U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

69–748 CC WASHINGTON : 2001

S. HRG. 106–878

EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND

THE NATIONAL INTEREST

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 14, 2000

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon

ROD GRAMS, Minnesota

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota

BARBARA BOXER, California

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey

STEPHEN E. BIEGUN, Staff Director

EDWIN K. HALL, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

ROD GRAMS, Minnesota, Chairman

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

BILL FRIST, Tennessee

BARBARA BOXER, California

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

Bader, Hon. William B., Assistant Secretary, Bureau for Educational and

Cultural Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC .................................. 2

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

Responses to additional questions submitted for the record ........................ 8

Byrne, Carol Engebretson, Executive Director, Minnesota International Center, Minneapolis, MN ........................................................................................... 33

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36

Denton, James S., Executive Director, Freedom House, Washington, DC ......... 19

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24

Johnson, Marlene M., Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer,

NAFSA: Association of International Educators, and Chairman of the Board

of Directors, Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange,

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 27

Prepared statement and additional material submitted for the record ....... 45

Mueller, Sherry L., Executive Director, National Council for International

Visitors, Washington, DC .................................................................................... 31

(III)

(1)

EXCHANGE PROGRAMS AND THE NATIONAL

INTEREST

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2000

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:07 a.m. in room

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rod Grams presiding.

Present: Senators Grams and Sarbanes.

Senator GRAMS. Good morning. I would like to bring this hearing

to order. Thank you all very much for being here this morning. I

am looking forward to the testimony of our witnesses and also, of

course, to your answers.

Good morning, Assistant Secretary Bader. I want to thank you

all, and all of our witnesses, as I mentioned, on the second panel

for attending this hearing on Exchange Programs and the National

Interest. I hope that you are going to forgive me if I extend a special welcome to my fellow Minnesotans this morning, that is Carol

Byrne and Marlene Johnson, who will be testifying before this committee as well this morning. So welcome.

It is an appropriate time to evaluate how exchanges are working,

now that a year has passed since the U.S. Information Agency

[USIA] was consolidated into the State Department. Moreover, a

full decade after the end of the cold war, I think it is an appropriate time to assess how closely exchanges are tied to U.S. national interest and foreign policy goals.

I supported the reorganization of our foreign policy bureaucracy

in order to provide a more coherent framework to advance the national interest and to ensure respect for American leadership

abroad. National prestige is reinforced and enhanced when we operate with a coherent, concise, and understandable foreign policy,

and I am convinced that by being under State Department control

ultimately the role of exchanges has the potential to be enhanced

by having exchanges regarded as part of a comprehensive package

of tools to respond to foreign policy challenges.

Now, that being said, concerns remain. Exchanges tend to be undervalued by the executive branch. I had to fight to modify President Clinton’s reorganization plan so the exchange functions were

not combined with information activities into a single bureau, and

it is unclear whether there is adequate support for exchanges within the State Department to ensure the exchange budgets will not

be reduced when pitted against other priorities.

2

We know that international exchange and training programs

serve to complement and strengthen traditional diplomacy. These

programs are inexpensive, cost effective, and a way to assist in

building democratic institutions and promoting American values

throughout the world.

So if everyone agrees that these benefits exist, why then is support for exchanges in question? Well, I will be blunt: because in the

world of politics there is always pressure to sacrifice programs, like

exchanges, which yield long-term benefits for activities that will

reap only short-term gains.

Let me also say this: Exchanges I believe do make a difference.

I’m convinced that a major reason why Minnesota is so outward

looking and so engaged in the international arena is because of the

active participation in national exchanges of so many of our universities and private voluntary organizations. The best way to combat

harmful isolationist sentiments is to directly involve thousands of

American citizens each year in exchange programs at the grassroots level, and the best way to promote democracy and freedom

abroad is to use our Nation’s greatest asset, and that is our people,

to advance our goals.

I want to underscore that point. Exchanges are not just for increasing understanding. They are first and foremost for promoting

America’s national interest. Now, if we are going to do that effectively, I think we need to take a critical look at the programs currently being funded and look for creative ways to improve their

performance.

I have enjoyed working with Sherry Mueller of the National

Council for International Visitors [NCIV] and Carol Byrne of the

Minnesota International Center to find a way that the Sister Cities

Program could be enhanced through a partnership with the National Visitors Program. I will introduce a proposal to fund the

Grassroots Exchange and Training Program in the next State Department authorization bill.

So once again, I just wanted to take time this morning to thank

you for agreeing to testify today. I look forward to exploring ways

to strengthen and enhance our international exchange programs.

So again, welcome to all our guests. Dr. Bader, I would like to

give you the floor for your opening statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM B. BADER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU FOR EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Dr. BADER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, and thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for that very

powerful and important statement. The role of this committee, and

you, in ensuring that the consolidation worked as far as the exchange program, was essential. I am very pleased to accept the

committee’s invitation to participate in today’s hearing on the oversight of the educational and cultural exchange programs.

Just on a personal note, I must say I am very pleased and delighted to be back here at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,

a place I spent many years, and feel very good about that and that

time. I am also extremely pleased that today’s hearing has such

wonderful and distinguished representatives of the private volVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
3

untary organizations. They are in my view, and I know it is widely

shared, the very heart of what we are in exchange programs, and

certainly they are the voice.

Slightly less than 2 years ago, Mr. Chairman, it was my great

honor to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as

the President’s nominee to serve as Associate Director of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. On that occasion I expressed my deep belief in the importance of exchanges based on

prior experience in the government and the private sector, and indeed based on my own experience as a Fulbrighter.

The past 22 months as head of the Bureau of Educational and

Cultural Affairs have confirmed this belief and has deepened my

appreciation of the effectiveness of the exchange programs managed by the Department. The Bureau’s mission as stipulated by

Fulbright-Hays is quite clear: to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries. In April of this year the President reinforced that mission

with a Presidential Memorandum on International Education Policy.

Each year some 6,000 Fulbrighters study, teach, and research a

variety of academic subjects, enriching themselves and their countries. At the same time, thousands of up and coming professionals

come to the United States under the International Visitors Program and engage American counterparts on many of the same subjects, but usually with a focus that is more practical than academic.

Completing this picture are the scores of citizen exchange grants

linking global organizations across the United States with overseas

counterparts.

What makes these programs work is the richness, the variety,

and the just old-fashioned plain big-heartedness of grassroots

America. I am delighted that the representatives of some of those

organizations are appearing before the subcommittee today.

Scores of American voluntary organizations and thousands of volunteers make sure these foreign visitors meet their counterparts,

whether their field is genetically-engineered organisms or local government. Future leaders encounter American openness at a stage

in their lives when they have the energy, the freedom, and the time

to learn about us firsthand. Later, the tyranny of bureaucratic inboxes and, for some, the protective cocoon of senior leadership

make it more difficult to have this type of contact. Results are

striking.

Many of the visitors to this country are foreign students. And

450 U.S. educational advising centers, working in partnership with

American universities, help bring a half a million students to the

United States each year. Partnerships between American and foreign universities develop the quality of teaching in the United

States and overseas, and bring, may I say, an estimated $9 billion

into American communities annually. I cannot say enough good

things about the American volunteers and nongovernmental organizations that make these exchanges work.

The benefits of all these exchanges to the American government

and American society are in my view enormous. Alumni return to

their countries as engines of positive change. Moreover, we estabVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
4

1See page 7.

lish contact early on with individuals who will one day shape the

future of their countries.

One of the oft-cited but still compelling indicators that the right

people are participating in these programs is the track record on

heads of state, a quite extraordinary figure. Forty-six current and

148 former heads of government or chiefs of state have been on

these programs. These results are often the consequences of decisions made decades earlier. For example, the first civilian to become Minister of Defense in Indonesia was a Fulbrighter at Berkeley in 1969—that probably prepared him to be a Minister of Defense. He was also later a Fulbright scholar at Georgetown in 1985.

We must plan now to have benefits later.

Right now the alumni are doing important work. Mr. Chairman,

I would like to submit for the record a recent Wall Street Journal

article 1 on Mr. Zlatko Lagumdzija, who leads Bosnia’s Social

Democratic Party, the one major party trying to cut across ethnic

lines. He was a Fulbrighter in 1988 and 1989. Interesting enough,

his interlocutor, the High Representative in Bosnia, an Austrian,

Wolfgang Petritsch, was also a Fulbrighter 15 years earlier. This

is an example of the delayed impact, but an important impact.

If I may, I would make one additional observation on the Balkans, Mr. Chairman. Let me note for the record that on some occasions the impact is more immediate. For example, we brought representatives of the Croatian opposition parties to the United States

over the strenuous opposition of the Tudjman regime. Within a

year, they were running the country. Examples like this are dramatic.

In addition to the case studies and feedback on the actions of

specific individuals, there are other indicators that the Bureau programs are advancing the national interest. In a recent survey on

public diplomacy, ambassadors urged us to augment the existing

programs and rated exchanges very highly. The two largest Bureau

programs, Fulbright and the International Visitors Programs, received near-perfect scores. Independent external evaluations are

also very encouraging.

Despite the good news on the impact of our programs, I do not

want to suggest the sky is cloudless. Rapid change in the outside

world complicates the adjustment process. The former Soviet Union

is now 12 separate countries. Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania are

independent. The old Yugoslavia has separated or disintegrated

into five separate states. In these countries, security issues and

transition from communism to democracy affect vital American interests. There is no shortage of tasks that we could undertake.

Mr. Chairman, in the Newly Independent States [NIS], it is only

additional funding provided under the Freedom Support Act for exchange activities that permits us to conduct robust public diplomacy in that part of the world. There are over 50,000 alumni already of these exchanges within the NIS, potentially an enormous

resource. It is no exaggeration to say that in large measure the future of their countries is riding on their shoulders. Needless to say,

the nature of their future has profound implications for us.

5

We are proud of these programs, Mr. Chairman. It is important

to note that the Bureau’s appropriated funds, that is our base

funds, cover only 21 percent of the total Bureau programs in the

NIS. The balance is covered by Freedom Support funds. Without

this funding, we would have to let priorities go unmet and cut back

dramatically on Bureau programs in other regions to continue to

meet the need in the NIS.

Mr. Chairman, we need to prepare for the future. Closed societies

will open. We do not know yet the precise where and when, but we

know it will happen. Public diplomacy is an exceptionally flexible

instrument. It is deeply subversive to authoritarian systems. It has

proven its effectiveness in societies in transitions and is well suited

to new issues.

We do believe, Mr. Chairman, we have brought into the State

Department assets that greatly fortify traditional diplomatic readiness. Through our programs, we will help make available to the

rest of the world the richness of American life. In Wall Street parlance, we are long-term investors with a special interest in emerging markets.

We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and other

members of the committee as we plan for the future, and I would

be most happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you

very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bader follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM B. BADER

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to accept the Committee’s invitation to participate in today’s hearing

on oversight of educational and cultural exchanges.

Slightly less than two years ago it was my great honor to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as the President’s nominee to serve as Associate

Director of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, at the time located in

USIA. On that occasion I expressed my deep belief in the importance of exchanges,

based on prior experience in government and in the private sector—and indeed

based on my own experience as a Fulbrighter. The past twenty-two months as the

head of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, now back in the State Department, have confirmed my belief and have deepened my appreciation for the effectiveness of the exchange programs managed by the Department.

The Bureau’s mission, as stipulated in the Fulbright-Hays Act, remains ‘‘. . . to

increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the

people of other countries . . .’’ In April of this year the President reinforced this mission with a presidential memorandum on international education policy. The main

components of our effort are familiar to all—Academic Exchanges (primarily Fulbright), the International Visitor (IV) program, and Citizen Exchanges. I was familiar with the Fulbright program but knew much less about International Visitors and

Citizen Exchanges when I started this job. Since then I have seen first-hand how

these programs not only complement and reinforce one another, but also add to the

effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy. The President’s FY 2001 budget will enhance

this effectiveness.

Each year some six thousand Fulbrighters study, teach, and research a variety

of academic subjects, enriching themselves and their countries. At the same time

thousands of up-and-coming professionals come to the United States under the

International Visitor program and engage American counterparts on many of those

same subjects but usually with a focus that is more practical than academic. Completing this picture are the scores of Citizen Exchange grants linking local organizations across the United States with overseas counterparts on issues of importance

to the United States.

What makes these programs work is the richness, variety, and just plain

bigheartedness of grass-roots America. I am delighted that representatives of some

of those organizations are appearing before the subcommittee today. Nonprofit organizations in states across the country, including Minnesota, have received millions

6

of dollars to run high-school exchange programs, business training, and International Visitor programs as partners of the Bureau. They and other organizations

work with the State Department and the Department of Education to implement the

presidential memorandum on international education I cited earlier. In addition approximately fifteen hundred American organizations administer J-visa exchange

programs in connection with international exchange programs that they manage.

Authorizing organizations to administer J-visa exchange programs is a function the

Bureau embraced last year as a result of the USIA-State Department consolidation.

Scores of American voluntary organizations and thousands of volunteers make

sure that foreign visitors meet their counterparts—whether their field is genetically

engineered organisms or local government—and learn to see the United States in

a nuanced way. Future leaders encounter American openness at a stage in their

lives when they have the energy, the freedom, and the time to learn about us first

hand. Later the tyranny of the in-box and, for some, the protective cocoon of senior

leadership make it more difficult to have this type of contact. The results are striking. From that point onward both visitor and host will think differently about things

international. They will test stereotypes and hearsay against the reality of their own

direct, personal experience. This is no small matter. In today’s world, decision-making is increasingly decentralized, and decisions made in one country resonate elsewhere. It is in the American national interest that such decisions be made on the

basis of accurate perceptions.

Many of the visitors to this country are foreign students. Four hundred and fifty

advising centers, working in partnership with American universities, help bring a

half million students to the United States each year. These future leaders learn

about our country at a formative period in their lives, and American students benefit from their presence. Partnerships between American and foreign universities

develop the quality of teaching in the United States and overseas and bring nine

billion dollars into American communities annually. I cannot say enough good

things about the American volunteers and non-governmental organizations that

make these exchanges work. It is not coincidental that time and again visitors are

so impressed by the activism, volunteerism, and can-do attitude of ordinary citizens.

It is, I think, one of the most important aspects of our society, one many of us take

for granted. Our ‘‘diplomacy of inclusion’’ also makes an impression, I believe. In

Bureau exchanges we actively encourage the involvement of traditionally under-represented groups, including women, ethnic minorities, and those with disabilities.

The benefits of all these exchanges to the American government and American society are, in my view, enormous. Alumni return to their countries as engines of positive change. Moreover we establish contact early on with individuals who will one

day shape their countries’ future. One of the often cited but still compelling indicators that the right people are participating in our programs is the track record on

heads of state—46 current and 148 former heads of government or chiefs of state.

These results are often the consequence of decisions made decades earlier. For example the first civilian to become minister of defense in Indonesia was a Fulbrighter

at Berkeley in 1969 and a Fulbright scholar at Georgetown in 1985. We must plan

now to benefit later.

Our alumni not only occupy important positions, but we know that at times a well

designed program in the United States can have a profound impact on events, as

in the case of F.W. deKlerk, who credits his IV experience with changing his mind

on race relations in South Africa. And right now our alumni are doing important

work. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a recent Wall Street

Journal article on Mr. Zlatko Lagumdzija who leads Bosnia’s Social Democratic

Party—the one major party trying to cut across ethnic lines. He was a Fulbrighter

in 1988-89. Interestingly his interlocutor as High Representative in Bosnia, Wolfgang Petritsch, was also a Fulbrighter, 15 years earlier. This is an example of delayed impact.

If I may make one additional observation on the Balkans, Mr. Chairman let me

note that on occasion the impact will be more immediate. For example we brought

representatives of the Croatian opposition parties to the U.S. over the strenuous objections of the Tudjman regime. Within in a year they were running the country.

Examples like these are dramatic. More typical are the thousands of other alumni

who are making important contributions in less visible ways. They defend human

rights, practice sound journalism, counter AIDS, combat trafficking in persons,

lobby for good governance, promote the rule of law, and advance reconciliation. In

short, they are building civil societies from the bottom up. In addition the broader

constituencies reached by Bureau programs increasingly influence and constrain

governments. NATO enlargement and food standards are two recent examples. By

engaging those who frame the intellectual agenda—from curriculum designers to

7

television anchors—we promote comprehension of the U.S. and provide a broader

context for understanding our policies.

In addition to case studies and feedback on the actions of specific individuals

there are other indicators that Bureau programs are advancing the national interest. In the recent survey on public diplomacy ambassadors urged us to augment existing programs and rated exchanges very highly. The two largest Bureau programs—Fulbright and IV—received near perfect scores.

Independent, external evaluations are also encouraging. For instance, a recent

survey of the Humphrey program for mid-career professionals substantiated the

quality of the exchange, its impact on the careers of participants, and their high regard for the U.S. More surprisingly perhaps, it also revealed that ninety-five percent

of alumni continue to collaborate with American colleagues. This is precisely the

sort of international networking and multiplier effect our programs seek to foster.

We are placing greater emphasis on professional evaluation of our programs, Mr.

Chairman, and we would be happy to share the results with you and your committee.

Despite the good news on the impact of our programs, I do not want to suggest

that the sky is cloudless. Rapid change in the outside world complicates the adjustment process. The former Soviet Union is now twelve separate countries. Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania are independent. The old Yugoslavia has shattered into five

separate states. In these countries security issues and the transition from communism to democracy affect vital American interests. There is no shortage of tasks

that we could undertake.

Mr. Chairman, in the NIS it is only additional funding provided under the Freedom Support Act (transfers from USAID) for exchange activities that permits us to

conduct the robust public diplomacy required in that part of the world. Young faculty work with U.S. mentors to develop new courses on governance, journalism, and

other critical subjects. Entrepreneurs see first-hand how American small businesses

create wealth and promote choice. The best and brightest high-school students participate in the Future Leaders Exchange Program (FLEX), targeted at the next generation in the NIS. The cream of the successor generation attend American high

schools and experience democracy first-hand in our families, our classrooms, and our

communities. There are 50,000 alumni of these programs in the NIS—potentially an

enormous resource. It is no exaggeration to say that in large measure the future

of their countries is riding on their shoulders. Needless to say, the nature of their

future has profound implications for us.

We are proud of these programs, Mr. Chairman. It is important to note that Bureau appropriated funds (base funds) cover only 21 percent of total Bureau programs in the NIS. The balance is covered by FSA funds. Without FSA funding, we

would have to let priorities go unmet or cut back dramatically on Bureau programs

in other regions, to continue to meet the need in the NIS.

Mr. Chairman, we need to prepare for the future. Closed societies will open. We

don’t know the precise ‘‘where and when’’ but we know it will happen. Public diplomacy is an exceptionally flexible instrument. It is deeply subversive to authoritarian

systems. It has proven its effectiveness in societies in transition, and it is well suited to new issues that stimulate broad public engagement.

We believe, Mr. Chairman, we have brought into the Department of State assets

that greatly fortify traditional diplomatic readiness. Through our programs we help

make available to the rest of the world the richness of American life and experience,

furthering mutual understanding in the process. In Wall Street parlance we are

long-term investors with a special interest in emerging markets.

We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of

the committee as we plan for the future. I would be happy to address any questions

you may have. Thank you.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, June 28, 2000]

THE WEST MIGHT HAVE ITS MAN IN BOSNIA

COMPUTER-SCIENCE PROFESSOR LEADS ONLY MAJOR PARTY THAT BRIDGES ETHNICITY

(By Matthew Kaminski)

SARAJEVO, BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA.—Wanted: moderate leader for splintered state.

Ideal candidate would pursue market reforms, crack down on corruption and reconcile warring ethnic groups.

8

It is a hard bill to fill in the Balkans. Now, as Kosovo rumbles, the Western allies

think they might have their man in Bosnia, after nearly five frustrating years of

trying to hold that country together.

Zlatko Lagumdzija, a 44-year-old computer-science professor, wouldn’t say so. He

led the country’s only major party that bridges ethnicity to a surprisingly strong

showing in recent Bosnia-wide municipal elections: His Social Democrats, or SDP,

look to build on that peformance in November’s national poll.

The SDP is cutting into support for nationalist parties that obstruct efforts backed

by the U.S. and European Union to forge a single state out of three ethnic ghettos

in Bosnia. Muslims, Croats and Serbs were the antagonists in the 1992-95 war;

Muslims and Croats joined forces in 1994 and uneasily share a federation in the

western half of Bosnia. The Serb republic makes up the other half.

The international community is looking for an exit strategy for its 20,000 peacekeeping troops and thousands of bureaucrats. Is the SDP it? If his electoral success

continues, senior Western officials say, Mr. Lagumdzija is the face of a pluralistic,

united Bosnia. This kind of country, they believe, wouldn’t sink back into war. ‘‘He could be a politician in a Western European country; that in itself spells the

difference,’’ says Wolfgang Petritsch, the high representative, a sort of Western overseer in Bosnia.

Recent history doesn’t bode well. Many of the wartime leaders stayed on when fighting stopped, legitimized by frequent elections. The $5 billion in foreign aid was

channeled into an economy beholden to the state. The SDP can’t match the three

nationalist parties’ powers of patronage. ‘‘What I’m out to do is break the system,’’ says Mr. Lagumdzija, who started out

in the now defunct Communist Party. But now he plays the outsider. During the

April campaign for city councils, he touched a popular nerve with attacks on the

ruling parties’, alleged corruption and for dragging Bosnia into war.

The SDP carried the Muslim-Croat Federation, attracting 29% of the popularvote, compared with 20% for the ruling Party Democratic Action (SDA), according

to an analysis of 145 municipalities by the Center for European Policy Studies. Support came mainly from Muslims in bigger cities. The SDP received only a smattering of ballots in Republika Srpska, the Serbian half of the country, and from

Croats, a fifth of the population, most of whom live in western Bosnia. Nationalist

parties continued their domination in both areas.

But the SDP’s performance shook up the political scene in the Muslim-dominated

Federation, where the party won 19 mayorships. Earlier this month, the SDA’s aging leader, Alija Izetbegovic, announced his resignation from Bosnia’s three-person presidency.

As the largest ethnic group, Bosnian Muslims must show the way forward, says

Mr. Lagumdzija, and Bosnia’s other nationalities will follow.

As in Serbia, where the opposition also controls many cities, real power rests

higher up. The well-funded SDA holds the purse strings through its hold on regional

administrations—up for grabs in November’s elections.

