1. Inadequacy of funds for foreign-currency programs in 21 countries Foreign-currency programs (Public Law 584) cannot be adequately carried out in the 21 countries stipulated by the House committee report inasmuch as the allowance of $9 million does not provide sufficient dollar funds to supplement foreign-currency programs equivalent to $7,560,166. The dollar appropriation as provided by the House is not even adequate to cover administrative costs, much less to take care of travel costs, tuition, and other items for which dollar appropriations are required in connection with the exchange program. is as follows: Foreign currencies _ The cost $7, 560, 166 Dollars for joint grants.. Contractual costs. Domestic staff (67 positions) Other domestic expenses__ United States Advisory Commission on Educational Exchange (includes 2 positions). Foreign Administrative Support... 1,246, 680 640, 800 332, 360 145, 000 14, 455 100, 000 10, 039, 461 Total Appropriation according to House report. Deficit-- 9, 000, 000 1,039, 461 In order to meet this deficit and to come within the $9 million, the $1,039,461 would have to be applied against the dollars for joint grants thereby reducing that figure to $207,219. This would mean that approximately 500 foreign currency grants could not be used because there would not be sufficient dollars to pay the stateside portions of them. 2. The provisions of the Buenos Aires Convention for the exchange of students cannot be carried out Funds required (includes 2 positions), $124,875. This treaty provides for a small program of exchanges, but represents an international instrument of long standing, the abrogation of which would give the appearance of lack of desire on the part of the United States to continue cultural cooperation with the other American Republics. As pointed out in item 1, there will be insufficient dollar funds to carry out the foreign currency stipulated by the House committee report. Consequently, the program will be discontinued in the following 16 countries: S. Funds provided are not sufficient to pay for certain costs of administering the Finnish program (Public Law 265, 81st Cong.). Public Law 265 does not authorize the payment of administrative costs from its funds Funds required, $12,776. Expenditures for administrative and contractual costs to carry out the program authorized by Public Law 265 must be paid from annual appropriations. The necessary expenditures for the Finnish Public Law 584 foreign currency program are included under item 1, but there will be no dollar funds available for administering the Finnish leader program and it will have to be discontinued. 4. Funds are not provided for completing the 1954 leader program Funds required (includes 7 positions), $106,020. Many of the leader grants now being awarded will involve certain contractual expenses and some administrative costs chargeable to the 1955 fiscal-year funds in order to complete the program. Commitments have already been made to these important foreign leaders who will arrive in the United States during the latter part of fiscal year 1954 and during fiscal year 1955. 5. Foreign leader and specialists programs would be eliminated in all countries and total programs would be eliminated in 46 countries There would be no dollar funds available for grants to foreign leaders and specialists in any country (see list below). Furthermore, all other Public Law 402 (80th Congress) programs would be eliminated in 46 countries (marked with asterisks). The only programs which will remain will be reduced foreign currency programs in the countries not marked with asterisks (see explanation No. 1 above). The elimination of foreign leader and specialist programs in these countries, many of which are critically important as bulwarks of the free world, would be a serious blow to our international relations, since they relate most directly to current United States foreign policy objectives. The value of the educational exchange program in our scheme of diplomatic relations with these countries is well known and the complete elimination in 46 countries (marked with asterisk) of this important tool of diplomatic relations would be a grave mistake on the part of the United States Government. Foreign leaders and specialists in all countries. Dollar programs in countries having no foreign currency program.. United States Advisory Committee on Educational Exchange (in Domestic staff (110 positions). cludes 3 positions)_. Other domestic expenses_ United States mission cost Total $1, 160, 169 1, 227, 304 183, 885 616, 756 6. All aid to American-sponsored schools in Latin America would be eliminated Funds required, $135,000. Dr. Milton Eisenhower recommended in his report on Latin America that the amount of this aid be increased to $175,000. The funds required would furnish professional aid and guidance to these schools, which enroll about 50,000 students annually, to maintain United States standards of teaching and administration and to reflect the "North American way." 7. Deletion of limitation for the purchase of foreign currency It is requested that the amount of $7,560,166 for the purchase of foreign currencies or credits be deleted since this restriction does not permit the program flexibility needed to administer the educational exchange program. If any one of the countries indicated in the House committee report has a carryover of foreign currency funds from one year to the other, the Department may wish to have sufficient latitude to reduce the current year's foreign currency funds since the annual program can be maintained without a full transfer. Then the savings may be used for dollar programs for priority projects which arise from time to time. 8. Increasing limitation for entertainment within the United States to $1,800 The limitation recommended by the House will restrict entertainment mainly to out-of-pocket expenses of reception center officers