely unconnected with any governmental activity, and the results of that survey disclosed that, among the media of information

the largest vote was given to the exchange of students and visitors as the most effective means for increasing the flow of information between nations.

Such exchanges were far out in the front on every continent. In fact, running throughout most of the questionnaires there was a constant theme that face-to-face contacts are the best way to gain greater understanding around the world.

EXCERPT OF HICKENLOOPER COMMITTEE REPORT

Again, the Hickenlooper committee conducted the most thorough study of the overseas information program of the United States ever undertaken by the Congress, and reported as follows:

In comparative ratings of the various media it is generally conceded that the exchange-of-persons program under the Fulbright scholarship program is among the most, effective instruments for the creation of mutual understanding and good will.

That report, I may say, goes on to say this, on page 15:

The strength of the exchange-of-persons program appears to stem from divers factors. The program enjoys a high prestige both at home and abroad and is therefore able to attract a voluntary participation of leading citizens. It is non

political and nonpropagandistic in character so that it is acceptable in all parts of the non-Communist world. More than any other part of the program, exchanges are a two-way undertaking to stimulate foreign participation. Exchanges often are, and may become, prominent in government, business, and professions, and their potential impact on the attitude toward this country is considerable.

That committee recommended that these programs should be expanded.

EXCERPT OF JUDD COMMITTEE REPORT

A special study mission to southeast Asia and the Pacific, of the House of Representatives, composed of 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat, with Congressman Walter H. Judd as chairman, reported in January 1954, as follows:

The exchange program has already demonstrated its value. The committee recommends that the program not only be continued but that it be expanded. The exchange-of-persons program represents one of the most successful efforts to infuse local leaders with American ideas and ideals. Its contraction would be a serious setback to American prestige and American influence.

American Ambassadors overseas were polled by the Hickenlooper committee, and reported the exchange program to be the most effective of the various media.

NEWSPAPER COMMENTS

American newspapermen overseas were polled by their respective papers, and analysis of that poll states as follows:"

This has been a very effective activity, highly praised by most reporters, and the feeling prevailed that the program should be enlarged.

Representatives of American religious and business groups operating abroad were polled, and a poll analysis states as follows:

There is no substitute for person-to-person diplomacy.

BROWNSON COMMITTEE SUPPORTS PROGRAM

The House Subcommittee on International Operations of the Committee on Government Operations, according to its chairman, Congressman Brownson, as a result of its inspection in the Far East will report favorably on the exchange programs and urge their expansion.

LETTER FROM ADMIRAL RADFORD ON VALUE OF PROGRAM

Mr. Chairman, recently I ran into, at a social gathering, Adm. Arthur Radford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In discussing the matter he told me he had written the chairman a letter on this subject, and if the chairman permits I would like to read two paragraphs out of that letter into the record, with the chairman's permission.

Chairman BRIDGES. Yes, certainly.

Senator FULBRIGHT. This is from Admiral Radford, and I quote:

I fully realize that the executive department having cognizance over the administration of the educational exchange programs is the Department of State. However, I am writing to you in my individual capacity as a citizen to express my concern over this 40 percent reduction by House action on the requested budget. Because of my extensive travels in various parts of the world during the past several years, I have had a rather unique opportunity to observe the value of this program, and I consider it to be of utmost importance to the interests of the United States.

Under this educational exchange program whereby United States citizens are enabled to go abroad and those of other countries to come here, we have been laying a solid foundation for world peace. The exchange of ideas and the sharing of knowledge and skills contributes immeasurably to the mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries. Strong and everlasting ties are made by educational relations. The results of this program are greater worldwide confidence and cooperation between the nations of the free world, an increasingly important facet of our own security.

At this time it is of even greater importance that we do not drastically reduce these educational exchange relationships, especially in view of the fact that the Communist countries are now expanding such activities.

The purpose of the program is sound. Since its inception it has appealed to me as a realistic and practical way of promoting international understanding, and the overall results thus far have been gratifying. However, I would like to make one personal observation.

He makes a further observation. It has nothing to do with this particular aspect; it relates only to the distribution of foreign students among smaller schools in this country.

1 submit, Mr. Chairman, here is perhaps the most important man, next to his Commander in Chief, the President, at the head of our Military Establishment, and he certainly has great concern for the security of this country, and he voluntarily expresses himself on this program as being of extreme importance to the security of this country. There are many aspects in that connection, I may say, with regard to other activities entailing our security, which I think cannot be overemphasized, and I think it deserves the serious consideration of the committee. Simply because this aspect of it has often been underestimated, if not entirely overlooked, many people are inclined. to think this is simply a long-haired educational project of interest only to former professors. That happens not to be so. It is of equal importance to people concerned with the hard fact of military security for this country, and that is why I think it is well worthwhile to give particular attention to Admiral Radford's statement. Mr. Chairman, I believe that is all I have.

COMMENTS ON EFFECT OF HOUSE REDUCTION

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I would like to ask Senator Fulbright a question at this point. In this statement which we have showing the reductions by the House from the $15 million asked for to $9 million allowed by the House, a reduction of $6 million, the statement shows that this would eliminate

(1) Entire program in all Latin American countries, 13 countries of the Near Eastern Africa, 7 countries in the Far East, and 6 countries in Europe; (2) leadersspecialists program in all countries; (3) exchange of students under the Buenos Aires Convention; (4) administrative funds to carry out the Finnish leader program; (5) administrative funds for carrying out 1954 leader program; (6) all aid to American sponsored schools in Latin America.