RESPONSES OF HON. WILLIAM B. BADER TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

FROM SENATOR BARBARA BOXER

Question. I understand that there are high-quality, well-established programs like

Amity Institute, which the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs has up till

now been unable or unwilling to find a place for in the current J-1 visa regulations.

This situation has threatened the unnecessary demise of some of these programs.

How does the Bureau plan to deal with programs like Amity Institute to ensure that

you do not terminate valid, necessary programs simply because of regulatory technicalities?

Answer. The Bureau is committed to giving full consideration to any program

which enhances mutual understanding as envisioned under the Fulbright-Hays Act.

Toward this end, the Bureau will continue to work with Amity Institute in order

to ensure that its foreign language volunteer program can continue to operate; while

this could not clearly be done under existing regulations, it will be possible through

amendments.

Question. How does the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs plan to address the specific problem that Amity faces in regard to its foreign language teacher

program? Will this program continue unhindered next year?

Answer. Amity is interested in conducting a foreign language program using volunteers to assist qualified teachers in primary and secondary classrooms in the

United States. There are no regulations to provide for this activity. The Department

9

is therefore preparing regulations for a new category. In the meantime, the Amity

Pilot program will continue without interruption until formal regulations are in

place.

Question. I understand that Amity’s program will require that a new classification

be created under the J-1 Visa Program. When will this new classification be made?

Answer. The activity being conducted by the Amity Institute’s foreign language

volunteers does not fall squarely within any of the existing Exchange Visitor Program categories. The Bureau is developing a category to accommodate this activity

and is in the process of drafting the necessary regulations to put it in place. It is

estimated that this process, which involves a public notice and comment period, will

take a few months. We will move it along as expeditiously as possible in consultation with Amity.

Question. Have overseas staffing levels for public diplomacy positions—the former

USIS positions—remained consistent? Is the State Department committed to maintaining these levels, especially for cultural affairs officers who handle exchanges?

Answer. Overseas staffing levels for public diplomacy program positions have remained consistent during this first year of integration, and no reduction of public

diplomacy positions is proposed in FY 2001. The Secretary is committed to preserving and strengthening the public diplomacy program. We plan to maintain the

level of public diplomacy staff and resources, including cultural affairs officers who

handle exchanges.

Senator GRAMS. Thank you very much, Assistant Secretary

Bader. I appreciate that, and your request to have that article included in the record will be as you request.

Assistant Secretary Bader, I am going to begin with a question

on the budget for international exchanges. As you know, during the

1990’s the educational and cultural exchange programs accounts

appropriations reached a high of $366.8 million back in fiscal year

1994. Why has the administration only requested $225 million for

the next fiscal year?

Dr. BADER. Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by saying you are right

on point with respect to the funding for these programs. The

amount we have today for exchanges is one-third less than we had

in constant dollars in 1993. So we really do have a shortfall. It is

particularly important to understand how to fill the shortfall because of what I have just mentioned, this emergence of new states

that we have to serve, a quarter more new states. In the world that

we are in right now, we have to have the kinds of programs and

the funds for programs to meet critical situations, surge activities,

and the like.

The President’s request of $225 million, which has not yet passed

the full Senate, meets the President’s net request, though the distribution of funds differs a bit from the request. I would just note

here that the bill merges the North-South Center appropriation

with educational and cultural exchange programs without crosswalking the funds, thus effectively reducing the President’s request

by $1.7 million, which is something we should perhaps all look at.

To answer your question, I think we are now obviously in a time

of reduced resources. We are always looking for more. We were

very pleased with the President’s request. We were indeed very

pleased with the fact that the Senate appropriation moved forward

with the $225 million. The House level at $214 million provides a

5 percent increase.

I would say that right now, if we could reach as close as possible

to that $225 million for 2001, we will be able to meet those kinds

of requirements and programs we wish to have. We do in fact, Mr.

10

Chairman, have what you might call a very aggressive plan for exchanges. We hope that the Congress will support it.

Senator GRAMS. I look forward to working with you on the next

appropriations process dealing with this budget. So thank you.

On reorganization, now that exchanges have been administered

by State for about a year, could you describe for me this morning

how operating the exchanges within the Department of State has

benefited either the exchange program or, as I talked about in my

opening statement, U.S. foreign policy?

Dr. BADER. I feel very strongly, Mr. Chairman, that moving these

assets and programs into the State Department is a major step forward. We have been very well and warmly received in the Department. I should say, very much thanks to this committee, we have

returned to the State Department with the integrity of exchanges

and our separate appropriation intact. This is in fact terribly important.

What are the advantages of being there? I think they are significant. It gives us an opportunity to coordinate early and often with

the other bureaus of the Department. I feel very strongly that we

now are in a position to be in at the planning stages with respect

to supporting U.S. foreign policy objectives, to be able to do those

consistent with our legislative mandate, and to preserve the integrity of the program.

What else can I say about the Bureau’s consolidation and how it

has gone thus far? Well, we continue to be dependent on our cultural officers and our public affairs officers in the field and local

staffs. They are really the golden thread out to the field. We would

not be able to function and to find future leaders if we did not in

fact have those officers.

One of my greatest concerns in the consolidation process is

whether we will in fact be able to have the attention of those officers in the field. We are making great strides to convince, if you

will, the old State Department, that those officers have to be on

point. This is something we have to be very attentive to. Without

those officers in the field being attentive and being evaluated on

the success of these exchange programs, the consolidation in fact

will have a real deficit. That is something we have to be very careful about.

I see, Mr. Chairman, that the other bureaus of State Department

are now beginning to acknowledge the importance and vital role of

public diplomacy. I think this has been one of the successes, one

of the many successes, of Under Secretary Lieberman.

As with any merger, there are a number of bumps in the road.

One of them in particular is administrative operations, which has

been a very difficult area in this year of transition. We have to at

least come to understand the administrative practices of the Department so that they will understand ours. The USIA ethos and

operating style was quite remarkable to me in terms of being able

to turn programs, dollars, and people around very quickly. This is

not easy to do in the State Department. But we are all learning.

So what we are trying to do is to take what I consider quite marvelous best practices in USIA and combine those with best practices of the State Department to best serve the programs. There remain some issues of process and functions. However, I think the inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
11

tegration and the consolidation, certainly for the purposes of the

exchange programs, have been a net plus. There is much to be

worked on, but much has been done.

Senator GRAMS. Moving in the right direction.

Also on the budget issue, reorganization of the foreign policy

agencies was supposed to result in some budget savings. Has there

been a reduction in administrative costs and overhead in your Bureau since reorganization?

Dr. BADER. The administrative cuts in my Bureau were made before we went to the State Department, so we are still carrying

them in certain areas, such as in the Exchange Visitor J-visa program and others where we are really short staffed. Have there

been savings? I would say there have been efficiencies. We have

not seen savings thus far with respect to our administrative budget.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that struck me

when I took over the Bureau is the fact that we were managing

programs with inter-agency transfers but were not in fact receiving

full cost recovery for that administrative effort. We are now doing

so and this should reduce our administrative costs.

So no, you really will not see with the exchange programs, a dramatic decrease in administrative expenses. But we are running a

tight ship and with this cost recovery for interagency administrative services we provide, the overall line for administrative expenses will actually decline in time.

Senator GRAMS. Thank you.

The committee has also been informed about problems in grants

management, that the system at State is markedly worse than the

consolidated system at USIA. So I guess I would ask you, what

measures is the State Department making to improve grants management?

Dr. BADER. Our grants management system, has in its outline

and in its methodology, has not in fact changed as we have gone

into the State Department. There has been a problem in the State

Department of actually moving money. We have had situations

where our grantees simply have not received their checks on time.

But, the grants management problem is a problem of disbursement

as far as I am concerned and, thanks to some very good people, I

think we are beginning to make a real dent in that. But again,

there is more to be done. It is a problem of adjustment of two systems, one that was extremely flexible, the other that had a different pace and pattern.

Senator GRAMS. In May the State Department published a field

survey of public diplomacy where U.S. Ambassadors were asked to

rate the usefulness of the exchange programs. I would like you to

outline the five programs in your Bureau which were rated at least

useful?

Dr. BADER. Least did you say, Mr. Chairman, least useful?

Senator GRAMS. Were rated as least useful.

Dr. BADER. Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. Let me get that survey.

[Pause.]

What you are referring to, Mr. Chairman, is in May of 2000 the

State Department published a field survey of public diplomacy proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
12

grams, and some ECA programs were given high marks by ambassadors while others were low ranked. If that is what you are getting at, let me go directly to it.

Senator GRAMS. Also, what I am referring to is this table that

was part of the report from the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, May 2000, as you mentioned.

Dr. BADER. Right.

Senator GRAMS. I will enter this into the record as well to go

along with your answer. But go ahead.

[The material referred to follows:]

Table 1—Field Survey of Public Diplomacy Programs

(Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs—May 2000)

Product/Program No. of Users

Average

Rating

No. of

mentions in 5

MOST Useful

No. of

mentions in 5

LEAST Useful

Fulbright U.S. Scholars .................................................................. 116 4.7 37 2

Fulbright Visiting Scholars ............................................................ 104 4.6 28

Fulbright Students ......................................................................... 105 4.6 37 3

Fulbright Teacher Exchange .......................................................... 42 4.2 0 3

Humphrey Fellowship Program ...................................................... 83 4.5 9 2

College/University Affiliations ........................................................ 76 4.0 1 6

Overseas Research Centers ........................................................... 17 4.2 0 3

Educational Advising Services ....................................................... 114 4.3 4 8

Study of the U.S. ........................................................................... 102 4.3 6 2

English Language Officers ............................................................ 63 4.3 3 5

English Language Grantees ........................................................... 56 4.0 3 5

English Language Specialists ....................................................... 47 4.0 0 2

English Teaching Forum ................................................................ 96 3.9 0 12

English Teaching Materials ........................................................... 76 4.0 0 6

Direct English Teaching Program .................................................. 11 4.5 3 5

Individual International Visitors .................................................... 114 4.8 64 1

Group International Visitors ........................................................... 116 4.8 64 3

Voluntary Visitors ........................................................................... 109 4.4 14 1

P.L. 402 (Technical) Training ........................................................ 3 3.3 0 8

American Cultural Specialists ....................................................... 78 4.0 2 6

Jazz Ambassadors .......................................................................... 58 4.3 4 7

Cultural Programs Grants .............................................................. 73 3.8 1 5

Film Service ................................................................................... 54 3.5 0 16

Performing Arts Calendar .............................................................. 39 2.9 0 26

Citizen Exchanges Grants .............................................................. 80 4.1 4 4

Amer. Center for Int’l. Labor Solidarity ......................................... 2 4.0 0 8

Amer. Council of Young Pol. Leaders ............................................ 49 3.7 1 7

Sister Cities International .............................................................. 59 3.1 0 22

Pepper Scholarships ...................................................................... 0 — 0 4

Sports Exchanges ........................................................................... 10 2.7 0 14

Institute for Representative Govt. ................................................. 10 3.4 0 3

Cultural Property Heritage Protection ............................................ 29 3.7 1 7

Table 2—Usefulness Ratings of Worldwide Products and Programs

(In Order From Highest to Lowest)

Product/Program No. of Users

Average

Rating

Individual International Visitors ...................................................................................................... 114 4.8

Group International Visitors ............................................................................................................ 116 4.8

Fulbright U.S. Scholars .................................................................................................................... 116 4.7

Washington File—Overall ................................................................................................................ 122 4.6

WF—Official Texts/Transcripts ........................................................................................................ 121 4.6

U.S. Speakers and Specialists ........................................................................................................ 118 4.6

Information Resource Center Support ............................................................................................. 113 4.6

Online Databases ............................................................................................................................ 112 4.6

13

Table 2—Usefulness Ratings of Worldwide Products and Programs—Continued

(In Order From Highest to Lowest)

Product/Program No. of Users

Average

Rating

Fulbright Students ........................................................................................................................... 105 4.6

Fulbright Visiting Scholars .............................................................................................................. 104 4.6

Humphrey Fellowship Program ........................................................................................................ 83 4.5

Direct English Teaching Program .................................................................................................... 11 4.5

Voluntary Visitors ............................................................................................................................. 109 4.4

Washington File—Foreign Language .............................................................................................. 50 4.4

Educational Advising Services ........................................................................................................ 114 4.3

Study of the U.S. ............................................................................................................................. 102 4.3

English Language Officer Programs ............................................................................................... 63 4.3

Print Publications—Foreign Language ........................................................................................... 63 4.3

Jazz Ambassadors ............................................................................................................................ 58 4.3

Electronic Journals—Foreign Language .......................................................................................... 51 4.3

WF—U.S. Press Items for Internal Use .......................................................................................... 117 4.2

Web sites ......................................................................................................................................... 115 4.2

Fulbright Teacher Exchange ............................................................................................................ 42 4.2

Overseas Research Centers ............................................................................................................. 17 4.2

Citizen Exchanges Grants ................................................................................................................ 80 4.1

Information USA ............................................................................................................................... 110 4.0

Reference Services from Washington .............................................................................................. 106 4.0

Foreign Press Centers ...................................................................................................................... 82 4.0

American Cultural Specialists ......................................................................................................... 78 4.0

College/University Affiliations .......................................................................................................... 76 4.0

English Teaching Materials ............................................................................................................. 76 4.0

English Language Grantees ............................................................................................................ 56 4.0

Digital Video Conferences ............................................................................................................... 52 4.0

English Language Specialists ......................................................................................................... 47 4.0

Amer. Center for Intl. Labor Solidarity ............................................................................................ 2 4.0

WF—Chronologies/Fact Sheets ....................................................................................................... 111 3.9

English Teaching Forum .................................................................................................................. 96 3.9

Book Publication and Translation ................................................................................................... 68 3.9

Print Publicatlons—English ............................................................................................................ 115 3.8

Bibliographic Services from Washington ........................................................................................ 89 3.8

Cultural Programs Grants ............................................................................................................... 73 3.8

Foreign Broadcast Facilitative Assistance ...................................................................................... 53 3.8

Foreign Broadcast Special Coverage ............................................................................................... 45 3.8

Electronic Journals—English .......................................................................................................... 111 3.7

WF—Op-eds by USG Officials ......................................................................................................... 109 3.7

Support for Mission Home Pages .................................................................................................... 90 3.7

Amer. Council of Young Pol. Leaders .............................................................................................. 49 3.7

Cultural Property/Heritage Protection .............................................................................................. 29 3.7

WF—Staff-Written Backgrounders .................................................................................................. 107 3.6

WORLDNET Interactive Dialogues .................................................................................................... 93 3.5

Tele Conferences .............................................................................................................................. 70 3.5

Film Service ..................................................................................................................................... 54 3.5

WF—Staff-Written for Placement ................................................................................................... 90 3.4

Listservs ........................................................................................................................................... 65 3.4

Copyright Clearances ....................................................................................................................... 62 3.4

Technology Partnerships .................................................................................................................. 14 3.4

Institute for Representative Government ........................................................................................ 10 3.4

P.L. 402 (Technical) Training .......................................................................................................... 3 3.3

Sister Cities International ............................................................................................................... 59 3.1

Photo and Graphic Images .............................................................................................................. 27 3.1

Performing Arts Calendar ................................................................................................................ 39 2.9

Sports Exchanges ............................................................................................................................ 10 2.7

Dr. BADER. Allow me to talk just briefly about the good news.

The two programs accounting for 75 percent of the budget, the Fulbright and the International Visitor programs, received exceptionally high ratings, and that is very gratifying.

14

You have rightly pointed to the other side of the coin. I will assure you that I am not interested, underline, not interested, in retaining a marginal program, and a low rating is surely a signal

that we need to re-examine the value of that program. In some

cases it very well may be that a program has outlived its usefulness and we have to take a look at this.

In other cases, however, it may be that a program is designed to

run without drawing upon the increasingly precious time of the

U.S. Embassy staff. I do not want to push this too far, Mr. Chairman, but the impact of these programs may more easily escape the

attention of mission staff because the programs are actually doing

precisely what they were intended to do. In other words, they are

not rated very highly by the embassy because they are not on the

embassy horizon.

Mr. Chairman, if I may be so bold as to say that some of the lowranked programs are congressional earmarks and this obviously

creates problems all around.

Senator GRAMS. That is getting pretty bold. No, go ahead.

Dr. BADER. You have my word and my Bureau’s word we are

going to look skeptically and, indeed, agnostically at these lowranked programs and you will have and the committee will have

a report on this, and I will undertake that.

Senator GRAMS. To justify their existence or maybe reform what

they are asked to do?

Dr. BADER. Yes, exactly.

Senator GRAMS. One of the findings of the report is that there

is no mandate for the elimination of any worldwide product. I do

not see how the survey data backs that up. Would you describe

how that conclusion was reached?

Dr. BADER. Actually, I have no idea, because it is not a wellfounded conclusion. These programs are every year, and virtually

every day, in the process of consideration about their effectiveness.

So, putting aside the question for the moment of earmarks, we

have a full and unfettered right to vary these programs, improve

these programs, or eliminate these programs.

Senator GRAMS. We have been joined by Senator Paul Sarbanes,

and I have got just a few questions here. Were you prepared?

Senator SARBANES. Why don’t you go on.

Senator GRAMS. OK. I will only take a couple more minutes.

Dr. Bader, in response to congressional hearings and debates on

international exchanges in fiscal year 1996, the administration

sought an inter-agency working group to be established to avoid

duplication of exchanges by many agencies that were involved with

them.

Now, on July 15, 1997, President Clinton issued Executive Order

13055, creating the Inter-Agency Working Group [IAWG], on U.S.

Government-Sponsored International Exchanges and Training.

With the Inter-Agency Working Group in operation for about 3

years now, what improvements in cooperation among agencies involved in exchanges have occurred?

Dr. BADER. Mr. Chairman, this activity is something about which

I am extremely pleased in the way that it has developed. As you

noted, this was the result of an Executive directive. If I am not off

the mark, it also has a congressional mandate as well. So I think

15

it is very strongly based. Its intention was very clearly to give

agencies opportunity to come together. Actually, there are 20 U.S.

agencies that are represented on the Inter-Agency Working Group

along with the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget.

There is a small staff. I think it has done extremely good work

in two areas. One has been in the category of improving cooperation and giving an opportunity to all these agencies to report in a

common matrix, what they are doing. The second is to give illumination to the fact of whether there may be duplication or the

like.

You might have noted, this committee might have noted, that the

IAWG received the Hammer Award for its good work.

There are a number of things that this committee needs to do

further. We now do individual country studies and surveys. We

send inter-agency teams out to the field to various countries to see

how these programs are coming together.

I have to say as I look at all of this that this Inter-Agency Working Group was long overdue. We are now working to see how we

can further eliminate duplication and increase cost effectiveness. I

think it is a real success story. It is also now moving to a point

where one place has the data on all exchange programs and training programs. The IAWG staff is able to bring that data forward

to the State Department and to other organizations’. Its data base

shows what is actually going on in exchanges in countries and

therefore we are able to put together coordinated responses to

needs in the field.

It is done well. Like anything else, we can work harder at it.

Senator GRAMS. In another area, the au pair program, I understand that one of the au pair sponsoring organizations has submitted a request for designation of a new program, Educare in

America, which would be an enhancement of the standard au pair

programs and would also help provide companionship and assistance to American families with children who are at school fulltime.

So my question, Dr. Bader, is what is the Department’s position

on this proposed program and when, if any, action can be expected

on the request for this designation?

Dr. BADER. Mr. Chairman, you are speaking here of the American Institute for Foreign Studies [AIFS] and the Educare program?

Senator GRAMS. Yes.

Dr. BADER. Right. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken with Bob Brennan of AIFS. In fact, he is here today. Let me be very direct about

it. The Bureau intends to work with Bob and AIFS to address the

specific issues that are involved in this operation, where participants will pursue their academic courses and receive an amount of

compensation appropriate for a program of this sort. This is the important part. The concept has the support of the Bureau. We intend

to work collegially with all the designated organizations and to

move on this somewhat hybrid au pair program. It will be done.

Mr. Chairman, I think this may be the opportunity to say that

there has been criticism about the slowness of our office for designation of programs for J-visas. Part of the problem is the chalVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
16

lenge of sheer volume. We are talking right now of J-visas at a

level of 280,000 a year. We are talking about dealing with some

1,500 organizations, and we are talking about doing it all with a

staff of perhaps 12. The volume of exchange visitor visas is rising.

It has more than doubled over the last 10 years.

Right now—and we are moving on this in response to interest on

the part of the Secretary of State—we are putting together a working internal group at the State Department, which will give a report to the Secretary of State in 60 days, not that long from now,

on the management issues that are involved in this.

We intend to make the process better and we intend to get to a

point where we will make determinations sooner and more efficiently. We have had problems with timing. We have had problems

with communication. I intend to improve things. Finally, with respect to this particular program, it shall be done.

Senator GRAMS. Thank you very much.

I would like to yield now to Senator Sarbanes.

Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, I am going to have to depart because we have a joint session to hear from the Prime Minister of India, another form of

international exchange.

First of all, I want to underscore how important I think these exchange programs are, and I want to commend the chairman for

holding this hearing in order to review the situation and to underscore some strong congressional support for these programs. We

are working hard to try to get you an adequate appropriation and

it seems to be moving better in the Senate than in the House, and

I hope we will be able to carry that through to a successful conclusion.

I want to underscore, I think, the terrific job that Bill Bader is

doing. I think he has brought a great deal of cohesion and organization into the program since he has moved in as the Assistant

Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs. It is a very

complex responsibility. Of course, he has to interact with a whole

range of groups in the private sector, who are themselves important parts of making the program work and often bring to it a tremendous contribution in terms of volunteer time, energy and support.

But it does create a complicated mosaic for the Secretary to have

to deal with, and I appreciate his efforts to rationalize the system,

as I would put it, and also to seek once again to build support for

it across the country. I think it is true we sort of fell off of these

exchange programs. In fact, it was not too long ago we were fighting just to keep them alive, including the Fulbright program, which

is of course perhaps the most visible of all of them, although there

are a whole range of them. It was not all that long ago that we

were in a fight here in the Congress in order to save the Fulbright

program and these other exchange programs.

I do think the pendulum is swinging back, and people are coming

perhaps to appreciate the importance of these programs. Lots of

people are doing it. Does the Library of Congress program with the

Russians come under your bailiwick, or is that operating all by

itself somewhere?