in New York, Miami, New Orleans, Washington, and San Francisco when meeting foreign grantees upon their entry in the United States. Official luncheons or receptions for recognition of distinguished leaders, principally those of Cabinet rank, cannot be given unless original limitation of $1,800 is restored. INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE ACTIVITIES STATEMENT OF HON. J. W. FULBRIGHT, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much being heard first. I can never permit this occasion to go by without at least saying a word with regard to this program, feeling considerable responsibility for it. You, of course, have representatives here who will go into the details of it and will testify as to the particular effects of the House action in reducing these appropriations. I should like to confine my remarks to the effectiveness of the program as it is operated, primarily at least. I want to note, however, that of the $7,781,960 reduction below the budget estimate made by the House committee in the appropriation for the entire Department of State, the reduction in the exchange program will account for $6 million out of the $7,700,000. There is nothing in the House committee's report to indicate why the exchange program was so drastically reduced when practically everyone who has studied the program favored its expansion, as I will try to indicate a little later in my remarks. RELATIONSHIP OF PROGRAMS UNDER EXISTING AUTHORITY The only indications as to the reason for the reduction are the notations that there are other programs than these, and in this connection the report notes that the Foreign Operations Administration has funds for this purpose. When Senator Mundt and I were members of the Hickenlooper committee we examined officials of the FOA on this point and were assured that there was no duplication in the activities of the two agencies in their programs of bringing foreign leaders and trainees into this country and in sending Americans abroad. If, however, there is duplication, and one program is to be cut because it overlaps another, it seems to me that program should be that of the Foreign Operations Administration. I am not advocating such a reduction, I am merely stating that the duplication, if any, is on the part of the FOA. Congress has specifically directed the State Department, by the Smith-Mundt and other acts, to carry on this activity, spelling out just what it was to do and how the program was to be administered. Congress has not directed the FOA to carry on exchange programs. Its authority to do so is only incidental to its general purposes. As a matter of fact, Congress in the past has specifically denied FOA authority to engage in activities authorized by the Smith-Mundt Act. I call your attention to section 418 of the Act for International Development, title IV of the Economic Cooperation Act for 1950. Section 418, as used in this title, is: (a) The term "technical cooperation program" means a program for the interchange of technical knowledge and skills designed to contribute to the balance and integrated development of the economic resources and productive capacities of economically underdeveloped areas. And I skip down to the middle of this paragraph, and I particularly call the committee's attention to this statement: The term "technical cooperation program" does not include such activities authorized by the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 6) as are not primarily related to economic development. I think it is very clear that the Congress did not intend that this program should be carried on by FOA. If there is any encroachment it is clearly on the part of the FOA. It would seem very illogical to me, therefore, to reduce this item because funds are available for such a program for FOA when that program is not authorized by Congress and, in fact, is prohibited. If the FOA is encroaching upon this field its budget, rather than this item, should be reduced, and I think that is the decision for the committee to make. I am not, as I say, advocating a reduction, but if that is a valid reason for this reduction I simply think the reduction should be in the FOA. I think there are 2 or 3 reasons I might mention, but which will come out a little later in my remarks, as to the relative efficiency of these 2 activities in addition to congressional authority. One outstanding one is that the FOA's exchange, such as it is and I may say I am not well informed about it because I was, I would not say misled, but I certainly misunderstood what I was told when I was a member of the Hickenlooper committee about this activity. But if they are carrying it on as I now unofficially understand they are, it is not in connection with a well-established system of selection such as the binational commissions set up under Public Law 584. And furthermore the FOA, in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of Congress, is a temporary activity designed primarily for economic improvement, and therefore there is no real reason to set up a permanent, long-term system of selection. EXCERPT OF PRESIDENT'S LETTER SUPPORTING EXCHANGE PROGRAM Now, Mr. Chairman, experts in the field of foreign relations who have given some attention to the exchange-of-persons programs have praised them and have recommended their expansion, and I want to quote a few statements-I do not have too many-but I would like to illustrate this point first by a quotation from a letter by President Eisenhower to the Institute of International Education dated October 16, 1952, in which he said: I firmly believe that educational-exchange programs are an important step toward world peace. It is my personal hope that this activity so important in the future of the world will continue to expand in the coming year. 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 nonpolitical 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. |