Senator Fulbright, I assume you are familiar with this work in the different countries?

Senator FULBRIGHT. Yes.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I would like your comment on that elimination of this program in these areas and the work that we have been carrying on in the past.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Senator Smith, I cannot overemphasize the importance of this cut. I was impressed a moment ago by a statement of the senior Senator from Louisiana that some of our best friends are being critical of us.

What you have said here, I think, gives them good reason to be critical of us.

At a time like this, if we have no more foresight than to cut our program such as you have mentioned in South America, particularly, and in these other countries, then I think we are lacking in judgment and maturity.

This is a relatively small amount of money that we are dealing with here, $6 million out of the total budget of billions-the chairman knows what it is. As compared to the FOA budget, it is a small amount of money. And yet this is symbolic of our interest in these countries that you mentioned, South America, the Middle East, and others. They are the countries which are particularly sensitive to this, in addition to the large countries. The smaller ones feel it more strongly, that we have no interest in them as people and have no in

terest in their culture or their own advancement, and that the only interest we have in them is as bases for attack or as manpower for war. That is what a lot of their people think. This program has done more than any other program to offset that impression, and of course I think that impression is erroneous. I think this country has an interest in these people, only we have not done a very good job of showing it.

I think this cut is a disastrous cut at this time in our history when we are involved in this struggle with the Communists for the allegiance and understanding of the rest of the world.

Does that answer your question, Senator? I may say that I would doubt that it would be of any benefit to the committee for me to go into the details because these people, such as Mr. Riley and the others from the Department, are prepared to analyze the specific items the Senator mentioned. I have a copy of the report, and I could mention it, but I would do that on second-hand authority as compared to the people from the Department who actually made those reports and analyses.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. You recall, Senator, that I have talked to you on a number of occasions about this subject when I participated with Senator Mundt in this so-called Smith-Mundt bill which covered the whole information program. It seemed to me at that time that the development of this exchange program was a very important item right in the middle of the whole picture. And my experience with Belgian relief with Mr. Hoover after World War I and what exchange has done in Belgium is another reason for my feeling we could go much more deeply than we do today in the international field of exchange of human relationships in this program.

PRECEDENTS FOR CREATION OF PROGRAM

Senator FULBRIGHT. I am glad the Senator mentioned Mr Hoover. I think it is entirely in order and proper to recall that after the First World War he was responsible for the creation of the Belgian-American Foundation which sponsored similar exchanges with Belgium. It was highly successful, the only criticism being that it was too small and confined to one country. It is exactly the same idea. It was one of the precedents. This and the Boxer indemnity program were the two principal precedents for the creation of these programs under the existing legislation, and I think that that ought to be good authority to the present administration and the majority party in the Senate to look with some favor on this program and not be too suspicious of it, the fact that it has had and I believe, still has the approval of Mr. Hoover.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to be a witness here, but I am so much interested in this subject I wanted to add a few thoughts for the record. I might say for the record that we have estimated that in Belgian public life today 60 percent of all men holding important positions, from the Prime Minister down, have been American-Belgian exchange students. The younger generation that has come up since World War I are the ones who today are holding the floor in Belgium and are the best missionaries we have for Belgian-American relations. To me it is an outstanding example of what can be done.

Senator FULBRIGHT. The Senator is entirely correct. I agree completely with that. There is a good example of what can be done because there it is concentrated in that one program, and I think clearly see the connection between what now exists and the program. the Senator mentioned.

EVIDENCE OF PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS

you can

Chairman BRIDGES. Senator, is this program of such a character in the existing cases that you know somewhat of the performance of the people afterward?

Senator FULBRIGHT. Of course, the length of time is not sufficient. The first year was 1948, and I think there were 84 at that time. It has grown into a sizable program only during the last 3 or 4 years. The first year was very small. I have an enormous amount of correspondence from people who have been in various parts of the world, both Americans and foreigners, which, if the committee had the time and was willing, I would be more than delighted to submit as evidence that it has already created a great impression upon these people. It has already had very beneficial effects, although we feel, as these people who have been here go back and become leaders in their communities, that influence will grow as the years go on.

I have had this kind of remark that was very impressive to me, and I think if you will think about it that it is. I have had a very prominent Egyptian doctor who came here under one of these programs who was commenting, of course, about his own experience as being a very fine one. But even of more significance to me was his comment that in sending American professors or students to Egypt that we were thereby evidencing an interest in them that no important western country had ever evidenced before. In other words, that Americans were paying them the great compliment of showing an interest in their culture. And he, in his estimation, thought that was one of the best possible ways to create friendship and respect on the part of the Egyptians with this country.

Those types of things are subtle. They cannot be measured in tangible things such as factories or guns or planes or airbases, but for the long-term good relations I think they do more than anything.

I have had many such expressions. The only reason I did not undertake to submit them is that I had respect for your time limitations. Many people have seen them, and I, of course, am always anxious to make them available to anyone who has an interest in that type of thing. But there certainly is a lot of evidence that it is already having quite an impact upon our relations.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I would like to ask another question based on the fact that you yourself were one of the earlier Rhodes scholars to England.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Not one of the earlier ones. It started in 1903. I was in 1925.

Chairman BRIDGES. The committee will accept your correction. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. My question was this: Based on that observation that you were a Rhodes scholar and you personally got some of the feel of what it means to go to a foreign country and mingle with students from foreign countries and relations of this country with