17

Dr. BADER. It does not operate all by itself out there. It is a program that in the first year of practice is moving Russians in rather

large numbers into the United States, primarily from governments

in the Duma and the oblasts.

Senator SARBANES. They get a tremendous citizen response

across the country.

Dr. BADER. Absolutely.

Senator SARBANES. It is incredible how people are responding.

They are taking them in, showing them around. I have groups in

my State that are heavily invested in this program and people

come and stay with them for a week. People take a week off to

shepherd them around and so forth and so on.

Dr. BADER. This was very much Senator Stevens’ idea and he

pushed it and had the capacity, as they say, to ensure that there

were funds for it.

Senator SARBANES. That happens when you are the chairman of

the Appropriations Committee.

Dr. BADER. To answer your question, Senator Sarbanes, that program is run out of the Library of Congress. Jim Billington has

given it great leadership. This second year of operation, the funds

have come from the Freedom Support Act and Ambassador Taylor.

We are very pleased with this program. We support it in every way

we can. But it is being managed by the Library of Congress, I think

very well indeed.

Senator SARBANES. Well, thank you again for what you are

doing.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I apologize to the next panel that

I am not going to be able to stay and hear their testimony. But we

will certainly take the time to read it.

Senator GRAMS. Thank you very much, Senator Sarbanes.

Just a couple of quick questions to wrap up, Dr. Bader. On the

Fulbright, as we mentioned, are you aware that there are countries

which will not let the State Department Inspector General audit

Fulbright commissions, even though the U.S. Government provides

the funds? Do you find this acceptable? If not, what are you going

to do to get access?

Dr. BADER. Senator, I will say that I am not aware of that. Do

any of my colleagues back here——

Senator GRAMS. The Inspector General noted Germany and

Japan specifically, so I was just wondering.

Dr. BADER. Senator, I think I will take that question and give

you a response for the record.

[The following response was subsequently received:]

Regarding the question of whether or not the State Department IG has been denied access to audit Fulbright Commissions, we know of no such instance. In all

cases that we are aware of, Fulbright Commissions cooperate with visiting State Department Inspectors. In some of the 51 binational agreements that are the bases

for the operations of Fulbright Commissions, there are stipulations that U.S. inspectors may do audits or program evaluations at the invitation of the Commissions’

governing boards. This is generally forthcoming with minimal discussion, but the

autonomous nature of each of the Boards requires some respect by the visiting inspectors of that status.

Senator GRAMS. Very good. I appreciate it.

18

One other thing. I think it is important to see democracy promotion as a goal of exchanges serving tangible national interests.

This is not altruism. More nations becoming market democracies

will make for a more benign world for the United States to deal

with, fewer dictatorships likely to threaten their neighbors and us

with military means, and more reliable trading partners.

So how much of the budget for exchanges is directly connected

to making more nations democratic over time?

Dr. BADER. I would have to get a figure on that. I will see to it

that the committee has the specifics on this. But I would say it is

very clear that we have a large number of programs that do that.

It is part of State Department’s task, which we are involved in. We

have programs to support democracy in many countries. Right now

there are several of them, for example, in the Balkans. It is a very

clear mission and objective for this Bureau to strengthen democracies.

I have always felt that the path in transition countries to market

economies has to be complemented with an improvement in democratic institutions, and that is the way we approach it. But I will

give you, for the record, some specifics on this matter.

[The following response was subsequently received:]

NATIONAL INTERESTS/PROGRAMS MATRIX

The following table lists the program activities conducted by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in FY 1999. Use this matrix to assign your program’s

estimated percentage of involvement in meeting strategic goals attributable to national interests.

Program/Activity

National

Security

Democracy/

Human

Rights

Economic

Prosperity

Law

Enforcement

Mutual

Understanding

Other

National

Interests 1

Fulbright/Humphrey ............... .................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

Study of U.S. ......................... .................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

Affiliations ............................. .................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

Advising ................................. .................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

EFL ......................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

Muskie ................................... .................... X X .................... X ....................

CAORC ................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

South Pacific ......................... .................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

Disability Exchanges ............. .................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

CASP ...................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

International Visitors ............. X X X X X X

Citizen Exchanges ................. X X X X X X

CBYX ...................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

Pepper .................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

Mansfield ............................... .................... .................... X .................... .................... ....................

U.S./Mexico ............................ .................... .................... X .................... .................... ....................

CEEEP .................................... .................... .................... X .................... .................... ....................

IRG ......................................... .................... X .................... .................... .................... ....................

Tibet ....................................... .................... X .................... .................... .................... ....................

East Timor ............................. .................... X .................... .................... .................... ....................

Womens World Cup ............... .................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

Special Olympics ................... .................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

China/Korea ........................... .................... X .................... .................... .................... ....................

National Youth Science Camp .................... .................... .................... .................... X ....................

Freedom Support/SEED .......... .................... X X .................... .................... ....................

1 Others include American Citizens and U.S Borders, Global Issues (Environment, Population, Health). Humanitarian Response.

Senator GRAMS. I think overall the program helps to promote democracy, because of the interchange.

19

Dr. BADER. Absolutely.

Senator GRAMS. So I would appreciate those answers.

That is all the questions I have, Dr. Bader. Anything you would

like to add?

Dr. BADER. Thank you, Senator and Mr. Chairman. I would just

close by saying for my side how appreciative the Bureau is of the

support of the committee, particularly during this consolidation period. It has made all the difference in the way we are able to function in the State Department.

I would just say that, if we get the kinds of support we need from

the Congress and the public in terms of backing these programs,

that it is a very good road ahead for exchanges. It is essential to

the American vision and the American future to have strong and

vibrant exchange programs. They make sense. Your statement was

right on point and I hope it will be read widely.

Thank you, Senator.

Senator GRAMS. Thank you very much, Dr. Bader. I appreciate

your time and your answers and, on behalf of the committee, I also

want to commend you for the work you are doing. Thank you very

much.

I would like to now call our second panel: Ms. Carol Byrne, executive director of the Minnesota International Center in Minneapolis; Dr. James Denton, executive director, Freedom House in

Washington, DC; Ms. Marlene Johnson, executive director and

chief executive officer of NAFSA: The Association of International

Educators, and chair, Alliance for International Education and Cultural Exchange, here in Washington; and also Dr. Sherry Mueller,

the executive director, NCIV, the National Council for International Visitors, here in Washington, DC.

I want to welcome all of you to the panel. Thank you very much

for taking your time to be here, and I guess we will start from left

to right. Mr. Denton, I guess that puts you in the hot seat. So your

opening statement for the panel. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF JAMES S. DENTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

FREEDOM HOUSE, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. DENTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning and thank you again for inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee on International Operations on the subject of exchange

programs and the national interest of the United States.

I am appearing this morning as the executive director of Freedom House, a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization that promotes political and economic freedom around the world. In 1941,

led by Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie, Freedom House was

founded by a distinguished group of American policy and

opinionmakers to persuade the American people of our Nation’s responsibility to vigorously defend Europe’s democracies during freedom’s darkest hours of the 20th century. Now, nearly 60 years

later, our mission remains largely the same: to promote American

leadership in the defense and expansion of the borders of freedom

around the world.

In keeping with the founders’ vision, today Freedom House is led

by a bipartisan board of directors comprised of leading Democrats

and Republicans, business and labor leaders, scholars and journalVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
20

ists. Our chairman is Betty Bao Lord, an internationally recognized

human rights activist and author. Among those serving with her

are close advisers to the past four American Presidents, including

Dr. Brzezinski, Ambassador Jeane Kilpatrick, Ambassador Paul

Wolfowitz, and Tony Lake. From labor and business, we count on

the board Sandra Feldman, the head of the AFT, and Steve Forbes;

and from the media we have Morton Kondracke, Mara Liasson,

Peggy Noonan, and P.J. O’Rourke. All serve on the board together.

All of these Americans, whose political loyalties and views will

differ on any wide range of issues, are united and committed to

their view that American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of freedom. Likewise, all are united in the view

that the expansion of freedom is in the national interest of the

United States because freedom creates the conditions for a more

stable and prosperous world.

Here in the United States, Freedom House conducts research and

publishes books, reports, and articles to educate American policy

and opinionmakers on the challenges to freedom around the world.

Through this public education role, Freedom House urges our elected leaders to maintain America’s vital leadership role in the world

and its affairs and to implement policies which are true to our Nation’s values and our interests and goals, and to protect and expand the borders of freedom.

In addition to this research and public education role in the

United States, Freedom House also conducts a large portfolio of

what we call democratization programs, which account for about 70

percent of Freedom House’s $7.5 million budget. These programs

take several forms, but generally speaking they are intended to

promote good governance, independent media, and free market economic development.

The programs themselves take the forms of exchanges, which include longer term, what we call professional internships, which are

generally 2 to 3 months long, here in the United States, or shorter

term, 2, 3-week programs which we would call study tours or miniinternships.

The second category of activities that Freedom House conducts in

terms of democratization programs are sub-grant programs, which

usually support NGO’s that are active in the development of government policy or monitoring of human rights or media rights.

The third category would be onsite technical assistance, which is

almost always conducted by American professionals who are volunteering to serve and almost always are serving for a minimum of

3 months in the region.

The fourth category is sponsorship of conferences and training,

seminars and workshops.

Even though exchanges account for less than 10 percent of our

annual budget this year, I believe that these exchange programs

are the central and most important of all the democratization programs which Freedom House is involved with.

The democratic revolution that began in Poland in 1989 represented a spectacular victory for the Western ideas of freedom and

democracy. As these revolutions swept across Eastern Europe in

1989 and then the Soviet Union in 1992, these events changed the

21

political, economic, and social map of the world in ways that could

not have been anticipated even a few short years before.

As Freedom House considered ways to support the transformation from communism to democracy, we understood that we

could not teach the new leaders of Eastern Europe what it means

to be free. It was, after all, their vision of freedom that had sustained them during the long, dark hours of communism. Likewise,

we found that the new leaders understood in theoretical terms how

a democratic and free market society operated.

But at the same time, we also understood that these new leaders

had no road maps, no practical application for the theory that could

guide them on their journey. While there were more than enough

variations on the Leninist blueprint on how to turn capitalism into

communism, there was no plan for the reverse at the time.

It was this passage from the theoretical to the practical dimension of democratic life that presented the greatest challenge to the

new generation of leaders as they set out to transform their societies. Freedom House responded by committing itself to bridging

the theoretical and the practical by developing a totally new kind

of international exchange program, something we called the professional internship program.

The plan was quite simple: identify the region’s future leaders,

bring them to the United States and arrange for them to work side

by side with their American counterparts for several months. It

was basically an immersion plan designed to give the participants

the practical experience and skills necessary to understand the

inner workings of a functioning democratic and free market system.

Incorporated into Freedom House’s program was our belief that

practical on the job training is the most efficient means of transferring the skills, the working knowledge, and the expertise necessary

to equip these new leaders.

Since that time, together with the National Forum Foundation,

which merged with Freedom House in 1997, Freedom House has

sponsored and organized exchanges for about 900 young leaders

from Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Of

these, about 650 participated in that longer professional internship

program, 10 to 12 weeks long, while the remaining 250 have participated in some variation of the classic study tour program.

Since 1989 our programs have targeted three sectors of society

which we believe continue to be key to the region’s successful

transformation to democracy: good governance, one sector, and

through that we identify and support political and NGO leaders

that are active in public policy development; independent media,

and through that of course we are working with journalists as well

as managers of the independent media; and the third category, free

market development, working with individuals that are responsible

for establishing the legal framework, policies, and infrastructure

that is necessary to create a free market environment that is conducive to genuine investment, capital growth, and

entrepreneurialism.

In the past 10 years, with this practical training approach, the

participants of the Freedom House exchange programs have

worked in hundreds of offices across the United States—in U.S.

22

congressional offices, State governments and local governments—

where they have worked with their counterparts and come to understand the meaning of transparency, how to draft legislation,

how to monitor the authorization process, how to participate in the

authorization process, what an open hearing is all about and why

it is important, working with the media and constituents.

Then, in hundreds of media outlets across the United States,

journalists from the emerging democracies have worked with their

counterparts in the news rooms and in the editing offices, in the

producing offices of broadcast and print news. They attend editorial

meetings, observe the assignment process, conduct interviews with

newsmakers, while learning new investigative reporting techniques, which has become increasingly important with the level of

corruption that we are seeing in the region.

Business managers in media outlets have learned how to enhance their company’s commercial viability by developing organizational budgets, designing advertising strategies, making sales calls,

and so on. To us it seems quite simple and normal in the course

of everyday life, what advertising is all about, but being mindful

that it was illegal for about 45 years in Eastern Europe, it becomes

more important to understand why that is an essential function to

ensuring the viability, the commercial viability, and therefore the

independence of individual media outlets.

In the area of market development, the fellows have worked in

stock exchanges, regulatory agencies, entrepreneurial incubators,

trade and business associations, venture capital firms, banks, and

so on.

Mr. Chairman, following their 3 months of immersion in the

American work environment, but before the participant returns

home, we conduct a formal evaluation. We have a record of each

of the evaluations that have been submitted. They invariably observe that their American experience was the most productive professional experience in their lives. Some often use the term ‘‘reborn’’ to describe their new perspective and understanding.

Perhaps the most important thing, however, is that these young

leaders return home with a new optimism that they pick up here

in the United States, confident that they have the vision and the

know-how to roll up their sleeves and get started with the task

ahead.

But perhaps the best evidence of Freedom House’s success in

helping to develop the region’s new generation of leaders can be

seen in the increased responsibility that is taken on by the program alumni after they return home. Among the former participants of these exchange programs, specifically the internship, professional internship program, we count now four cabinet ministers,

including the current Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, six vice ministers, half a dozen ambassadors, over 60 members of parliament,

mayors and city council members, the press spokespersons for eight

heads of state or government in the region, and numerous senior

advisers to heads of government.

None of those people that I have just mentioned held those positions before they came into this program. Many assumed those

roles at lightning speed upon their return.

23

Our alumni can also be found in each of the region’s most influential print and broadcast media outlets throughout the former

East bloc. Each day they report to audiences, national audiences

across their country, on the events of the day as well as, of course,

including reporting U.S. news on U.S. policy.

It is self-evident that the 900-plus alumni who have returned

home represent a critical and enormously influential cadre of policy, opinion, and business leaders. Now that they are equipped with

their U.S. experience, they represent a valuable network that is

helping to navigate their countries through the rapids of transformation.

In addition, the alumni are to a person better informed about

America and more likely to understand and support American policy in the years ahead.

This year, as one of the largest American NGO’s working in the

region, Freedom House will sponsor another 50 U.S. exchanges.

This happens to be about 20 percent less than in previous years.

In addition to the exchange programs, as I mentioned, we conduct

other activities. In the area of sub-grants, we will award about $2

million in sub-grants to nongovernmental groups in the region,

much of those funds going to support get-out-the-vote programs in

countries like Serbia, Croatia, and Ukraine.

Freedom House will sponsor hundreds of days of onsite consulting in senior government offices and NGO’s throughout the region, and we will also sponsor an array of workshops and seminars

and regional exchanges on issues ranging from investigative reporting of cross-border crime and corruption to linking reform-oriented

think tanks in Central and Eastern Europe with their counterparts

in Russia and Ukraine.

As I mentioned earlier, this year the exchange component of

Freedom House’s program will represent less than 10 percent of

our budget. Yet, based on my 12 years working and traveling in the

former East bloc and having designed and managed one of America’s largest democratization program portfolios I believe that without a doubt the exchange programs, when properly targeted and

managed, represent America’s most powerful tool in the toolbox of

democracy programs to transform the former Communist world.

It is a critical building block upon which to develop further collaboration and cooperation as well.

Mr. Chairman, it has been 10 years since the Berlin Wall fell,

liberating the former captive nations of Eastern Europe, and it has

been 8 years since the Soviet Union collapsed. I understand that

this subcommittee must continuously evaluate the situation in the

region of the emerging democracies, along with America’s interests

and objectives, and to develop strategies to achieve those objectives.

It is clear that some of the emerging democracies are on an irreversible path to full membership in the community of Western democracies. The progress, when you consider it has only been 10

years, has been breathtaking in a number of cases. Successive and

fair elections have taken place and peaceful transfer of power has

become routine in Central and Eastern Europe and, while the governments of the new democracies will continue to debate the role

of government in their economies and the best way to bring growth

and prosperity, it is important to realize that the basic economic

24

restructuring has taken place in the region. Indeed, today the

economies of Hungary and Poland are among the fastest growing

in Europe.

Yet, as you well know, the picture is not so rosy everywhere.

Much of the region remains in two worlds, one dead and the other

struggling to be born. Throughout the former Soviet Union, most

significantly in Russian and the Ukraine, and of course in southeast Europe, progress has been incremental at best. The situation

is volatile and even explosive because of the region’s ethnic and nationalistic hostility and history. Dictators reign in several countries

and they are not far beneath the surface in others. The desperate

economic conditions, largely as a result of incomplete or phony reform programs, the rampant corruption, the public psychology, the

porous borders, and of course the threat of proliferation, all mandate that America remain thoroughly engaged and vigilant

throughout the region.

Mr. Chairman, when one assesses what has worked in those

countries where the assistance programs seem to have failed to

produce meaningful results, I would speculate that in virtually

every case, that when you look closely at those countries, the alumni of these exchange programs, as small and insignificant as they

may seem in the larger picture of the critical problems that these

regions face, represent a ray of hope for our future relations with

these countries. I know that is particularly true, by the way, in my

opinion in the Ukraine and in Serbia.

Mr. Chairman, we congratulate you from Freedom House on your

leadership on these important issues and I thank you for asking

me to address this committee today. We at Freedom House stand

ready to support your efforts and of course to respond to any questions you might have. Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Denton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM DENTON

Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify before the

Subcommittee on International Operations on the subject of exchange programs and

the national interests of the United States.

I am appearing this morning as the executive director of Freedom House, a nonpartisan, non-profit organization that promotes political and economic freedom

around the world.

In 1941, led by Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie, Freedom House was

founded by a distinguished group of American policy- and opinion-makers to persuade the American people of our nation’s responsibility to vigorously defend Europe’s democracies during freedom’s darkest hours of the Twentieth Century. Now,

nearly sixty years later, our mission remains largely the same—to promote American leadership in the defense and expansion of the borders of freedom around the

world.

In keeping with the founders’ vision, today Freedom House is led by a bipartisan

board of directors comprised of leading Democrats and Republicans, business and

labor leaders, scholars and journalists. Our chairman is Bette Bao Lord, an internationally recognized human rights activist and author. Among those serving with

her are close advisors to the past four American presidents, Dr. Zbigniew

Brzezinski, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ambassador Paul Wolfowitz, and Tony

Lake. From labor and business, Sandra Feldman and Steve Forbes; and from the

media, Morton Kondracke, Mara Liasson, Peggy Noonan, and PJ O’Rourke serve on

the board. All of these Americans, whose political loyalties and views will differ on

any number of issues, are united and committed to the view that American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of freedom. Likewise, all are

united in the view that the expansion of freedom is in the national interests of the

25

United States because freedom creates the conditions for a more stable and prosperous world.

Here in the United States, Freedom House conducts research and publishes books,

reports, and articles to educate American policy and opinion makers on the challenges to freedom around the world. Through this public education role, Freedom

House urges our elected leaders to maintain America’s vital leadership role in world

affairs, and to implement policies—which are true to our nation’s values, interests,

and goals—to protect and expand the borders of freedom.

(About ninety percent of Freedom House’s research and publications activity is

funded by private donors, among them, the Bradley Foundation, the Soros Foundations, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The Lilly Endowment, and the Smith Richardson

Foundation. USAID also supports specific Freedom House research and analysis on

democratic development in the former East Bloc.)

In addition to this research and public education role in the U.S., Freedom House

also conducts a large portfolio of ‘‘democratization programs,’’ which accounts for

about 70% of Freedom House’s $7.5 annual budget. These programs take several

forms, but, generally speaking they can be categorized as:

1. ‘‘exchanges’’ which include longer term (2-3 months) professional internships or shorter term (2-3 weeks) study tours or mini-internships;

2. sub-grant programs, usually supporting NGOs active in the development

of government policy or monitoring human and media rights;

3. on-site technical assistance; and

4. the sponsorship of conferences and training workshops.

Even though our exchange programs account for less than 10% of our annual

budget this year, I believe these exchange programs are the central and most important of all democratization programs.

The democratic revolutions that began in Poland in 1989 represented a spectacular victory for the Western ideas of freedom and democracy. As they swept across

Eastern Europe in 1989—and the Soviet Union in 1992—these momentous revolutions changed the political, economic, and social map of the world in ways that could

not have been anticipated even a few short years before during the Cold War.

As Freedom House considered ways to support the transformation from communism to democracy, we understood that we could not teach the new leaders of

Eastern Europe what it means to be free. It was after all their vision of freedom

that had sustained them during the long night of communism. Likewise, we found

that the new leaders understood in theoretical terms how a democratic and free

market society operated. But, at the same time, we also understood that these new

leaders had no roadmaps, no practical application for the theory that could guide

them on their journey. For while there were more than enough variations on the

Leninist blueprint for turning capitalism to communism, there was no plan for the

reverse process.

It was this passage from the theoretical to the practical dimension of democratic

life that presented the greatest challenge to the new generation of leaders as they

set out to transform their societies. And, Freedom House responded by committing

itself to bridging the theoretical and the practical by developing a totally new kind

of international exchange program, something we called a ‘‘professional internship’’

program. Our plan was simple: identify the region’s future leaders, bring them to

the United States, and arrange for them to work side by side with their American

counterparts for several months. It was an immersion plan designed to give the participants the practical experience and skills necessary to understand the inner workings of a functioning democratic and free market system. Incorporated into Freedom

House’s program was our belief that practical, on-the-job training is the most efficient means of transferring the skills, working knowledge, and expertise necessary

to equip these new leaders.

Since that time, together with the National Forum Foundation (which merged

with Freedom House in 1997), Freedom House has sponsored and organized exchanges for about 900 young leaders (average age 32) from CEE and the former Soviet Union. Of these, about 650 participated in the longer term (10-12 week professional internship program) and the remaining 250 participated in a variation of the

study tour program (2-3 weeks).

Since 1989, our programs have ‘‘targeted’’ three sectors of society which we believe

continue to be key to the region’s successful transition to democracy:

1. political and NGO leaders active in public policy development,

2. journalists and managers from independent media, and

26

3. individuals responsible for establishing the legal framework, policies, and

infrastructure to create a free market environment conducive to investment,

capital growth, and entrepreneurialism.

In the past ten years, the participants in this exchange program have worked in

hundreds of U.S. congressional, state, and local government offices across America

where they have help to draft legislation, write reports on human rights, organize

public hearings, prepare press releases, and respond to constituent concerns. Working in hundreds of media outlets across America, journalists from the emerging democracies have worked with reporters on their beats, and with editors, and managers and producers of the news. They attend editorial meetings, observe the assignment process, and conduct interviews with newsmakers while learning new investigative reporting techniques. Business managers of media outlets have learned how

to enhance their companies’ commercial viability by developing organizational budgets, design advertising strategies, making sales calls, and so on. Financial analysts,

business development specialists, and stock exchange directors and regulators alike

have worked in American exchanges, regulatory bodies, entrepreneur incubators,

trade and business associations, in private public financing partnerships, venture

capital firms, and banks.

Mr. Chairman, following their three months of immersion in the American work

environment, before the participant returns home, we conduct an evaluation. We

have a record of each evaluation submitted that invariably observe that their American experience was the most productive professional training experience of their

lives. Some even use the term ‘‘reborn’’ to describe their new perspective and understanding. Perhaps the most important thing, however, is that these young leaders

all return home with new optimism, confident that they have the vision and knowhow to roll up their sleeves and get started on the task ahead.

Perhaps the best evidence of Freedom House’s success in helping to develop the

region’s new generation of democratic leaders can be seen in the increased responsibility taken on by the program alumni after returning home. FH counts among its

former participants four cabinet minister (including the current foreign minister of

Bulgaria), six vice ministers, several ambassadors, over 60 MPs, mayors, and city

council members, and the press spokespersons for eight heads of government or

state, and numerous senior advisors to heads of government. Our alumni can also

be found throughout the region’s most influential print and broadcast media outlets.

Each day they report to audiences on events in their country, their region—as well

as reporting on U.S. news and U.S. policy.

It is self evident that the 900-plus alumni who have returned home represent a

critical and enormously influential cadre of policy, opinion, and business leaders.

Now, equipped with their U.S. experience, they represent a valuable network that

is helping to navigate their countries through the rapids of the transformation. In

addition, the alumni are, to a person, better informed about America, and more likely to understand and support American policy.

This year, as one of the largest American NGOs working in the region, Freedom

House will sponsor another 50 U.S. exchanges—which is about 20% less than in previous years. In addition to our exchange programs, Freedom House will award over

$2 million in sub grant programs particularly to think tanks throughout CEE and

Ukraine as well as NGOs active in get-out-the-vote programs in Ukraine, Croatia,

and Serbia. Freedom House will sponsor hundreds of days of on-site consulting in

senior government offices and NGOs throughout the region. And, we also will sponsor an array of workshops, seminars, and regional exchanges on issues ranging from

‘‘investigative reporting of cross-border crime and corruption’’ to ‘‘linking reform oriented think tanks in CCE Russia and Ukraine.’’

As I mentioned earlier, this year the ‘‘exchange’’ component of Freedom House’s

program will represent less than 10% of our budget. Yet, based on my twelve years

working and traveling to the former East Bloc (over fifty times), and having designed and managed one of America’s largest democratization program portfolios, I

believe without a doubt that exchange programs, when properly targeted and managed, represent America’s most powerful tool to transform the former communist

world. It is a critical building block upon which to develop further collaboration and

cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, it has been ten years since the Berlin Wall fell liberating the

former captive nations of Eastern Europe. And, it has been eight years since the

Soviet Union collapsed. I understand that this Subcommittee must continuously

evaluate the situation in the region’s emerging democracies, along with America’s

interests and objectives, and to develop strategies to achieve those objectives.

It is clear that some countries are on an irreversible path to full membership in

the community of Western democracies. The progress has been breathtaking in a

27

number of cases. Successive and fair elections have taken place, and peaceful transfer of power has become routine in most of CEE. And, while they wifi continue to

debate the role of government in the economy and the best way to bring growth and

prosperity, the basic economic restructuring has taken place in much of CEE. Indeed, today, the economies of Hungary and Poland are among the fastest growing

in Europe.

Yet, the picture is not so rosy elsewhere. Much of the region remains between two

worlds, one dead and the other struggling to be born. Throughout the former Soviet

Union, most significantly in Russia and Ukraine and, of course, in Southeast Europe, progress has been incremental at best. The situation is volatile, even explosive,

because of the region’s ethnic and nationalist hostility. Dictators reign in several

countries, and they are not far beneath the surface in others. The desperate economic conditions (largely as a result of incomplete or phony reform programs), the

rampant corruption, the public psychology, the porous borders, and of course, the

threat of proliferation—all mandate that America remain thoroughly engaged and

vigilant throughout the region.

But, Mr. Chairman, when assessing what has worked in those countries that have

failed to make progress toward democracy and free markets, I would speculate that

in virtually every case, the alumni of those exchange programs represent a ray of

hope. I know that is true in Ukraine and in Serbia.

Mr. Chairman, we congratulate you on your leadership on these issues, and we

stand ready to support your efforts, and to respond to any questions you might

have.

Thank you.

Senator GRAMS. Thank you, Mr. Denton.

Ms. Johnson.

STATEMENT OF MARLENE M. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAFSA: ASSOCIATION

OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATORS, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALLIANCE FOR INTERNATIONAL

EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE, WASHINGTON,

DC

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for inviting me to testify. I know it is hard to focus on

these matters at this particular time of the year. All of us in the

international education community appreciate your leadership in

bringing us together to discuss an issue that may not figure prominently in the political debate swirling around us right now, but

that does, we believe, fundamentally affect the national interest of

this country.

I would like to focus briefly on two concepts, leadership and the

national interest. In an earlier era we understood better that the

ability of the United States to protect and advance its interests in

the world depended fundamentally on our knowledge of that world

and on our ability to promote international understanding, and we

all remember the Senators who were prepared to stand up and exercise leadership on behalf of international education and exchange

programs that serve these objectives.

Oddly, as the world has become more interdependent and more

global, as the national interest of the United States has become

more linked to events abroad, interest in international education

programs in the Congress has declined. It is not that these programs have enemies, but they seem to be viewed as expendable in

budget battles.

The American people, however, understand that our Nation’s

ability to lead, prosper, and protect our national security in the

21st century depends more than ever on international knowledge

28

and understanding. They need and we need champions who will

fight for our programs in the legislative arena. You, Mr. Chairman,

have been such a champion. We need more on both sides of the

aisle.

Today I testify on behalf of the Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange, of which I chair the board of directors, and NAFSA: Association of International Educators, of which

I am CEO. The Alliance is a coalition of more than 60 organizations that sponsor international educational and cultural exchange

programs. NAFSA, a member of the Alliance, is the largest professional association of international educators, with more than 8,600

members on campuses nationwide, as well as a growing membership overseas.

On behalf of the tens of thousands of citizens represented by

these two organizations who make international education and exchange work on campuses and in communities all over the country,

I thank you for being our champion, Mr. Chairman, and I express

to you our hope that you will do even more in the future to fill the

leadership vacuum that exists on our issues.

To be true to this constituency, Mr. Chairman, let me say at the

outset that there is a lot more to international education than exchange. We have to internationalize our college and university curricula and classrooms, make sure that study abroad programs are

linked to student academic programs, deepen and broaden foreign

language instruction so that Americans are conversant in the

world’s major languages, maintain and increase our output of international specialists who will provide the next generation of expert

knowledge, and support an ambitious agenda of international and

global research in all disciplines to help us understand and shape

globalization.

Exchanges are an indispensable part of all that, but they are not

the whole picture, and we need to work on all of it to prepare ourselves for the new century.

We have tried to lay out the whole picture in a NAFSA-Alliance

paper entitled ‘‘Toward an International Education Policy for the

United States,’’ which is appended to my statement. This paper

represents our effort to articulate a post-cold war rationale for

international education and exchange in the global world. Unlike

most such efforts, it is deliberately short and to the point as a way

of encouraging policymakers to read it. I commend it to you and I

ask for it to be included in the record.

Senator GRAMS. It will be included. Thank you.

Ms. JOHNSON. The focus of this hearing is international educational and cultural exchange programs, including Fulbright, citizens exchange, international visitor programs, high school exchanges, and a broad range of privately funded exchanges that the

State Department facilitates under the J-visa program. These programs establish the people to people ties between the U.S. and

other nations that enable us to support American business interests and carry out U.S. foreign policy goals. These are the programs that establish the foundation for effective U.S. public diplomacy, economic competitiveness, and national security in the next

century.

29

They also include overseas educational advising centers, which

counsel foreign students seeking an education in the United States.

These centers deserve much of the credit for the half a million foreign students and scholars who study here every year and for the

billions of dollars that they and their families contribute to the

American economy.

Foreign students and exchange visitors who come to the United

States take American values and perspectives home with them,

promote democratic institutions and market-based economies,

make major purchasing decisions involving American products, and

create partnerships with American enterprises. Many, as has already been mentioned, become important leaders in their societies,

enhancing our diplomatic ties with a number of nations. Virtually

all of them have a profound positive impact on our own security

and prosperity.

In recent years, international education has become a major global issue. Education topped the agenda of the Summit of the Americas in 1998. In the past few years, the Governments of Australia,

Great Britain, France and others have placed a major emphasis on

recruiting international students and have dedicated millions of

new dollars to that mission. This year the G–8 adopted a goal of

doubling the number of exchanges in the next 10 years.

The United States lags far behind in terms of having proactive

national policies to promote international education. Recently, however, there have been hopeful signs of increased national priority

and attention to these issues. I have outlined a number of them in

my prepared remarks and I will not repeat them here because the

other presenters have reinforced them. Needless to say, it includes

the USIA conference a couple of years ago, our own policy statement, the President’s April 19 directive, Congressman Kolbe’s resolution, and the Appropriations Committee statement on foreign policy priorities including exchanges of this fall. Of course, this fall

and November we will for the first time be acknowledging U.S.

International Education Week on the 13th to the 17th of November.

I have submitted material on each of these and I ask that they

also be included in the record.

Senator GRAMS. Without objection, they will be included.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you.

Now, these hearings are highlighting the importance of one very

important aspect of international education policy, exchange programs. We have come a long way in the period of a year or two,

but we must not allow the momentum to die. So today I would like

to suggest a few things that can be done to assure that international education and particularly educational and cultural exchange programs can meet the challenges we face as a Nation in

this global area.

First, I ask you to establish a congressional caucus on international education, so that we will have a forum for promoting a

long-term forward-thinking policy on international education. Sustained congressional leadership is essential to our success.

Second, I ask you to work to ensure that our Nation’s flagship

exchange programs, the ones that are tried and true, have healthy

budgets so that they will have the resources they need to serve our

30

national interests. At a minimum, these programs need to be restored to the levels of funding they enjoyed before the severe reductions of the mid-nineties. In some cases, such as overseas advising

centers, additional resources will be necessary to adequately meet

the challenges posed by the increased and substantially increased

foreign competition and foreign investment in recruiting international students.

Third, I ask you to join the nongovernmental sector in calling on

the next administration for leadership. Congress needs to hold the

next administration accountable for promoting our national interest with an international education policy.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to add one additional proposal

that is not in the prepared remarks that you had before I sat down

here, and I request permission to submit a revised statement for

you tomorrow for the record.

Senator GRAMS. As requested, without objection.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you.

My fourth suggestion is that we are asking you to establish a vehicle to use Federal dollars to leverage private, corporate, and university support to stimulate an increase in the number of U.S. students studying abroad. As an example, I would simply mention to

you a tremendous impact that many State legislatures, including

Minnesota, had during the eighties by appropriating funds that

were matched by private support that endowed chairs and professorships at public universities throughout the country.

All of these initiatives were based on the Oklahoma model and

they resulted in millions of private dollars of investment in the

long-term academic health of public universities. I believe that

such an initiative could play a significant role in encouraging

America’s young people to study abroad.

We recognize that the Federal Government cannot do it all. Colleges, universities, community colleges, and our school systems

must further internationalize their curricula and campuses and

they must provide enhanced global opportunities for students and

faculty. Higher education institutions, State governments, private

foundations, nongovernmental organizations, local school districts,

and community and business leaders all need to accept responsibility. They must increase their support for international education

and they must forge creative partnerships to achieve these important national goals.

But the Federal role is crucial in setting a policy direction, creating a conceptual understanding within which members of the

public can define their roles, and using Federal resources to leverage action at other levels. Those in Congress who understand the

importance of international education have an important role to

play in placing international education policy on the national agenda.

I hope this hearing will be followed by others early in the next

Congress, and I call upon the next Congress to pass such a resolution outlining such a policy and urge the next administration to

adopt it as the policy of the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson, including attachments,

begins on page 45:]

31

Senator GRAMS. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.

Dr. Mueller.

STATEMENT OF SHERRY L. MUELLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL VISITORS, WASHINGTON, DC

Dr. MUELLER. Senator Grams, thank you very much for inviting

me to testify on the domestic impact of the State Department’s

International Visitor [IV] Program. I have the privilege of serving

as executive director of the National Council for International Visitors, a nonprofit professional association for the private sector partners in the daily administration of the International Visitor Program.

Each year more than 80,000 volunteers, citizen diplomats, are involved in the activities of our program agency members and our 97

community-based member organizations throughout the United

States. Our members organize the professional programs, the cultural activities, the home visits that these distinguished foreign

leaders who participate in the international visitor program enjoy

while they are in the United States. A list of our members by State

is appended. You also have our membership directory and a new

publication called ‘‘A Salute to Citizen Diplomacy.’’ When assessing the impressive results of the International Visitor Program or any exchange, for that matter, we tend to focus on

the visitors themselves—the positions of prominence they attain,

their accomplishments. To illustrate, former Prime Minister of

Japan Kaifu when he was here as an international visitor learned

about our Peace Corps program and invented years later the Japanese equivalent. Or recently we heard from the current Minister of

Justice of Poland, who said that it was her IV experience that really deepened her understanding of democratic institutions and the

functioning of a market economy.

We also focus on how the program improves our embassy personnel overseas ability to function and to do their jobs. It has already been underscored that in the most recent survey done of U.S.

Ambassadors in fact the International Visitor Program is ranked at

the top of the list. I would just remind that the last time the survey

was conducted in 1993 the same results occurred.

But when discussing the national interest it is also imperative to

focus on the domestic impact of these exchange programs, what do

the U.S. communities get out of it. I have conducted some research

on this and also have the privilege of spending about 20 percent

of my time on the road visiting these citizen diplomats around the

country.

Perhaps the most dominant reason or the best illustration of the

reason that they are involved in the International Visitor Program

can be illustrated by an adaptation of the original ad for the Pony

Express rider, and you may remember this from your American

history. The add went like this: ‘‘Wanted: Young, wiry, skinny fellows under the age of 18. Must be expert riders, willing to risk

death daily. Wages, $25 per week’’—pretty good for 1860—‘‘Orphans preferred.’’

Now, if I were to rewrite this ad for our members and the volunteers who become involved with the International Visitor Program,

32

it would go something like this: ‘‘Wanted: Young at heart of all

ages. Must be eager to learn, well organized, and willing to risk

breaking stereotypes daily. Wages, will not be discussed. Idealists

preferred.’’

Our volunteers come from all walks of life and represent the diversity of their communities. But what they have in common is

that they are all idealists. They care about promoting human

rights, about improving civic participation, not only abroad but at

home. In working on these programs, they really develop a particular appreciation for American democratic institutions.

Whether in Tennessee, Texas, California, or Wisconsin, whether

farmers, bankers, doctors, teachers, these volunteers relish the opportunity to make a difference, as one of our members brochures

phrases it, ‘‘one handshake at a time.’’

Their second major motivation is the education of their children.

Through extensive schools programs and home hospitality, the children of these citizen diplomats enjoy a valuable supplement to

their education. As a volunteer from Freeport, Illinois, phrased it:

‘‘My daughter can discuss intelligently places her classmates cannot find on a map.’’

Many volunteers are involved with the International Visitor Program to counter the ‘‘ugly American’’ image. The Arkansas Council

for International Visitors was established in the early 1960’s to

counter the negative publicity surrounding the integration of Central High School. Founder Fred Darrow, with whom I was visiting

just last week, observed that hosting newly independent African

visitors helped advance integration in many U.S. communities.

The International Visitor Program still brings a whole variety of

people together to host the foreign guests who otherwise would not

have the opportunity to work together.

Still others are involved because they are responsible for economic development in their communities and they see exchanges as

an opportunity to make valuable connections and to have certain

cross-cultural experiences that are particularly valuable for representatives of small and medium sized businesses.

The International Visitor Program reaches a broad spectrum of

the community. It involves a cross-section of institutions, individuals, who might never have the opportunity to study or travel

abroad. ‘‘Travel by proxy’’ is the way one volunteer described her

involvement.

After receiving the invitation to testify, I sent out a broadcast fax

to our members inviting their statements. They sent wonderful articles and quotations and a few, some of them, are attached to my

testimony, that illustrate the remarkable results of the International Visitor Program, and I hope those statements may be included in the record as well.

Senator GRAMS. Without objection, they will be entered.

Dr. MUELLER. Despite the tremendous constituent involvement

in exchanges, the overall direct exchanges appropriation fell 31 percent, adjusted for inflation, since 1993. The International Visitor

Program is down 34 percent since 1993. Fewer participants, shorter

trips, mean that for the NCIV member organizations the program

has diminished by approximately 40 percent.

33

During a recent visit to Nebraska, our volunteers spoke of declining numbers and their concern that fewer foreign leaders get to

smaller and more rural communities, where they can have such a

great impact and where they can learn about basic American values.

NCIV is a member of the Alliance. We enthusiastically echo Ms.

Johnson’s request for a congressional caucus and a national policy

on international education. Citizen diplomats leverage an enormous

amount of resources for exchanges locally, but they need your leadership at the national level.

NCIV members across the United States strongly support increased funding for all State Department exchanges. We urge that

the International Visitor Program in particular not only be restored

to its 1993 levels, but that it be expanded to cover inflation and

new programmatic needs. Specifically, we request that you identify

additional new money in fiscal year 2002 to fund the GREAT program, dubbed as the GrassRoots Exchange and Training Program,

that would, under the auspices of the International Visitor Program, enable an additional 400 participants to come to the United

States each year.

These new participants would be local officials, representatives of

Chambers of Commerce, and other community leaders, who would

spend the last week of their 21 days in the States in their current

or in a potential sister city, to develop plans of action and strengthen those relationship. This addition to the International Visitor

Program would serve as a model, generating synergy among exchange programs, and expand U.S. efforts to build stronger commercial and cultural ties between U.S. leaders and their counterparts abroad. A statement of support for the GREAT program from

Sister Cities International is appended. Senator Grams, we appreciate your support for this new initiative.

If the world consisted of only 100 people, only 5 of them would

live in the United States. It is imperative that we as a country

learn to communicate and to work well with the other 95. The

International Visitor Program and other exchanges do just that.

Thank you for underscoring that fact by holding this hearing.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Mueller, including attachments,

begins on page :]

Senator GRAMS. Thank you, Ms. Mueller. Thank you very much.

Carol, welcome.

STATEMENT OF CAROL ENGEBRETSON BYRNE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MINNESOTA INTERNATIONAL CENTER, MINNEAPOLIS, MN

Mrs. BYRNE. Senator Grams, thank you for inviting me to testify

today. My name is Carol Engebretson Byrne, the executive director

of the Minnesota International Center [MIC]. Founded in 1953,

MIC is a membership-based nonprofit, nonpartisan organization

whose mission is to foster understanding between Minnesotans and

the world. Public interest in the Minnesota International Center is

soaring. Our membership has almost tripled in the last 3 years to

2,100 members, and our budget is $965,000. We are affiliated with

the World Affairs Councils of America, the National Councils for

International Visitors, and NAFSA.

34

Our mission is carried out through three major programs. The

world affairs program connects international events to the daily

lives of Minnesotans by inviting experts on international issues to

speak at public forums. Last year over 8,000 people attended the

world affairs events.

Our schools program, International Classroom Connection, links

international speakers and State Department international visitors

to Minnesota classrooms K through 12 to bring inter-cultural perspectives throughout the entire curriculum.

The third program, the International Visitor Program, arranges

for foreign civic and business leaders to meet their Minnesota counterparts to discuss issues ranging from legal reform to agricultural

technology.

The Minnesota International Center is one of a network of 97 organizations nationwide that host State Department international

visitors. Today I am here to underscore the importance of the International Visitors Program to our organization, our State, our country. The State Department views the International Visitors Program as the key component of its public diplomacy initiatives. The

International Visitors Program is a professional leadership development program which promotes the exchange of ideas and expertise

between mid-career international professionals and their U.S. counterparts.

The power of the program rests with the peer to peer connection.

Its success rests in the number of connections that are made. In

Minnesota in the mid-1980’s we hosted a thousand international

visitors on an annual basis. Each international visitor met with a

minimum of five professional peers, for a total of approximately

5,000 personal peer to peer connections.

However, in the past years the number of visiting professionals

has dropped significantly, from 715 in 1991 to 330 in 1999. That

meant that last year just 1,600 contacts were made or 3,400 less

than in the mid-eighties.

The Minnesota International Center views the International Visitors Program as critical to introducing our local leaders in business, government, the arts, and civil society to the next generation

of leaders emerging in key countries around the world. Minnesotans are avid participants in the burgeoning global society and

economy. In 1998, for example, Minnesota companies exported

more than $9.1 billion in agricultural and manufactured products.

That figure makes it easy to grasp that more than 100,000 Minnesota jobs are related to the international economy.

We also need the program to add a vital international perspective to our local understanding of who we as Minnesotans are

today. The vast wave of international immigration to the United

States is rapidly changing the demographic makeup of Minnesota’s

population. In Minneapolis schools, for example, the number of students for whom English is not the native language has tripled since

1990.

Why is the International Visitors Program so important to Minnesotans and why do I believe this program deserves to be

strengthened and bolstered? Because it gives Minnesotans at all

levels of society an opportunity to engage in a dialog with others

35

of similar interests and learn how things are done in other countries.

The International Visitors Program is an efficient way to initiate

and nurture critical international professional connections. Minnesotans greatly appreciate this program and as our State’s economy grows we have a compelling desire to see it expanded. With

our current community contacts, we have the potential to host two

or three times the number of international visitors that we have

today. We want more international visitors.

Every dollar invested in the program at the national level is leveraged many times over at the local level. We draw heavily upon

volunteer support to both manage and implement the program. It

is an example of public-private partnership at its best. Volunteers

organize professional appointments, may transport international

visitors to and from meetings, and host them for dinners and cultural events. More importantly, the people with whom the visiting

professionals meet all agree to do so voluntarily. This network of

local leaders contributes considerable time to the program at no

cost.

Let me give you some examples of Minnesota officials and community leaders who have warmly embraced this program and recently met with our international visitors: former Attorney General

Skip Humphrey, Guthrie Theater director Joe Dowling, St. Paul

Mayor Norm Coleman, the staff of our own U.S. Senators, Rod

Grams and Paul Wellstone, Congressman Jim Ramstad, Governor

Jesse Ventura, executives from 3M, Honeywell, Medtronics, and

Cargill, and dozens of mayors, county commissioners, education officials, medical personnel, and municipal elected officials statewide.

All of these are active partners in nurturing a network of informed

global leaders.

Where some of our other programs measure their success by the

headlines they generate, the International Visitors Program works

more subtly, in a behind the scenes manner. As a result, it is all

the more powerful and influential. It is the work that goes on away

from the TV cameras and microphones that produces lasting relationships between people and countries.

The International Visitors Program also has had a profound impact on our country’s ability to influence positively and discretely

the development of democratic principles and processes in other

countries. Consider that many of the international visitors to Minnesota come from countries struggling to develop a viable democratic society. Whether in Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia, or Latin

America, many of these visiting leaders come from countries lacking strong internal democratic traditions. They desperately need to

learn how to implement the basics of a free society, how to establish an equitable system of justice, how to decentralize government

decisionmaking so it best represents the interests of all members

of their societies.

In Minnesota we arrange for visitors such as these to meet with

their local government counterparts to learn how a representative

democratic functions in one U.S. State. The implications of this

type of activity are profound in terms of American foreign policy

goals. Through the International Visitors Program, we are literally

helping countries learn how to rebuild their nations in accordance

36

with the democratic principles that we as a Nation believe are essential to the peaceful functioning of a global society.

MIC members also leap at the opportunity to meet with our

international visitors. It is not every day that one can host members of the South African Parliament, a Russian theater director,

supreme court justices from Rwanda, or a Brazilian mayor at one’s

home for dinner. But MIC members have been able to do just that

through the International Visitors Program.

These informal dinners in a home offer Minnesotans and visitors

alike the chance to relax and exchange international viewpoints.

For all participants, it is a chance to set aside any stereotypes they

may harbor and learn something new about a new country.

As I mentioned earlier, there is much more we could do in Minnesota with a more robust International Visitors Program. One of

the most discouraging outcomes of the funding cutbacks for the

program has not only been the tremendous decline in visitors, but

the necessity to drastically curtail the number of visitors we schedule for meetings with rural Minnesotans. Due to budgetary reasons, the State Department has in recent years reduced the

amount of time visitors spend in the United States from 4 weeks

to 3 weeks. In Minnesota this has meant fewer days on the ground

for our visitors, with less and less opportunity to schedule visits to

areas outside the metropolitan Twin Cities area.

Funding reductions can also erode the quality of the programs,

such as interpreting services. Any reduction in the ratio of interpreters to visitors can diminish the quality of productivity of the

meetings. This is another area that deserves greater support.

In conclusion, I would like to again express my gratitude for the

opportunity to speak to you today. On behalf of the 96 organizations around the country that work with the International Visitors

Program, I urge you to support a resolution calling for a greater

national priority to international exchange in the United States, including most specifically higher levels of financial and public policy

support for the International Visitors Program, including the

GREAT program.

The International Visitors Program is a long-term investment in

engaging the public and meeting our foreign policy goals.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Byrne follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROL ENGEBRETSON BYRNE

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am Carol Engebretson Byrne, the executive director of

the Minnesota International Center. Founded in 1953, MIC is a membership-based,

non-profit, non-partisan organization whose mission is to foster understanding between Minnesotans and the world. Public interest in the Minnesota International

Center is soaring. Our membership has almost tripled in the past three years to

2,100 members and our budget is $965,000. We are affiliated with the World Affairs

Councils of America and the National Councils of International Visitors.

Our mission is carried out through three major programs:

• The World Affairs program connects international events to the daily lives of

Minnesotans by inviting experts on international issues to speak at public forums. Last year over 8,000 people attended our World Affairs events.

• Our program for schools, International Classroom Connection, links international speakers and State Department International Visitors to Minnesota

classrooms (K-12) to bring intercultural perspectives throughout the entire curriculum.

37

• And the third program, the International Visitors program, arranges for foreign

civic and business leaders to meet their Minnesota counterparts to discuss

issues ranging from legal reform to agricultural technology. The Minnesota

International Center is one of a network of 97 organizations nationwide that

hosts State Department International Visitors.

Today, I am here to underscore the importance of the International Visitors program to our organization, our state and our country. The State Department views

the International Visitors program as a key component of its public diplomacy initiatives. The International Visitors program is a professional leadership development program, which promotes the exchange of ideas and expertise between midcareer international professionals and their U.S. counterparts. The power of the program rests within the peer-to-peer connection. Its success rests in the number of

connections that are made.

In Minnesota in the mid 1980s, we hosted 1,000 International Visitors on an annual basis. Each International Visitor met with a minimum of 5 professional peers,

for a total of 5,000 personal peer-to-peer connections.

However, in the past several years the number of visiting professionals has

dropped significantly, from 715 in 1991 to 330 in 1999. That meant that last year

just over 1,600 contacts were made—or 3,500 less than in the mid-80s.

The Minnesota International Center views the International Visitors program as

critical to introducing our local leaders in business, government, the arts and civic

society to the next generation of leaders emerging in key countries around the

world.

Minnesotans are avid participants in the burgeoning global society and economy.

In 1998, for example, Minnesota companies exported more than $9.1 billion in agricultural and manufactured products. That figure makes it easy to grasp that more

than 100,000 Minnesota jobs are related to the international economy.

We also need the program to add a vital international perspective to our local understanding of who we, as Minnesotans, are today. The vast wave of international

immigration to the United States is rapidly changing the demographic makeup of

Minnesota’s population. In Minneapolis schools, for example, the number of students

for whom English is not the native language has tripled since 1990.

Why is the International Visitors program so important to Minnesotans? And why

do I believe this program deserves to be strengthened and bolstered to previous

funding levels? It gives Minnesotans at all levels of society, an opportunity to engage in a dialogue with others of similar interests—and learn how things are done

in other countries.

The International Visitors program is an efficient way to initiate and nurture critical international professional connections. Minnesotans greatly appreciate the program—and as our state’s economy grows, we have a compelling desire to see it expanded. With our current community contacts, we have the potential to host two

or three times the number of International Visitors that we have today.

We want more International Visitors. Every dollar invested in the program at the

national level is leveraged many times over at the local level. We draw heavily upon

volunteer support to both manage and implement the program. It is an example of

public-private partnership at its best. Volunteers organize professional appointments, transport international visitors to and from meetings and host them for dinners and cultural events. More importantly, the people with whom the visiting professionals meet all agree to do so voluntarily. This network of local leaders contributes considerable time to the program at no cost. Let me give you some examples

of Minnesotan government officials and community leaders who have warmly embraced this program and recently met with our International Visitors: former Attorney General Skip Humphrey; Guthrie Theater Director, Joe Dowling; St. Paul

Mayor Norm Coleman; the staff of our own U.S. Senators Rod Grams and Paul

Wellstone; Congressman Jim Ramstad; Governor Jesse Ventura; executives from

3M, Honeywell, Medtonic and Cargill; and dozens of mayors, county commissioners,

arts officials, medical personnel and municipal elected officials statewide. All of

these are active partners in nurturing a network of informed global leaders.

Where some of our other programs measure their success by the headlines they

generate, the International Visitors program works more subtly in a behind-the

scenes manner. As a result, it is all the more powerful and influential. It’s the work

that goes on away from the TV cameras and microphones that produces lasting relationships between people and countries.

The International Visitors program also has a profound impact on our country’s

ability to influence positively—and discreetly—the development of democratic principles and processes in other countries. Consider that many of the International

Visitors to Minnesota come from countries struggling to develop a viable democratic

38

society. Whether in Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia or Latin America, many of these

visiting leaders come from countries lacking strong internal democratic traditions

themselves. They desperately need to learn how to implement the basics of a free

society, how to establish an equitable system of justice, how to decentralize government decision-making so it best represents the interests of all members of their societies, how to establish fair and open government purchasing systems. In Minnesota,

we arrange for visitors such as these to meet with their local governmental counterparts to learn how representative democracy functions in one U.S. state. The implications of this type of activity are profound in terms of American foreign policy

goals—through the International Visitors program we are literally helping countries

learn how to rebuild their nations in accordance with the democratic principles that

we as a nation believe are essential to the peaceful functioning of a global society.

MIC members also leap at the opportunity to meet with our international visitors.

It is not everyday that one can host members of the South African parliament, a

Russian theater director, Supreme Court justices from Rwanda or a Brazilian mayor

in one’s home for dinner, but MIC members have been able to do just that through

the International Visitors program. These informal dinners in a home offer Minnesotans and visitors alike the chance to relax and exchange international viewpoints.

For all participants it is a chance to set aside any stereotypes they may harbor and

learn something new about another country.

As I mentioned earlier, there is much more we could do in Minnesota with a more

robust International Visitors program. One of the most discouraging outcomes of the

funding cutbacks for the program has not only been the tremendous decline in visitors, but the necessity to drastically curtail the number of visitors we schedule for

meetings with rural Minnesotans. Due to budgetary reasons, the State Department

has in recent years reduced the amount of time visitors spend in the United

States—from four weeks to three weeks. In Minnesota, this has meant fewer days

on the ground for our visitors, with less and less opportunity to schedule visits to

areas outside the metropolitan Twin Cities area.

Funding reductions can also erode the quality of the program such as interpreting

services. Any reduction in the ratio of interpreters to visitors can diminish the quality of productiveness of the meetings. This is another area that deserves greater

support.

In conclusion, I would like to again express my gratitude for the opportunity to

speak to you today. On behalf of the 97 organizations around the country that work

with the International Visitors program, I urge you to support a resolution calling

for a greater national priority to international exchange in the United States—including most specifically higher levels of financial and public policy support for the

International Visitors program including the GREAT Program. This program is a

long-term investment in engaging the public and meeting our foreign policy goals.

Thank you for your time.

Senator GRAMS. Thank you very much, Carol.

Before we begin a round of questioning, with the way the schedule is here in Washington, I have been kind of double-booked. I had

another commitment at 10:30, but I have the folks here in the back

room. So I am going to take just a quick break. I do not want to

take very long, but I have to meet, including Mayor Dick Nelson

of Warren, Minnesota, and Vice Mayor Rob Kleiner and a number

of others. So I am just going to meet with them very briefly. So I

will just take a quick break and then I will be back.

So we will just take a quick break and I will be right back.

[Short recess.]

Senator GRAMS. Thank you very much. I again apologize for

doing some of these things out of order, but schedules are schedules. So I thank you very much for your consideration.

Just a few questions I would like to ask our panelists this morning. Again, I really appreciate your taking the time and your testimony and your concerns and suggestions. So maybe we will just

start and maybe go back counterclockwise and we will start with

Carol here for the first question. Again I want to thank you for

being here today, traveling out.

39

The Minnesota International Center has been recognized nationally for its excellent work with the International Visitors Program

and I think it is important to hear about the role of exchanges from

the perspective of the heartland in America. I have had the great

opportunity to visit a number of times and with some of the visiting dignitaries, including from China recently, and also the Ambassador to the United States from Israel. That was a GREAT

lunch the other day as well in Minnesota.

Carol, what has been the impact of these exchange programs on

the people of Minnesota? In other words, do you see lasting effects

from their contacts with these international visitors? I know you

said there has been a great ratio with the professional peers in

Minnesota meeting with such counterparts. What kind of lasting

effects or benefits does it have, not only on the visitors but on Minnesotans as well?

Mrs. BYRNE. You know, Minnesota is a very interesting State because international exchange has always been very big. If you look

at AFS, we have some of the largest number of international students at the high school. We also have one of the largest numbers

of Peace Corps returnees. What happens with international exchanges like that and certainly with the International Visitors Program as well is that there is engagement between the public and

the world, and they want to continue that.

I think that the fact that Minnesota is a State that looks outward, you see that kind of impact every day. With our members

and with people that we come in contact with, we usually find that

their interest in international issues was sparked by a personal

connection. I think that there are a number of things that have

happened.

One case in point would be the SADC conferences that have

come to Minnesota, Southern African Development Community.

That has come out of a contact from one international visitor from

South Africa making a connection with Minnesota and strengthening those ties. You have seen those business connections that

have grown as well.

So there are some ways that you can measure it, but there are

many, many other ways that you cannot measure it. But you know

that that is somebody that has developed a strong international

mind set.

Senator GRAMS. I think, as you said, Minnesota looking outward

really gave reason for the Minnesota International Center to be

born and the things that you have done. It is from the interest of

the people there.

Mrs. BYRNE. Right, exactly.

Senator GRAMS. This reflects that.

Mrs. BYRNE. And please note that our membership has tripled,

almost tripled in 4 years. I think that that says a lot about how

Minnesotans are feeling that they have a compelling need to be

very connected, and the younger it starts the better.

Senator GRAMS. Dr. Mueller, I know we might take democracy

for granted, but it is great to be able to invite people from other

countries to come and, as I think all of you have mentioned, experience it firsthand and get a better understanding of workings of democracy and to take that back home and, not trying to maybe duVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
40

plicate it, but it becomes a very important part of their thinking

process.

How has the IV program that you have talked about helped promote democracy abroad?

Dr. MUELLER. I think for many people from parts of the world

in transition, whether you are talking about East Europe in particular, it gives them that first exposure and a sense that there is

another way to go about organizing society. I think some of us in

America do not appreciate how isolated up until the falling of the

Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union that that

part of the world actually was.

I think even a very brief 3-week exposure can really change a lot

of their stereotypes, a lot of their fixed ideas, both about who we

are, but about how democratic institutions actually operate. There

is no substitute for that actual experience, whether you are taking

a Russian visitor to look at open houses on a weekend and say,

which one do you want to go in, and then let us talk about how

you get a mortgage for it if you were going to buy it. That kind of

active experiencing of both a market economy and democratic institutions is irreplaceable. You cannot explain it to somebody in another context, and I think the International Visitor Program has

been superb at doing that.

Another example in more of a human rights context would be

F.W. deKlerk, for instance, coming here as an international visitor

and having that change his ideas about the future of that country.

I could give more examples along the way, but why do I not stop

there in the interest of time.

Senator GRAMS. Just to followup on that, Dr. Mueller, the Sister

Cities program, which as you know is very highly regarded in the

State of Minnesota as well, was rated as one of the least useful programs in the field service of public diplomacy programs. So I would

like to ask you, how will the new proposal that we have unveiled

today help improve our Sister Cities program?

Dr. MUELLER. A few years ago, the then-executive director of Sister Cities and I had a chance to talk. In fact, we were preparing

for a panel for the NAFSA conference. Her greatest challenge at

the time was finding a way to move more delegations, to strengthen those Sister City relationships and make them more than relationships on paper. Some of the Sister Cities relationships are very

strong.

Over my travels in the United States I have had a chance to

meet with a lot of Sister Cities volunteers because they often are

involved in our Councils for International Visitors as well. So I

think the ability to bring more delegations here will strengthen

those relationships and put meat on their bones, so to speak.

I also think there have been major changes in both the board

composition as well as there is a brand new executive director of

Sister Cities, with whom I have met and discussed the GREAT program. You saw their letter. I think they are on a very good course,

and I do think the tremendous volunteer support they have across

the country will be strengthened by having more foreign delegations to come and work with them more closely.

Senator GRAMS. Marlene, since the end of the cold war many

question the need to have exchanges with European countries and

41

with Canada, claiming that the people from these regions would

come to America without taxpayer funding. Has there been an effort to target other regions of the world for expanding U.S. exchange programs activity and, if so, how have they been successful?

Ms. JOHNSON. I think there has been a great deal of effort by

both universities and colleges themselves, as well as the State Department, to look at moving students in both directions to the

emerging countries, the emerging democracies. Certainly we support that. I just came back 2 days ago, in fact, from South Africa

at a conference of sister organizations there that is trying to

strengthen the capacity of South African universities to support

study abroad programs for American students and to increase the

capacity of those institutions to send students here for 1-year programs, not necessarily 4-year programs, which is how most of the

international students come now.

There is a great deal of interest in that and a great deal of enthusiasm and leadership in that country for building the infrastructure in South Africa to support American students. There has

been a substantial increase in the interest on the part of American

students at many universities and colleges around the country.

I think that it is important to identify vehicles to encourage that

kind of exchange in both directions, because it is not just that

Americans need to meet international visitors and students in our

own country, but we need to go there. We need to have more Americans studying abroad, both for short-term and long-term programs,

if we are going to do our part to understand the world, just as we

want them to come here and get a more personal understanding,

more personally in touch with what a democracy means, what it

means to have an election and have some people lose and still talk

to each other the next day, and to transition governments, to build

businesses, to build public-private partnerships, to support nongovernment associations or organizations like we are.

We represent an aspect of society that is just beginning to exist

in most parts of the world, including in Europe. So I do not really

share the notion that there is not a need for exchanges with Canada and with Mexico and with Europe. Quite the contrary, I think

that, if I could be so bold, I think that we United States Americans

are pretty ignorant if we think that Canada is the same as we are,

and unfortunately we do think that they are the same as we are

and that is a problem. Yet they are our most important trading

partner.

So I would encourage us to speed up the exchange between the

United States and Canada, but not at the expense of slowing down

exchange with Eastern Europe or the former Soviet Union or Africa

or Asia, because I think it is critical that we continue to build those

relationships in both directions.

Senator GRAMS. My second language is Canadian, so I understand.

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, good. We are proud of you for that.

Senator GRAMS. I wanted to also ask quickly before I move on,

are these roles of exchanges becoming more or less important because of really the globalization? I say that because I hear many

parents lament that their children and then grandchildren are now

working in Beijing or London or Moscow. So I mean, the job opporVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
42

tunities are global now, not just moving to San Francisco or St.

Louis. So really we do have a great mobility worldwide for many

job opportunities.

So are these exchange programs becoming more important or are

they becoming less important because really it is becoming more of

the way of life? Marlene?

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, I think they are becoming more important

because it is becoming more a way of life, because the more we

begin to engage in the world at a young age the more competent

we will be to handle the challenges, to accept the challenges, and

be successful in those global environments that we are required to

do.

It is not just the people who are going to take a job in Beijing.

It is the people in Wilmer, Minnesota, who are working for a company that is doing business internationally. I do not know if there

is one in Wilmer exactly. Yes, there is one. I actually, I do remember that. I am losing touch with my old anecdotes a little bit here.

I am getting a little rusty.

But there are international businesses of every size in every

county in your State and my State, and that is true for most States

in this country. I think that is why there is a lot more interest on

the part of American parents to get their children learning other

languages and really thinking about where they should be studying

and what they should be studying, because they know, they know

they are working with people whose first language is not English.

They know that the products they are making when they go to

work in the morning are being sold all over the world and that if

we are going to be successful at buying and selling around the

world our products—they know that the clothes they are wearing

were made someplace else, too.

I mean, Americans are real smart. They just need some help understanding how to take all this new understanding of the world

and do some things with our educational system and with our community involvement that helps advance what they know instinctively is required to have a successful future for themselves and

their children.

Senator GRAMS. Thank you.

Mr. Denton, let me talk about promoting democracy. What is the

administration’s record on promoting democracy through these exchange programs?

Mr. DENTON. I cannot say, Mr. Chairman, that I have really done

a serious study or assessment of that.

Senator GRAMS. Are you satisfied with it?

Mr. DENTON. Yes. I think that it is basically on track. But I must

tell you, Mr. Chairman, I really do not follow the macro numbers

in the way that you and your committee do. So I feel like it is a

little bit above my pay grade to grade the administration on this.

From my limited perspective, I think that this administration has

done all right in this respect.

Senator GRAMS. Mr. Denton, your work with the National Forum

Foundation and then Freedom House has focused on exchange programs in the area of the Central and Eastern Europe and the

former Soviet Union. Again I will kind of reiterate a question I

asked earlier: 10 years after the cold war, does that area remain

43

the most important sphere to focus on for exchange programs in

your opinion, more important than others?

Mr. DENTON. You mean geographically?

Senator GRAMS. Yes.

Mr. DENTON. The most important region? Well, that is a tough

one.

Senator GRAMS. I suppose it could be in the eye of the beholder.

Mr. DENTON. That is a tough one. I think that it would be a very

bad time to let go of that region. There is a great deal of progress

that has been made, but, as I mentioned in my comments, I think

there are—well, it is very clear that there is still a great distance

to go.

This particular region that we are talking about is highly volatile

and it is right next to our Western European allies, where we have

extraordinary trading relationships and so on. So from a national

security standpoint, of course it is highly, highly important.

But on the other hand, I think that it would probably be a good

idea for us to be thinking about ways to engage China in this respect for exchanges. There are problems. A lot of them do not return. I think we should be thinking that it will not be long from

now before we might have opportunities to do this in Iran, where

there has been some interesting progress made in recent years.

Those areas would also be strategically important to the United

States from a security and economic point of view, and also I think

from a moral point of view, to try to strengthen the forces for reform and freedom in those countries.

But I guess that I would have to say that at this stage, if I were

to prioritize the world where both there is need and opportunity to

engage in a significant way the agents for reform, so to speak, then

I would say that the priority would be the former Soviet Union,

most particularly Russia and Ukraine, and then southeastern Europe.

Senator GRAMS. Ms. Johnson, I would like to ask, how long of a

visit is important to make sure that there is maybe lasting friendships or bonds? Is it a 2-week visit? Does it have to be a 6-month

visit? Is there something over history that tells us length of time

is better than another?

Ms. JOHNSON. I think that educators would say that the longer

the experience the better it is. We certainly as an association, my

association is very interested in advancing programs that provide

academic credit.

On the other hand, there is also a strong belief in the field that

it is better to get people started, and if short gets them started inevitably they will have a second and third experience. I personally

subscribe to that. I think that, while it is better to have immersion,

because with immersion in a culture, learning what it means to be

on your own and having to struggle with that language until you

master it and figure it out on your own and live with the family

for a while, that is immersion, and 2 weeks or 1 week is not immersion, and a vacation to Paris is not international education. It

is a great time. I am all for it and I think we should encourage it,

but I do not think it is international education and we should not

pretend it is.

44

On the other hand, I think there are many examples at this table

and in this room and beyond of short experiences that have had a

tremendous impact on people’s thinking and have caused them to

go another time for a half a year or a year and even more.

So I think it is really important that we support the range, that

we increase the range of opportunities, and that we have a national

policy that really says it is important for all of our people to engage

in the world. And for those people who do not study abroad, it is

critical that our campuses and our communities are more internationalized, that the curricula and the other programs on a campus really keep advancing an international perspective, if we want

all of our people, not just those who actually do study abroad, to

be successful.

Senator GRAMS. Dr. Mueller, the advantages or virtues of a

short-term program such as the international visitor program, the

benefits from that? Even though it is maybe not as long as we

might want, there are values? Or how would you sum up the International Visitors Program?

Dr. MUELLER. Well, I think it is tremendously important that

people have an opportunity, as I indicated earlier, to have that first

exposure. I share Marlene’s perspective on this and I think the real

challenge for Dr. Bader and you, is what is the right mix of exchanges that really does serve the national interest.

I think there is tremendous importance for the Fulbright program and academic exchanges, and likewise it is just awfully valuable to have the International Visitor Program because I think

those linkages, as Ms. Byrne described them, the human connections, the web of human connections that are made even in a very

short, relatively short visit, really do underpin other relationships

that will come later.

I think the International Visitor Program is a tremendous catalyst. It is a tremendous first step, and in many cases it does perform, despite its short length, life-changing—has life-changing results.

Senator GRAMS. Thank you.

Carol, just one final question. I would like you kind of to describe

for us, if you would, a typical program which an international visitor could expect to experience when he comes to Minnesota. I

know we have done a lot of things with—we know quite a bit, Minnesotans know a lot about countries like Germany, Norway, Sweden, because we have a lot of family ties there. But what role have

international exchanges had in focusing more attention on other regions, like Asia, Africa, the Mideast? So what would be a typical

type?

Mrs. BYRNE. Well, this is a program that we are going to be

doing in October, so we are in the planning of it. I will just give

you that example. It is going to be a multi-regional group of journalists coming over. We love to host journalists in Minnesota. With

this particular group, they most likely will meet with editorial

boards, with the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune.

Hopefully, we will take them to Monticello to meet with that newspaper, small town newspaper.

We are going to have a public forum for this group as well, and

that is something that the State Department had asked. OftenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
45

times—when we bring in a group of IV’s, we want to leverage their

visit with as many people as possible in Minnesota.

We might also schedule a visit for them to go to a school. This

group is a very interesting IV group, composed of about seven Europeans. Excuse me, when I look back on it, we have got two journalists, one from Greece. We have also got some parliament members. So they are going to talk about Europe in transition.

Then, of course, we will arrange home hospitality. We usually try

to only put at most two international visitors per family. So with

that group of seven, they will meet with three different families as

well.

So it will be whirlwind, 4 full days of Minnesota. The time will

be very short, but I think the effects will be long-reaching.

One of the other points to just make about the International Visitors Program is that I really want to commend the State Department and embassies around the world for selecting such stellar individuals to come on this particular program. They come at such

a high caliber that when they are in the United States they really

can take advantage of those 3 weeks, as opposed to—I can speak

on behalf of myself. When I was 17 I was an exchange student and

it took me a lot longer to learn things than it does today. So I think

the International Visitors Program is like an accelerated program.

When they leave, with the power of technology that it is today,

with e-mail, et cetera, those connections will continue.

Senator GRAMS. I think it is just a good example of the benefits

on both sides, I mean, for Minnesotans to have the visitors here

and also for the visitors to have an exposure, not just to Minnesota

but to America and democracy.

I want to thank you very much for your testimony and your answers. I appreciate your time. I also commend Secretary Bader for

staying with us and listening to the testimony and taking in all the

information. I know it is important to you in your work. So again,

thank you all very much.

This hearing is over. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARLENE M. JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for inviting me to testify.

I know it’s hard to focus on these matters at this particular time of year. All of us

in the international education community appreciate your leadership in bringing us

together to discuss an issue that may not figure prominently in the political debates

swirling around us right now, but that does, we believe, fundamentally affect the

national interest of this country.

Let me focus on those two concepts for a moment: leadership, and the national

interest. In an earlier era, we understood better that the ability of the United States

to protect and advance its interests in the world depended fundamentally on our

knowledge of that world and on our ability to promote international understanding.

And we all remember the Senators who were prepared to stand up and exercise

leadership on behalf of international education and exchange programs that served

these objectives.

Oddly, as the world has become more interdependent and more global—as the national interest of the United States has become more linked to events abroad—interest in international education programs in the Congress has declined. It’s not that

these programs have enemies, but they seem to be viewed as expendable in budget

battles.

46

The American people, however, understand that our country’s ability to lead, prosper, and protect our national security in the twenty-first century depends more than

ever on international knowledge and understanding. They need—and we need—

champions who will fight for our programs in the legislative arena. You, Mr. Chairman, have been such a champion. We need more, on both sides of the aisle.

I testify today on behalf of the Alliance for International Educational and Cultural

Exchange, of which I chair the board of directors, and NAFSA: Association of International Educators, of which I am CEO. The Alliance is a coalition of more than

60 organizations that sponsor international educational and cultural exchange programs. NAFSA, a member of the Alliance, is the largest professional association of

international educators, with more than 8,600 members on college and university

campuses nationwide, as well as a growing membership overseas.

On behalf of the tens of thousands of citizens represented by these two organizations, who make international education and exchange work on campuses and in

communities all over this country, I thank you for being our champion, Mr. Chairman, and I express to you our hope that you will do even more in the future to fill

the leadership vacuum that exists on our issues.

To be true to this constituency, Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that there

is a lot more to international education than exchange. We have to internationalize

our college and university curricula and classrooms, make sure study abroad programs are linked to students’ academic programs, deepen and broaden foreign language instruction so that Americans are conversant in the world’s major languages,

maintain and increase our output of international specialists who will provide the

next generation of expert knowledge, and support an ambitious agenda of international and global research in all disciplines to help us understand and shape

globalization.

Exchanges are an indispensable part of all that, but they aren’t the whole picture.

And we need to work on all of it to prepare ourselves for the new century.

We have tried to lay out the whole picture in a NAFSA-Alliance paper entitled,

‘‘Toward an International Education Policy for the United States,’’ which is appended to my statement. This paper represents our effort to articulate a post-cold

war rationale for international education and exchange in the global world. Unlike

most such efforts, it is deliberately short and to the point, as a way of encouraging

policy makers to read it. I commend it to you.

The focus of this hearing is international educational and cultural exchange programs, including Fulbright programs, Citizen Exchanges, the International Visitor

Program, high school exchanges, and the broad range of privately funded exchanges

that the State Department facilitates under the J visa program. These programs establish the people-to-people ties between the United States and other nations that

enable us to support American business interests and carry out U.S. foreign policy

goals. These are the programs that establish the foundation for effective U.S. public

diplomacy, economic competitiveness, and national security in the next century.

They also include overseas educational advising centers, which counsel foreign

students seeking an education in the United States. These centers deserve much of

the credit for the half-a-million foreign students who study here every year, and for

the billions of dollars that they and their families contribute to the American economy.

Foreign students and exchange visitors who come to the United States take American values and perspectives home with them, promote democratic institutions and

market-based economies, make major purchasing decisions involving American products, and create partnerships with American enterprises. Many have become important leaders in their societies, enhancing our diplomatic ties with a number of nations. Virtually all of them have a profound, positive impact on our own security

and prosperity.

In recent years, international education has become a major global issue. Education topped the agenda of the Summit of the Americas in 1998. In the past few

years, the governments of Australia, Great Britain, France, and other countries

have placed a major emphasis on recruiting international students, and have dedicated millions of dollars toward that mission. This year, the G-8 adopted a goal of

doubling the number of exchanges in the next 10 years.

The United States lags far behind in terms of having proactive national policies

to promote international education. Recently, however, there have been hopeful

signs of increased national priority and attention to these issues.

• In the fall of 1998, the U.S. Information Agency and the Educational Testing

Service hosted a joint conference on the state of U.S. leadership in international

education. The conference report concluded that the United States is indeed losing its edge in international education, as other nations strategically and agVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
47

gressively establish national policies to promote international education. The report called on the United States to adopt such a policy.

• Last February, responding to that call, NAFSA and the Alliance released the

statement I referred to earlier, calling for the establishment of a U.S. international education policy and setting forth what we thought such a policy

should be.

• This statement provided an important basis for President Clinton’s April 19 executive memorandum for the heads of agencies on international education policy, which Dr. Bader has discussed.

• On the heels of that memorandum, Congressman Jim Kolbe, together with a

bipartisan group of co-sponsors, introduced a resolution based on the NAFSAAlliance statement, stating the need for such a policy.

• The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report accompanying the fiscal

year 2001 CJS appropriations bill, noted that international exchanges are a foreign policy priority and urged the State and Education departments to give

international education a higher position on the national agenda.

• In May of this year, Chairman Gilman of the International Relations Committee introduced a bill to increase study abroad opportunities for financiallydisadvantaged students. We have worked closely with the Chairman on this bill,

which is now before the Senate. I hope you will pass it.

• And for the first time, our nation will celebrate U.S. International Education

Week on November 13-17, 2000.

I have submitted materials for each of these important developments for the

record.

And now, these hearings are highlighting the importance of one very important

aspect of an international education policy—exchange programs.

We’ve come a long way in the period of a year or two, but we have only just

begun. We mustn’t allow the momentum to die. Here is what we need to do to be

sure that international education, and particularly educational and cultural exchange programs, can meet the challenges we face as a nation in this global era.

• First, I ask you to establish a congressional caucus on international education,

so that we’ll have a forum for promoting a long-term, forward-thinking policy

on international education. Sustained congressional leadership is essential to

our success.

• Second, I ask you to work to ensure that our nation’s flagship exchange programs, the ones that are tried and true, have healthy budgets so that they’ll

have the resources they need to serve our national interests. At a minimum,

these programs need to be restored to the levels of funding they enjoyed before

the severe reductions of the mid-nineties. In some cases, we will need additional

resources to adequately meet the challenges posed by increased foreign competition.

• Third, I ask you to join the nongovernmental sector in calling on the next administration for leadership. Congress needs to hold the next administration accountable for promoting our national interest with an international education

policy.

We recognize that the federal government can’t do it all. Colleges, universities,

community colleges, and our school systems must further internationalize their curricula and campuses, and must provide enhanced global opportunities for students

and faculty. Higher education institutions, state governments, private foundations,

nongovernmental organizations, local school districts, and community and business

leaders all need to accept their responsibilities, increase their support for international education, and forge creative partnerships to achieve these important national goals.

But the federal role is crucial in setting a policy direction, creating a conceptual

understanding within which members of the public can define their roles, and using

federal resources to leverage action at other levels. Those in Congress who understand the importance of international education have an important role to play in

placing international education policy on the national agenda. I hope this hearing

will be followed by others early in the next Congress. And I call upon the next Congress to pass a resolution outlining such a policy and urging the next administration

to adopt it as the policy of the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

48

TOWARD AN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY FOR THE UNITED STATES

NAFSA: Association of International Educators Alliance for International

Educational and Cultural Affairs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

International education—imparting effective global literacy to students and other

citizens as an integral part of their education—is important to meet three challenges facing the United States: national security and the management of global

conflict, competitiveness in a global economy, and an increasingly multicultural society.

Several factors are of concern: declining U.S. competitiveness in the international

student market; the extremely low participation of U.S. students in study abroad

programs; the critical shortage of Americans’ foreign language skills; and the declining priority given to exchange programs which, in the past, have done much to extend U.S. influence by educating the world’s future leaders.

We propose that the nation commit itself to work toward several ambitious goals,

including:

• Knowledge of a foreign language and a foreign area by all college graduates.

• Enhancing the educational infrastructure through which the United States produces international expertise.

• Recapturing 40 percent of the international student market and streamlining

visa, taxation, and employment policies and regulations applicable to international students.

• Vastly increasing the number of U.S. students studying abroad; promoting ethnic, socioeconomic, and gender diversity in study abroad; and diversifying the

locations, languages, and subjects involved in study abroad.

• Invigorating citizen and professional exchange programs and promoting the

international exchange of scholars.

We ask that the President announce such an international education policy, take

steps to ensure effective leadership and interagency coordination on the part of his

administration, and seek broad participation by educators and others in the formulation and implementation of the policy. To view the entire statement, go to http:/

/www.nafsa.org/int-ed/22200.html.

TOWARD AN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY FOR THE UNITED STATES

February 22, 2000

SUMMARY

In the two decades following World War II, visionary leaders understood that the

challenges of the cold war required that Americans be knowledgeable about the

world, and they created international education programs to endow Americans with

the skills necessary to compete in that environment. Today our nation faces global

challenges that, although less stark, are at least as profound. Yet our commitment

as a nation to international education—that is, to imparting effective global literacy

to students and other citizens as an integral part of their education—is in doubt.

With the end of the cold war, the United States mistakenly drew the conclusion

that it had the luxury of retreating from international concerns and focusing on domestic problems. In today’s world, however, that is impossible.

• It is now clear that the end of the cold war did not mean an end to international, civil, and ethnic conflict. The defense of U.S. interests and the effective management of global unrest in the next century will require more, not

less, ability on the part of Americans to understand the world in terms other

than their own.

• Globalization is obliterating the distinction between foreign and domestic concerns. Most domestic problems in today’s world are also international. The global economic and technology revolutions are redefining the nation’s economic security and reshaping business, life, and work. The opening of global markets,

the explosion of trade, the globalizing effects of Internet technology, and the

need for U.S. business to compete in countries around the world require a global

content in education in general, as well as specific foreign language and country

expertise.

• The world is coming to us, whether we like it or not. Immigrants are changing

the face of American society. Foreign-born experts now pace America’s scientific

49

leadership. The American workforce is now multicultural, and customers for

American products are found everywhere the Internet goes. These realities help

fuel U.S. development, but they also create new needs, both for managers who

can think globally and for tolerance and cross-cultural sensitivity in our neighborhoods and workplaces.

In short, international and cross-cultural awareness and understanding on the

part of U.S. citizens will be crucial to effective U.S. leadership, competitiveness,

prosperity, and national security in the next century. Yet—all the laws on the books

notwithstanding—the United States effectively lacks a coherent, coordinated, operational policy for educating its citizens internationally.

What is needed is a policy that promotes international education in the broadest

sense, including supporting the learning of foreign languages and in-depth knowledge of other cultures by Americans, promoting study abroad by U.S. students, encouraging students from other countries to study in the United States, facilitating

the exchange of scholars and of citizens at all levels of society, and supporting the

educational infrastructure through which we produce international competence and

research.

We propose that the President announce and implement an international education policy that: (1) articulates the national interest in international education; (2)

sets forth the goals and objectives of such a policy; (3) dedicates resources that are

appropriate to these interests, goals, and objectives; (4) charges a high-level government official with lead responsibility for the promotion and implementation of the

policy; (5) specifies the roles of appropriate government agencies in implementing

the policy; (6) mandates interagency coordination under leadership of the senior official referred to above; and (7) creates an ongoing mechanism whereby international

education professionals, business leaders, and state-level officials can offer advice

and guidance on policy development and implementation.

WHY DOES THE UNITED STATES NEED AN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY?

Globalization expands the nation’s need for international competence. To maintain

U.S. security, well being, and global economic leadership, we need to increase the

depth and variety of international expertise of Americans in government, business,

education, the media, and other fields. While the Internet dramatically increases opportunities for global collaboration, technology alone cannot substitute for the expertise developed through serious study and substantive international experience.

In addition to increasing the global awareness of Americans, our international

education interests also encompass the presence of foreign students in the United

States. In the 1998-99 academic year, nearly 500,000 international students studied

in the United States at the post-secondary level. They and their dependents spent

more than $11 billion on tuition, fees, and living expenses in U.S. higher-education

institutions and communities, making international education the fifth-largest U.S.

service-sector export.

But these students represent much more than an entry on the credit side of the

U.S. current accounts ledger. To educate them is to have an opportunity to shape

the future leaders who will guide the political and economic development of their

countries. In American classrooms, dormitories, and living rooms, international students gain an in-depth exposure to American values and to our successful multicultural democracy, and they take those values home to support democracy and market

economies. They develop an appreciation of American products and are likely to remain American customers throughout their lives. They enrich American campuses

and provide many American students with their first-ever exposure to foreign

friends and colleagues. The millions of people who have studied in the United States

over the years constitute a remarkable reservoir of goodwill for our country, perhaps

our most underrated foreign policy asset.

Yet because the United States does not have a proactive policy for attracting

international students, we are beginning to lose our share of this market to those

countries that do. Although we still dominate the international student market, the

proportion of international students who choose to study in the United States has

declined almost 10 percent since 1982; it now stands at just over 30 percent. The

United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, among others, have announced or are implementing aggressive international student recruitment strategies that promise to make further inroads into current U.S. market share unless

we adopt measures to reverse the trend.

America’s success in attracting international students has not been matched by

success in sending students abroad. The number of Americans who study overseas

for academic credit is increasing; it topped 100,000 for the first time in 1998-99—

a tribute to the efforts of international educators and certain colleges and univerVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
50

sities. However, study abroad participants remain less than one percent of our

roughly 15 million undergraduates and, as noted by the Institute of International

Education, many students still do not have access to study abroad programs. Recent

data also show an encouraging diversification of study abroad locations; nevertheless, we need to further increase the numbers of students studying outside of Europe, in world areas of growing importance to U.S. interests.

At a time when other countries understand that their citizens cannot be considered educated for the modern world unless part of their education has taken place

abroad, the United States has no policy to promote global learning, nor do policymakers seem aware of the need for one. Research has demonstrated that study

abroad greatly enhances and accelerates the learning of critical foreign languages.

If American students are to be able to function effectively in the world into which

they will graduate, it must become the routine—not the exception—for them to

study abroad in high quality programs.

American foreign language skills are in critically short supply and will remain so

until we take bold steps to enhance both participation in study abroad and the infrastructure for teaching foreign languages in our institutions. The U.S. government

requires 34,000 employees with foreign language skills, and American business increasingly needs internationally and multi-culturally experienced employees to compete in a global economy and to manage a culturally diverse workforce.

The United States benefits from a great wealth of exchange programs, some federally funded but many more funded privately. They operate at all levels, from high

school to higher education to the business and professional realms. Armies of American volunteers make these programs possible, hosting visitors in their homes and

serving as resources and guides to their communities. Exchange programs uniquely

engage our citizenry in the pursuit of our country’s global interests, and offer opportunities for substantive interaction in the broadest possible range of fields.

These exchanges also offer unparalleled opportunities for intercultural learning.

Many of today’s world leaders first experienced America and its values through exchange programs—a priceless foreign policy asset. But these valuable programs are

hemmed in by diminished policy priority and by bureaucratically imposed regulations that make them more difficult than necessary for nongovernmental and community organizations to manage.

To be an educated citizen today is to be able to see the world through others’ eyes

and to understand the international dimensions of the problems we confront as a

nation—skills that are enhanced by international experience. The programs we put

in place today to make international experience integral to higher education will determine whether or not our society will have a globally literate citizenry prepared

to respond to the demands of the twenty-first century.

ELEMENTS OF AN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY

An international education policy that effectively promotes U.S. interests in the

twenty-first century should do the following:

International, Foreign Language, and Area Expertise

Such a policy should recognize that future generations of Americans will live in

a borderless world, and must therefore be vastly more capable than any previous

generation of understanding other peoples and cultures and communicating in the

world’s major languages. To this end, it should:

• Set an objective that international education become an integral component of

U.S. undergraduate education, with every college graduate achieving proficiency

in a foreign language and attaining a basic understanding of at least one world

area by 2015. New technologies should be employed creatively to help achieve

this objective.

• Promote cultural and foreign language study in primary and secondary education so that entering college students will have increased proficiency in these

areas.

• Through graduate and professional training and research, enhance the nation’s

capacity to produce the international, regional, international business, and foreign-language expertise necessary for U.S. global leadership and security.

• Encourage international institutional partnerships that will facilitate internationalized curricula, collaborative research, and faculty and student mobility.

International Student Recruitment

Such a policy should recognize that international students are a resource for the

United States: They contribute significantly to national, state, and local economies;

bring vital resources to U.S. educational institutions; enrich the academic experiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
51

ence of U.S. students; and spread U.S. values and influence in the world. To this

end, the policy should:

• Set an objective to arrest the decline in the proportion of internationally mobile

students who select the United States for study at the post-secondary level and

to recapture 40 percent of this market for the United States.

• Promote the study of English by international students in the United States,

and promote the United States as the best global provider of English training

services and materials.

• Streamline visa, taxation, and employment policies and regulations to facilitate

entry into the United States for bona fide short-term and degree students and

to enable these students to maximize their exposure to American society and

culture through internships and employment.

STUDY ABROAD

Such a policy should recognize that providing Americans with opportunities to acquire the skills, attitudes, and perceptions that allow them to be globally and crossculturally competent is central to U.S. security and economic interests in the twenty-first century and, accordingly, should promote the experiencing of the world firsthand by American students. To this end, it should:

• Set an objective that 20 percent of American students receiving college degrees

will have studied abroad for credit by 2010, and 50 percent by 2040.

• Promote ethnic, socioeconomic, and gender diversity in study abroad.

• Promote the diversification of the study abroad experience, including: increased

study in nontraditional locations outside the United Kingdom and Western Europe; increased study of major world languages—such as Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, and Russian—that are less commonly learned by Americans;

and increased study of under-represented subjects such as mathematical and

physical sciences and business.

• Promote the integration of study abroad into the higher-education curriculum,

and increase opportunities for international internships and service learning.

Exchanges of Citizens and Scholars

Such a policy should recognize that U.S. interests are significantly furthered by

the vast network of exchange activity that occurs at all levels of American society.

Accordingly, it should:

• Invigorate federal programs and reform regulations governing private efforts in

order to promote citizen, professional, and other exchanges that bring future

leaders from around the world to the United States for substantive exposure to

our society, and that give future American leaders opportunities for similar experiences overseas.

• Promote the international exchange of scholars in order to enhance the global

literacy of U.S. scholars, ensure that the United States builds relationships with

the best scholarly talent from abroad, and strengthen the international content

of American curricula.

MOBILIZING THE RESOURCES

Such a policy should recognize the crucial role of the federal government in mobilizing a national effort. Accordingly, it should:

• Clearly articulate the national interest in international education and set a

strong policy direction to which citizens can relate their own efforts.

• Dedicate federal resources that are appropriate for the national interests

served.

• Stimulate involvement by, and leverage funding from, the states and the higher

education, business, and charitable communities.

HOW TO PROCEED

The President should:

• Announce the international education policy in a major address, decision memorandum, or message to Congress, and propose appropriate funding.

• Appoint a senior White House official who will be in charge of the policy and

responsible for meeting its targets.

52

• Convene a White House summit of college and university presidents, other academic leaders, international education professionals, and NGO and business

leaders to map out the specifics of the policy.

• Assign specific roles to appropriate federal agencies.

• Create an interagency working group of these agencies, chaired by the senior

White House official, to ensure that policies and regulations affecting international education are consistent and coherent.

• Create an advisory commission consisting of business leaders, state-level officials, and international education professionals from institutions of higher education, exchange programs, foundations, and appropriate professional associations to offer advice and guidance on program implementation.

A COOPERATIVE EFFORT

The federal government cannot do it all. Colleges, universities, and community

colleges must further internationalize their curricula and campuses, and must provide enhanced global opportunities for students and faculty. Higher education institutions, state governments, private foundations, nongovernmental organizations,

and the business community (which will be the primary beneficiary of a globally literate workforce) all need to accept their responsibilities, increase their support for

international education, and forge creative partnerships to achieve these important

national goals.

But the federal role is crucial in setting a policy direction, creating a conceptual

understanding within which members of the public can define their roles, and using

federal resources to leverage action at other levels. If Americans are called upon

from the ‘‘bully pulpit’’ to respond to the challenge of globalism, they will respond

as they have to other international challenges. What is needed above all, as noted

in a 1998 report by the U.S. Information Agency and the Educational Testing Service, is ‘‘a clearly articulated foreign policy strategy which recognizes international

education as a fundamentally important endeavor at policy levels.’’

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)

For Immediate Release—April 19, 2000

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: International Education Policy

To continue to compete successfully in the global economy and to maintain our

role as a world leader, the United States needs to ensure that its citizens develop

a broad understanding of the world, proficiency in other languages, and knowledge

of other cultures. America’s leadership also depends on building ties with those who

will guide the political, cultural, and economic development of their countries in the

future. A coherent and coordinated international education strategy will help us

meet the twin challenges of preparing our citizens for a global environment while

continuing to attract and educate future leaders from abroad.

Since World War II, the Federal Government, in partnership with institutions of

higher education and other educational organizations, has sponsored programs to

help Americans gain the international experience and skills they will need to meet

the challenges of an increasingly interdependent world. During this same period,

our colleges and universities have developed an educational system whose reputation attracts students from all over the world. But our work is not done. Today, the

defense of U.S. interests, the effective management of global issues, and even an understanding of our Nation’s diversity require ever-greater contact with, and understanding of, people and cultures beyond our borders.

We are fortunate to count among our staunchest friends abroad those who have

experienced our country and our values through in-depth exposure as students and

scholars. The nearly 500,000 international students now studying in the United

States at the postsecondary level not only contribute some $9 billion annually to our

economy, but also enrich our communities with their cultures, while developing a

lifelong appreciation for ours. The goodwill these students bear for our country will

in the future constitute one of our greatest foreign policy assets.

It is the policy of the Federal Government to support international education. We

are committed to:

• encouraging students from other countries to study in the United States;

53

• promoting study abroad by U.S. students;

• supporting the exchange of teachers, scholars, and citizens at all levels of society;

• enhancing programs at U.S. institutions that build international partnerships

and expertise;

• expanding high-quality foreign language learning and in-depth knowledge of

other cultures by Americans;

• preparing and supporting teachers in their efforts to interpret other countries

and cultures for their students; and

• advancing new technologies that aid the spread of knowledge throughout the

world.

The Federal Government cannot accomplish these goals alone. Educational institutions, State and local governments, non-governmental organizations, and the business community all must contribute to this effort. Together, we must increase and

broaden our commitment. Therefore, I direct the heads of executive departments

and agencies, working in partnership with the private sector, to take the following

actions:

(1) The Secretaries of State and Education shall support the efforts of schools and

colleges to improve access to high-quality international educational experiences by

increasing the number and diversity of students who study and intern abroad, encouraging students and institutions to choose nontraditional study-abroad locations,

and helping under-represented U.S. institutions offer and promote study-abroad opportunities for their students.

(2) The Secretaries of State and Education, in partnership with other governmental and nongovernmental organizations, shall identify steps to attract qualified

post-secondary students from overseas to the United States, including improving the

availability of accurate information overseas about U.S. educational opportunities.

(3) The heads of agencies, including the Secretaries of State and Education, and

others as appropriate, shall review the effect of U.S. Government actions on the

international flow of students and scholars as well as on citizen and professional

exchanges, and take steps to address unnecessary obstacles, including those involving visa and tax regulations, procedures, and policies.

(4) The Secretaries of State and Education shall support the efforts of State and

local governments and educational institutions to promote international awareness

and skills in the classroom and on campuses. Such efforts include strengthening foreign language learning at all levels, including efforts to achieve bi-literacy, helping

teachers acquire the skills needed to understand and interpret other countries and

cultures for their students, increasing opportunities for the exchange of faculty, administrators, and students, and assisting educational institutions in other countries

to strengthen their teaching of English.

(5) The Secretaries of State and Education and the heads of other agencies shall

take steps to ensure that international educational exchange programs, including

the Fulbright program, are coordinated through the Interagency Working Group on

United States Government-Sponsored International Exchange and Training, to

maximize existing resources in a nonduplicative way, and to ensure that the exchange programs receive the support they need to fulfill their mission of increased

mutual understanding.

(6) The Secretary of Education, in cooperation with other agencies, shall continue

to support efforts to improve U.S. education by developing comparative information,

including benchmarks, on educational performance and practices. The Secretary of

Education shall also share U.S. educational expertise with other countries.

(7) The Secretaries of State and Education shall strengthen and expand models

of international exchange that build lasting cross-national partnerships among educational institutions with common interests and complementary objectives.

(8) The Secretary of Education and the heads of other agencies, in partnership

with State governments, academic institutions, and the business community, shall

strengthen programs that build international expertise in U.S. institutions, with the

goal of making international education an integral component of U.S. undergraduate

education and, through graduate and professional training and research, enhancing

the Nation’s capacity to produce the international and foreign-language expertise

necessary for U.S. global leadership and security.

(9) The Secretaries of State and Education, in cooperation with other agencies, the

academic community, and the private sector, shall promote wise use of technology

internationally, examining the implications of borderless education. The heads of

agencies shall take steps to ensure that the opportunities for using technology to

expand international education do not result in a widening of the digital divide.

54

(10) The Secretaries of State and Education, in conjunction with other agencies,

shall ensure that actions taken in response to this memorandum are fully integrated

into the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) framework by means of

specific goals, milestones, and measurable results, which shall be included in all

GPRA reporting activities, including strategic plans, performance plans, and program performance reports.

Items 1-10 of this memorandum shall be conducted subject to the availability of

appropriations, consistent with the agencies’ priorities and my budget, and to the

extent permitted by law.

The Vice President shall coordinate the U.S. Government’s international education strategy. Further, I direct that the heads of agencies report to the Vice President and to me on their progress in carrying out the terms of this memorandum.

This memorandum is a statement of general policy and does not confer a private

right of action on any individual or group.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON.

106th CONGRESS—2d SESSION

H. CON. RES. 342

Expressing the sense of Congress that there should be an international education

policy for the United States.

In the House of Representatives

May 25, 2000

Mr. KOLBE (for himself, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. OBERSTAR, and Mrs. MORELLA) submitted

the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

Education and the Workforce

Concurrent Resolution

Expressing the sense of Congress that there should be an international education

policy for the United States.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(a) International education entails the imparting of effective global literacy to

students and other citizens as an integral part of their education;

(b) International education is important to meet future challenges facing the

United States including national security and the management of global conflict

and competitiveness in a global economy;

(c) Nearly 500,000 international students and their dependents contributed

an estimated $11.7 billion to the U.S. economy in the academic year 1998-99;

(d) Other countries, especially the United Kingdom, are mounting vigorous recruitment campaigns to compete for international students;

(e) U.S. competitiveness in the international student market is declining, the

U.S. share of internationally mobile students having declined from 40 percent

to 30 percent since 1982;

(f) Educating international students is an important way to spread U.S. values and influence and to create goodwill for America throughout the world;

(g) Less than 10 percent of U.S. students graduating from college have studied abroad;

(h) Research indicates that the United States is failing to graduate enough

students with foreign language expertise to fill the demands of business, government, and universities; and

(i) Exchange programs, which in the past have done much to extend U.S. influence in the world by educating the world’s leaders, are suffering from declining priority:

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that an international education policy should incorporate the following goals—

(a) To ensure that all college graduates will have knowledge of a second language and will have knowledge of a foreign area.

55

(b) To enhance the educational infrastructure through which the Nation produces international expertise.

(c) To recapture 40 percent of the international student market for the United

States.

(d) To streamline visa, taxation, and employment regulations applicable to

international students.

(e) To significantly increase participation in study abroad by U.S. students.

(f) To promote greater diversity of locations, languages, and subjects involved

in study abroad in order to ensure that the Nation maintains an adequate international knowledge base.

(g) To invigorate citizen and professional exchange programs and to promote

the international exchange of scholars.

106th CONGRESS—2d SESSION

H. R. 4528

To establish an undergraduate grant program of the Department of State to assist

students of limited financial means from the United States to pursue studies at foreign institutions of higher education.

In the House of Representatives

May 24, 2000

Mr. GILMAN (for himself and Mr. HINCHEY) introduced the following bill; which was

referred to the Committee on International Relations

A Bill

To establish an undergraduate grant program of the Department of State to assist

students of limited financial means from the United States to pursue studies at foreign institutions of higher education.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘International Academic Opportunity Act of 2000’’.

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

It is the purpose of this Act to establish an undergraduate grant program for

students of limited financial means from the United States to enable such students

to study at institutions of higher education in foreign countries. Such foreign study

is intended to broaden the outlook and better prepare such students of demonstrated financial need to assume significant roles in the increasingly global economy.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF GRANT PROGRAM FOR FOREIGN STUDY BY AMERICAN COLLEGE

STUDENTS OF LIMITED FINANCIAL MEANS.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—Subject to the availability of appropriations and under the

authorities of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, the Secretary of State shall establish and carry out a program in each fiscal year to award

grants of up to $5,000, to individuals who meet the requirements of subsection (b),

toward the cost of 1 academic year of undergraduate study at an institution of higher education in a foreign country.

(b) ELIGIBILITY.—An individual referred to in subsection (a) is an individual

who—

(1) is a student in good standing at an institution of higher education in the

United States (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965);

(2) has been accepted for an academic year of study at an institution of higher

education outside the United States (as defined by section 102(b) of the Higher

Education Act of 1965);

(3) is receiving any need-based student assistance under title IV of the Higher

Education Act of 1965; and

(4) is a citizen or national of the United States.

(c) APPLICATION AND SELECTION.—

(1) Grant application and selection shall be carried out through accredited institutions of higher education in the United States or combination of such institutions under such procedures as are established by the Secretary of State.

56

(2) In considering applications for grants under this section, priority consideration shall be given to applicants who are receiving Federal Pell Grants under

title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965.

SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

The Secretary of State shall report annually to the Congress concerning the

grant program established under this Act. Each such report shall include the following information for the preceding year:

(1) The number of participants.

(2) The institutions of higher education in the United States that participants

attended.

(3) The institutions of higher education outside the United States participants

attended during their year of study abroad.

(4) The areas of study of participants.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated $1,500,000 for each fiscal year to carry

out this Act.

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect October 1, 2000.

THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION,

Washington, DC, September 13, 2000.

Ms. MARLENE JOHNSON,

Executive Director,

NASFAA—Association of International Educators,

1307 New York Avenue, NW, 8th Floor,

Washington, DC 20005

DEAR MS. JOHNSON:

I am writing to encourage your involvement in an effort to broaden our students’

understanding of the world in which we live. The week of November 13-17, 2000,

has been designated International Education Week in the United States by the Department of Education and the Department of State. This weeklong observation will

provide a wonderful opportunity for students in our nation’s schools, colleges and

universities to learn more about the cultures, languages and governments of other

nations and about the possibilities of studying abroad. I have invited foreign ambassadors to the United States to consider visiting educational institutions in this country, and I am encouraging representatives of the higher education community to

visit schools in their communities. Your assistance will underscore the education

community’s commitment to international education and cooperation.

On June 21, at the U.S. Department of State, I met with representatives from

the embassy community and the nongovernmental sector to exchange ideas regarding the Memorandum on International Education Policy, which President Clinton

signed on April 19. Designed to make international experience integral to U.S. education, the policy memorandum directs the heads of U.S. government agencies to

work together in consultation with all other sectors of society to strengthen America’s commitment to international education.

During my remarks at the June 21 briefing, I invited ambassadors to the United

States to visit at least one American school, college, or university during International Education Week in order to stress the importance of international education and cooperation. It is my hope that, in taking a firsthand look at our educational institutions, the ambassadors will have a better understanding of our young

people and will be inspired to foster classroom-to-classroom connections among our

schools, colleges, and universities and those in their home countries. I believe that

the visits will not only help our students develop a wider view of the world and its

different governments and cultures, but will also generate greater interest in studying foreign languages and visiting and studying in other countries.

Additionally, I will be inviting college and university presidents, provosts, and

chancellors as well as heads of study abroad and international programs to visit

middle schools and high schools during the week of November 13 to tell students

about the opportunities and benefits of study abroad. I believe students in this age

group will be a receptive audience for any information about foreign study and travel.

57

Your help and active participation will contribute greatly to the success of International Education Week. If you have any questions about International Education

Week, please feel free to contact Regan Burke of my staff. We will keep you informed about this activity.

I appreciate your kind attention to this request and look forward to receiving any

comments you may have. I hope you will be able to participate.

Yours sincerely,

RICHARD W. RILEY.

U.S. LEADERSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: THE LOST EDGE?

WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 24, 1998

Conference Report and Action Agenda

I. INTRODUCTION

The presence of international students on U.S. campuses has created significant

political, social, and economic benefits for our nation as a whole, but disturbing

trends throughout the 1990s show that the United States may be losing its competitive edge in international education.

Officials from U.S. higher education and related organizations are seeing large

numbers of students from Japan, China, Korea, India—countries that traditionally

provide a large proportion of our foreign student enrollment—choosing to study in

other countries. In the 1980s, 40 percent of the 1.3 million students studying abroad

did so in the United States. Today we enroll just 32 percent.

In addition to this declining trend in the percentage of international students

studying in the United States, officials are also noticing aggressive competition from

other English-speaking countries.

To address these concerns, Dr. Joseph Duffey, Director of the United States Information Agency, and Dr. Nancy Cole, President of Educational Testing Service, convened a summit at the State Department on September 24, 1998. Participants in

the summit on U.S. Leadership in International Education included representatives

from institutions of higher education, U.S. corporations, non-profit organizations,

and government entities.

The conference participants sought to identify barriers to international educational exchange between the U.S. and other countries and to formulate an action

plan to maintain U.S. leadership. A volunteer task force will be formed to take action on the conference recommendations; and USIA will coordinate U.S. government

involvement on this front.

(This document reviews the conference deliberations and sets forth recommendations and a suggested plan of action. The Appendices include abstracts of major addresses made during the conference, the conference agenda, a White Paper by Dr.

Ted Sanders, President of Southern Illinois University, and a list of conference participants.)

II. SUMMARY OF CONFERENCE DELIBERATIONS

At the end of the conference, it was clear that intensified competition from other

countries was only part of the reason for the erosion of America’s dominant position

in the world of international study. Other more troubling signs emerged—ones

showing that key players in the United States’ international education effort have

contributed to this decline through benign neglect. In his White Paper written for

the conference, Dr. Ted Sanders, President of Southern Illinois University, identified

complacent attitudes on the part of U.S. institutions of higher education toward promoting themselves to foreign students; state and Federal governments failing to promote an aggressive spirit of entrepreneurship in international education; and diminishing Federal funds to support overseas educational advising centers affiliated with

the United States Information Agency as factors that have contributed to this neglect.

Dr. Sanders summed up his position by noting, ‘‘If we are to regain our position

of dominance in this very important area, we must now begin to emulate the enlightened policies of other advanced nations who have seen the future and are aggressively pursuing it. Nationally, we must enhance our tangible support for international efforts within a framework of a broad-based, clearly defined strategy . . .’’

Following a series of major addresses, participants joined one of three groups to

discuss the issues in-depth. They identified many of the barriers to U.S. leadership

in international education.

58

(For purposes of clarity, we have grouped issues identified by conference participants into four categories: those that need to be addressed by higher education; by

Federal, state, and local governments; by businesses and corporations; and global

systemic issues.)

Institutions of Higher Education

For many decades, the flow of international students to the United States seemed

to be never ending. Yet, participants agreed that this abundance has contributed to

complacency by some institutions, evidenced by inattention to the marketplace. A

long complicated application process for U.S. study and the perceived high cost of

a U.S. education hamper international exchange, as does limited collaboration between U.S. and foreign institutions. For many younger U.S. faculty, a year abroad

is career-deflating rather than enhancing. The difficulties that faculty sometimes experience in taking advantage of opportunities to research or teach abroad diminish

the overall impact of international exchange and hamper Fulbright and other sponsored programs. Participants acknowledged that other institutions, however, are actively engaged in entrepreneurial approaches to international education, with extensive collaboration with institutions abroad and active overseas recruitment efforts.

Participants also discussed the inadequate integration of foreign students on

American campuses. It was felt that officials at many institutions viewed these students primarily as revenue sources and offered limited mechanisms for incorporating them into or using their experiences to enrich campus life, including limited use of Fulbright students and scholars on U.S. campuses. There was also little

effort given to encouraging foreign students to learn about American life. In addition, participants also identified a lack of information provided to international students on opportunities offered by community colleges as entry points to U.S. study.

In the area of recruitment, experts at the conference also noted a failure by U.S.

campus administrators to utilize and support the USIA-affiliated advising center

network and the need to make better use of overseas alumni for recruiting purposes.

Conference participants focussed primarily on issues related to foreign students

in the U.S. However, campus internationalization and study abroad issues also received some attention. Participants noted that U.S. students could benefit more

broadly from the presence of foreign students on campus, but that interactions between the two groups are often limited. Rigid curriculum requirements, graduate

faculty expectations, and restrictions on using financial aid for study abroad often

constrain overseas study opportunities for U.S. students.

Federal, State and Local Governments

It was generally agreed that government officials at all levels had ignored or contributed to these disturbing trends. As Dr. Sanders noted, ‘‘In years past, the United

States relied heavily on its overseas educational advisement centers, supported by

the United States Information Agency, to communicate the strengths of the ‘American model’ of higher education. Yet Federal funds to support these centers have

steadily diminished, forcing some of them to close and services to others to be cut.’’ Cuts in Federal funding have also affected Fulbright and other scholarship programs and exchanges. Congressman Payne pointed out the need to build interest,

concern and knowledge of international issues and programs in the Congress.

Most important, participants noted the absence of a clearly articulated foreign

policy strategy which recognizes international educational exchange as a fundamentally important endeavor at policy levels. Such a strategy should be accompanied by

compatible regulations and procedures that encourage, rather than discourage, foreign students to study in the United States. There is also insufficient recognition

in the Federal government of education as a trade issue.

Another issue of concern to conference participants was the lack of coordination

at the Federal level between the State Department and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), as evidenced by burdensome visa regulations, and consular

officers with overly heavy caseloads, resulting in visa interviews that shortchange

applicants.

At the state level, there is a need for alliances between state university boards,

state governments and commerce officials to support international education. Participants stated that state legislatures have sometimes opposed educating international students at state expense.

Corporations and Businesses

Conference attendees agreed that there was a definite need for the business community to pick up where Federal support for scientific and technological research

has declined. They also called for greater links between businesses and universities

to ensure premier scientific research capacity and the ability to attract the best

minds.

59

Because of the need for global workforce development, the private sector is well

positioned to raise awareness and political support. One supporter of increased investment and attention to international study and exchange by corporations was

Peter C. Thorp, Vice President of Corporate University Relations and Educational

Programs at Citibank. In remarks that could apply to all businesses he said,

‘‘Citicorp receives benefits by supporting education from the employment angle—

that is, to recruit bright, well-educated employees, and to better position their businesses worldwide. Creating partnerships, creating ties, can make things happen for

businesses. Investments in education can be very long term investments in the

economies and leadership of foreign countries.’’

It was generally agreed that U.S. companies especially need to be involved in

international education because of their need to recruit employees overseas who are

U.S.-trained. Yet only a small percentage of corporate foundation money is devoted

to international activities, compared with the amount of corporate income that originates in overseas markets.

In the invitation to conference attendees, Nancy Cole noted, ‘‘Businesses need

workers who can function in foreign marketplaces and who are sensitive to cultural

and societal issues. America is preeminent in educating leaders for the global economy, and we must ensure that the best and brightest international students continue to choose the United States for their post-secondary schooling.’’

Global Systemic Issues

While the United States remains the country of choice for most foreign students,

our relative share of foreign students has fallen because absolute numbers have

plateaued. The reasons, conference attendees learned, are also the result of systemic

issues that cut across international borders, and some that are beyond the control

of government, education or business. Conference participants raised the following

points:

• In 1997-98, the nearly 500,000 foreign students in the U.S. contributed $8.27

billion to the U.S. economy.

• Foreign students in Australia contributed more than $1 billion to the Australian

economy and foreign students in the United Kingdom contributed approximately $1.8 billion to the economy of the U.K.

• Distance learning technology is creating new outlets for the marketing of education around the world. In some cases, students can receive a degree from a

foreign university without ever leaving home.

• Many educational systems around the world are strengthening their capacity

and increasing enrollments in order to keep their ‘‘best and brightest’’ at home

for their higher education.

• The relative strength, or weakness, of economies of other countries relative to

that of the U.S. impacts the ability of students from those countries to afford

the costs of U.S. study. This balance is constantly changing and can affect the

marketing of U.S. higher education dramatically, as evidenced by the recent financial crisis in Asian countries.

• The ability of foreign students to study in the U.S. is inhibited by a complex

regulatory environment unlike that of the countries which compete with the

U.S. for these students.

One conference speaker, the Honorable Ray Mabus, former governor of Mississippi

and former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, noted, ‘‘International students are important to our national and local economies, to the strength of our system of education; they add diversity to our campuses. It is becoming more difficult to attract

and keep international students. Competition from developing local institutions

around the world and from other countries trying to attract students could lessen

the numbers of foreign students coming to the United States. The United States is

going to have to do a better job. We’ve got competition; we’re not a monopoly anymore. We can’t beat other countries in the price of higher education, but we can be

better in quality. We are the best. We need to do a better job of letting everyone

know about what we have here in the United States.’’

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

The following list of recommendations for action is the combined work of conference attendees and distinguished speakers who are leaders in the world of education, government and business. They are offered by people who daily face the challenges of maintaining America’s preeminent position as the destination of choice for

international students seeking the best in higher education. The conference

60

attendees felt these recommendations could serve as the basis for a vitally important effort of bringing international education needed recognition.

1. Develop a Clear Federal Policy on International Education

It is critical that the Federal government continue to play a significant role in

international educational exchange. We recommend that the U.S. government develop a clear Federal policy statement placing international education on the national agenda. The policy would define the goals of the Federal government in the

field of international education and inform and direct programming and regulations,

including visa regulations, tax policies and funding for grants, and strengthening of

the overseas educational advising network.

2. Create an Alliance in Support of International Education

The corporate community needs to be engaged with U.S. universities and governments at all levels. We must build up communications networks among the various

stakeholders, including government, the academic community, and the corporate

sector, and develop a consensus on the issues and messages that need to be conveyed. Possible models for partnerships with the business community include

NAFSA’s ASPIRE project, alliances with the tourism and airlines industries, and

state government/business alliances using public funds to match private sector

funds as was successfully done in Minnesota to promote tourism and in Massachusetts to increase foreign student flows.

3. Conduct a Public Awareness Campaign About International Education

We recognize the critical need for a coherent case on international education to

be made to the professional community and the public at large. The public needs

to be educated about the positive impact of international student flows and about

the serious nature of the issues surrounding U.S. leadership. This message also

needs to be addressed to policy makers, corporations, local, state, and national legislators, and administrators and educators at all levels.

4. Strategically Market U.S. Education Abroad

We recommend that the full spectrum of U.S. higher education be marketed and

represented abroad in a coordinated manner. Ideas to be examined include devising

a group-representation mechanism similar to that used by Australian and British

universities; convincing state trade missions to include representatives from universities and community colleges (perhaps subsidized by corporate presidents); reestablishing contact with foreign alumni of U.S. universities; and developing different

marketing approaches for varying audiences. Alliances should be developed between

community colleges and four-year institutions to market themselves jointly overseas

as a cost-effective alternative to other countries’ publicity about the high cost of U.S.

tuition.

5. Publicize Best Practices at U.S. Universities

We recognize the need to develop models that showcase the integration and utilization of foreign students and scholars on campus, and the need to encourage educational institutions to train faculty, staff and administrators on the kinds of systemic change required to make institutions more hospitable and make curricula

more global.

IV. ACTION PLAN

1. Convene a task force to disseminate data on marketing international educational exchange, conduct a public advocacy campaign to put international education on the national agenda, and craft a coherent message that demonstrates the

political and financial case and engages policy makers.

The task force should be composed of individuals from universities, corporations,

nongovernmental organizations, and various levels of government, each of whom

would be assigned a specific issue/barrier and who would then identify others with

whom to work on dismantling the barrier. A number of conference participants volunteered to work on the task force and will be contacted in the near future by ETS

and USIA.

2. Convene the concerned Federal government bodies to discuss coordinating policies and procedures. These would most likely include the Department of State, the

Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Education, the Department of Commerce, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Office of the U.S. Trade

Representative. USIA representatives agreed to spearhead the quest to coordinate

government action.

61

V. CONCLUSION

Dr. Ted Sanders, President of Southern Illinois University, summed up the challenges ahead saying, ‘‘The United States has an unparalleled opportunity to market

our advanced and very cost-effective delivery system in higher education. If we don’t

seize this opportunity, if we continue the gradual erosion of international students

in our colleges and universities, we will lose far more than tuition dollars, important

as these may be to local and state communities.’’ ‘‘As a nation, we will begin to find it more difficult to make friends around the

world, to cement ties economically, culturally, and politically. Our influence as a

positive international force depends on people in other countries understanding and

appreciating American culture. To sustain that powerful instrument of foreign policy, a coordinated and assertive national policy for international education must be

placed near the top of the agenda for Congress and the President.’’

APPENDIX I: ABSTRACTS OF MAJOR ADDRESSES

Dr. Joseph Duffey, Director, U.S. Information Agency, Welcoming Remarks

We want to develop a strategic plan to maintain and maybe increase U.S. competitiveness in international education. This competitiveness has implications for

educators, business leaders, and the foreign affairs community. Educators are forced

to review the quality of U.S. education; business leaders, to ensure dynamism and

resources for growth; and the foreign affairs community, to adjust to a world in

which it is increasingly necessary to work together with other countries and ensure

a more accurate understanding of the U.S. in the post-Cold War era. There is no

substitute for international education since neither tourism nor the popular culture

currently being exported gives a complete or accurate view of the U.S. I don’t think

the edge has been lost, but I don’t think we can take it for granted.

Dr. Sharon Robinson, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Educational Testing Service

Today is an important step in articulating our conference mission of maintaining

the edge in international education and also in developing a strategy to increase the

number of global students coming to the United States to work and study. At ETS

we sincerely believe that a critical aspect of education is maintaining a global environment where students of every age, learn about and from people of diverse backgrounds. Being exposed to people of different languages, religions and cultures creates an understanding that is critical to maintaining and expanding our own appreciation of diversity and our own sense of well-being. Education makes it all possible.

The Honorable William Perry, Former Secretary of Defense, ‘‘American National Security Interests: The Importance of U.S.-Educated International Students’’

International education programs create goodwill toward America all over the

world. Foreign students are motivated to come to the U.S. because of our leadership,

especially in science and technology, which has contributed to our national economic

well-being. The most obvious example of American leadership today is in information technology, and our universities have achieved a unique connection with our

technical companies. Foreign students come to the U.S. for education in science and

technology because they want the best in education and because they want to learn

to relate to industry like our universities do.

But the interest of other countries in having their future leaders educated in

American universities depends on the U.S. maintaining its world leadership in

science. It also depends on America’s universities maintaining their standards of excellence in science and technology education and research, which many Americans

take for granted. But this leadership cannot be taken for granted in the future.

Education is of critical importance to a country trying to maintain technological

leadership. Technological training at U.S. universities has been relevant and cutting

edge because of close ties between education and industry. Our leadership in technology today depends on our leadership in technical education and in maintaining

the unique bonding between our universities and our technical companies.

The ‘‘magnet effect’’ of U.S. universities is decreasing. We need an increase in

Federal funds for technology-based programs or alternatively, funding from research

consortia composed of industries to invest in technology-based programs at our universities.

Attracting foreign students to study in the U.S. is a win-win-win situation: it’s

a win for our economy; it’s a win for our foreign policy; and it’s a win for our educational programs. Foreign students spend money while they are in the U.S., and

when they return home, they often become business leaders who deal with U.S. colVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
62

leagues. In addition, foreign students work hard in graduate courses, which raises

the bar for U.S. students, forcing them to work harder.

The Honorable Ray Mabus, Former Governor of Mississippi and Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, ‘‘Building a Global Community, State by State’’

I’ve always thought that if you did one thing right, education was it, and that you

could shut down the rest of government if you did that right. We need to give our

children the chance to succeed. Globalization and global interdependence affect us

every day, in economics and in higher education. More international students come

to the U.S. than U.S. students go abroad, which testifies to the excellence of U.S.

higher education. At the University of Mississippi, 58 flags fly in the student union,

representing the countries of all Ole Miss students, including 2,100 foreign students.

These international students are important to our national and local economies, to

the strength of our system of education; they add diversity to our campuses. It is

becoming more difficult to attract and keep international students. Competition

from developing local institutions around the world and from other countries trying

to attract students could lessen the numbers of foreign students coming to the U.S.

The U.S. is going to have to do a better job. We’ve got more competition; we’re not

a monopoly anymore. We can’t beat other countries in price of higher education, but

we can be better in quality. We are the best. We need to do a better job of letting

everyone know about what we have here in the U.S.

On trade visits abroad, state governors should take education representatives,

university presidents with them. We need to ‘‘think internationally’’ and be more aggressive in reaching the worldwide audience. International students bring new ideas

and cultural richness to our universities and our communities. Also, they experience

America. This creates some common ground in international relations. Excellence

and hard work are needed and will work for higher education. American higher education will prevail.

Dr. Allan Goodman, President and CEO, Institute of International Education, ‘‘Open

Doors and Opening Minds: Why Both are Needed for the 21st Century’’

Three key questions we must answer are: Why is it important for the U.S. to have

the leading edge in international education? What is making it so difficult to keep

that edge? What do we have to do?

The single most important success factor for our times is having people whose

minds are open to the world. This can only happen through international education.

English is the international language, the dollar is the world currency, and the

Internet is the means of communication. The costs of retaliation and security following the terrorist bombings in Africa were many times the budget request for

international education. This disparity is striking.

While the U.S. government will maintain its leadership role in supporting flagship

initiatives such as Fulbright, Humphrey and the National Security Education Program, future programs will require enlarging the circle of private sector stakeholders. Sources of corporate philanthropy have contributed only one out of every

nine dollars in grant aid to international programs, while corporations earn six out

of every ten dollars from their international activities. The best and brightest foreign students are now being aggressively recruited by other countries. We cannot

continue to take for granted the flow of foreign students to U.S. campuses, or underestimate the intellectual, strategic, and financial resource they represent.

While foreign governments are developing sophisticated and well-funded strategies to increase the international mobility of their students and faculty members,

there is no parallel strategy or resource pool to encourage and facilitate international academic mobility by Americans. Few American corporate leaders have

ever articulated the importance of worldwide learning; yet no major business today

can expect to survive without managers who are knowledgeable about and able to

work across nations as well as cultures.

The numbers of foreign students coming here have been flat for several years, and

visas are harder to get. Only about 1 percent of American college students study

abroad, many of those in English-speaking countries. The problem is larger than

just Federal funding cuts. Some suspect that ‘‘internationalize’’ may be just a

buzzword rather than a reality. Faculties do not appear convinced about the value

of overseas experience and scholarship.

State governments have virtually ignored the foreign investment brought to them

in the millions of dollars by international students. Only a handful of states have

developed a coordinated academic recruitment strategy. We cannot take for granted

those flows of students to our shores.

There is, in sum, work for all of us here to do.

63

Why is it so difficult? We are cutting budgets. International educational exchanges are being affected. The private sector must step up to the plate to make

international study possible. Companies are generating sales from abroad but not

giving enough philanthropy or grants back. The private sector must speak out about

the need to promote international education activities. Many nations have an international education policy to easily recruit international students. But our prices are

high, and we do not have such a policy. We need to.

The U.S. curriculum makes it difficult to do study abroad. Senior scholars often

discourage younger faculty from applying for Fulbright or other fellowships. We

need to value the overseas experience more. We should also provide more scholarships. Deans and provosts need to change in this direction.

We need to lead a charge together. The U.S. government, state government, academic leaders, and corporate leaders all have roles. Academic leaders must clearly

articulate the value of international students on campus and the value of study

abroad for U.S. students. CEOs of major companies must speak out on the importance of international education.

Together we have to make the case that international education is one of the surest ways left to make the world a less dangerous place.

Ms. Marlene Johnson, Executive Director, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, ‘‘A Model to Improve Strategies for Supporting Study in the United

States’’

The U.S. needs more data about the potential pool of international students who

may be interested in U.S. study. As a nation we don’t know nearly as much about

where foreign students come from as we should, given their importance to our colleges and universities, to U.S.-based employers, and to local economies. We have an

excellent census that tells us more or less everything we need to know about international student enrollments, but we don’t know much about what happens upstream. Knowing that two million students come through USIA’s network of 450 advising centers worldwide, and that 50-90 percent of the international students who

do study in the U.S. have come through those centers, is not enough information.

The U.S. should have a keener business sense of this ‘‘raw material.’’ What is the

potential of U.S. educational advising as a business?

All of us with a stake in international education have something to learn from

McDonald’s and its strict but flexible strategy of franchising—demanding standardization, yet allowing a high degree of local ownership and customization, simultaneously protecting and extending its brand. Other top U.S. service export sectors—

banking, accounting services, and so on—are much more consolidated and benefit

from representation by trade groups. In higher education, the bigger names may not

need this trade group representation. But the U.S. education system may benefit

from cooperative marketing. Such tactics are most needed and most useful in sectors

not dominated by one or more highly visible brands. Competitive pressures from

Australia, Canada, and the UK, the rising costs of U.S. education, and increasing

educational opportunities in students’ home countries are issues which should compel the U.S. to think about the benefits of cooperative marketing.

The place to start with these efforts is the network of U.S. overseas advising centers. U.S. higher education needs to recognize this system and make it an integral

part of its own system. Data is needed on how much this network costs to operate

and how to more precisely assess its effects.

Then we can begin to think of the changes that consolidation can bring. Currently, each university advertises itself to the international market in a variety of

means—booths in international events and education fairs, branch campuses, local

advertising, and so forfh. It is extremely difficult to market ‘‘U.S. education’’ abroad

when the system of U.S. education itself is larger, more complicated, and more decentralized than any other nation’s. An apt analogy for marketing U.S. education

abroad might be piloting a supertanker with hundreds of presumptive captains at

the helm.

However, the efforts could be worth it. NAFSA believes that the interests of students and universities and colleges alike would benefit by the creation of a more

coordinated, disciplined, and focused marketing of U.S. higher education abroad. Exporters, importers and brokers all would gain from the creation of an independent,

self-sustaining entity which would provide products and services such as marketing,

management, and training after the franchising model. This entity would be funded

by its member institutions, Federal and state governments, and businesses.

We must not allow the present system of overseas advising centers to languish

and deteriorate. In a changing geopolitical and technological environment, everyone

in the room has something to contribute to the health of this vital network and

should not pass on the opportunity or the responsibility to promote U.S. higher eduVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
64

cation to the world. We must think creatively, we must demonstrate our agility and

our willingness to consider new strategies, and we must be entrepreneurial. Our

contributions will go farther if we make them together.

Summaries of Panel Discussion on ‘‘Forging Alliances to Support International Education’’ Moderator: Dr. Ted Sanders, President, Southern Illinois University

Panelist 1: Congressman Donald M. Payne (D-NJ):

International exchanges are crucial to the U.S. at the edge of the next millennium, especially with our interdependent world. There exists a most unfortunate

lack of interest, concern, and even knowledge of international relations in the U.S.

and the U.S. House of Representatives. Funding for USIA programs has been cut.

This trend should not continue. The numbers of students from Asia, which had been

highest in numbers in the world, are declining due to a variety of factors. We need

to recruit international students in new markets, in countries where the economies

are growing (for example, in South Africa). Payne also advocated recruiting international students to study in diverse areas of the U.S., to those states that host relatively small numbers of international students.

Panelist 2: Mr. Peter C. Thorp, Vice President, Corporate University Relations

and Educational Programs, Citibank:

I am a strong supporter of international education. Citicorp is about globalism.

The corporation must support the franchise; it is not interested in old-fashioned philanthropy. Citicorp receives benefits by supporting education from the employment

angle—that is, to recruit bright, well-educated employees, and to better position

their businesses worldwide. Creating partnerships, creating ties, can make things

happen for business. The company puts nearly $6 million annually into higher education programs. Citibank has a worldwide interest in education and economic development. The demand for MBA programs remains steady. Those MBA graduates

are appearing all over the world. Investments in education can be very long term

investments in the economies and leadership of foreign countries.

Panelist 3: Dr. Jacquelyn Beicher, President, DeKaIb College:

There continues to be a tremendous lack of understanding about community colleges among the U.S. public and even within the higher education community.

Meanwhile, the number of international students coming to community colleges has

grown by 9 percent compared with a 2 percent decrease in the number of international students attending four-year institutions. Community colleges can be a solution to the problem of decreasing numbers of international students coming to the

U.S. The growing interest of community colleges in international education can be

attributed to the involvement of the U.S. in international business; the increase in

cultural diversity in the general population and subsequently on college campuses;

and the substantial presence of international students, immigrants, and refugees in

community colleges.

Is the U.S. higher education commitment to international education still strong

or have we stopped pushing the limits of expanding connections? Certainly community colleges do not feel that they have lost the edge. There is expanding involvement by community colleges in international partnerships: approximately 48 percent

of community colleges are involved in exchanges and/or study abroad, and 79 percent of these institutions have internationalized the curriculum in some way.

Community colleges can realize numerous benefits from having international students on our campuses. Continuing to attract international students to the U.S. requires commitment, tenacity and caring. It is important to advocate on campuses

about the importance of these students, especially to the president because it is the

president of each institution who will decide about committing the necessary funding for international programs.

Mr. Steven Trachtenberg, President, George Washington University, ‘‘The Lost Edge?

An Action Plan for Recapturing U.S. Leadership’’

At one time, American students seldom studied abroad unless supported by scholarships, while controversies between traditionalists and non-traditionalists over college and university curricula played a part in attracting large numbers of foreign

students to U.S. institutions. Foreign leaders and countries studied the American

educational system because it was such a pervasive system so profoundly tied to

American economic development. This ‘‘mega-university’’ is administered in a totally

decentralized manner, operating in a mostly voluntary fashion. It keeps its parts

synchronized and interchangeable so that a community college graduate in Illinois

can get a B.A. in Los Angeles, an MBA in Texas, and a first job in Virginia. Meanwhile, faculty in research-oriented universities not only teach but serve as the ceaseVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
65

less analysts of the entire U.S. national system. The rest of the world looks to the

United States for assistance in catching up with the American-style higher education system (most of which is controlled by the 50 states) and with a national

economy the likes of which the world has never seen. Meanwhile, foreigners’ high

regard is viewed with bewilderment by the American people. The history of modern

American higher education is a story that is dying to be told.

APPENDIX II: AGENDA

‘‘U.S. LEADERSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: THE LOST EDGE?’’

Date: September 24, 1998

Loy Henderson Conference Room, Department of State

Morning Session

Moderator: Keith Geiger, Director, Office of Academic Programs, U.S. Information Agency

8:00–8:45 a.m. Registration and Continental Breakfast

9:00–9:10 a.m. Welcoming Remarks and Introduction by Dr. Joseph Duffey, Director, U.S. Information Agency

9:10–9:30 a.m. ‘‘American National Security Interests: The Importance of U.S.-

Educated International Students’’ Speaker: The Honorable

William Perry, Former Secretary of Defense

9:30–9:40 a.m. Welcoming Remarks and Introduction by Dr. Sharon Robinson,

Chief Operating Officer, ETS

9:40–10:00 a.m. ‘‘Building a Global Community: State by State’’ Speaker: The

Honorable Ray Mabus, Former Governor of Mississippi and

Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

10:00–10:30 a.m. ‘‘Open Doors and Opening Minds: Why Both Are Needed for the

21st Century’’ Speaker: Dr. Allan Goodman, President and

CEO, Institute of International Education

10:30–10:35 a.m. Charge to Working Sessions—Mr. Keith Geiger, U.S. Information

Agency

10:35–10:50 a.m. Break

10:50–11:50 a.m. Working Session: Quantifying the Current State of Affairs

Noon–1:30 p.m. Lunch—Benjamin Franklin State Dining Room

Afternoon Session

Moderator: Linda Pfister, Vice President, Educational Testing Service

1:30–1:45 p.m. ‘‘Current Structures Supporting Study in the U.S. and Abroad’’

Speaker: Ms. Marlene Johnson, Executive Director, NAFSA:

Association of International Educators

1:45–2:30 p.m. ‘‘Forging Alliances to Support International Education’’ Panel

Discussion

Moderator: Dr. Ted Sanders, President, Southern Illinois University

Participants: Mr. Peter C. Thorp, Vice President, Corporate University Relations & Educational Programs, Citibank

Congressman Donald M. Payne (D), Newark, New Jersey

Dr. Jacquelyn Belcher, President, DeKalb College, Georgia

2:30–3:00 p.m. Interactive Discussion

3:00-3:15 p.m. ‘‘The Lost Edge? An Action Plan for Recapturing U.S. Leadership’’ Speaker: Mr. Stephen J. Trachtenberg, President, George

Washington University

3:15–3:30 p.m. Break

3:30–4:45 p.m. Working Sessions: Development of Recommendations for Action

Plan

4:45–5:30 p.m. Reports on the Afternoon Working Sessions and Closing Comments—Dr. Sharon Robinson, ETS

The Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange and the Embassy of Spain will host a reception for conference participants on September 24 from

5:30–7:30 p.m. at the Spanish Embassy. The embassy is located at 2375 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, approximately six blocks from the State Department.

66

APPENDIX III: WHITE PAPER

LEADERSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: THE LOST EDGE?

(By Dr. Ted Sanders, President, Southern Illinois University)

WARNING SIGNS

For many years higher education in the United States has enjoyed a preeminent

position in the world of international education, attracting students in large numbers from other countries to its colleges and universities. Foreign enrollment in the

U.S. rose steadily from a relatively modest 34,232 in 1954, to a record setting

457,984 students in 1996-97. Peak growth occurred from 1975 to 1980, when enrollment in the U.S. almost doubled. Troubling, however, is the dramatically slowed

rate of increase, from 4.5% in 1992-93 to a virtual standstill (0.3%) in 1995-96. Of

particular concern is the fact that in 1996-97 there was only a slight rise in the

number of foreign students coming to the United States from Japan, South Korea,

and Malaysia, countries which provide a large proportion of our foreign enrollment.

Approximately 1.3 million students pursued education outside their home countries during the 1980s. The United States attracted roughly 40% of them, but now

enrolls only 32%.1 From 1994 to 1996, Taiwan sent 10.2% fewer students to the

U.S., India 5.3% fewer, Hong Kong 7.1% fewer, and Mexico 3.5% fewer.2 There is

no doubt that the United States has lost its competitive edge as a world leader in

international education.

THE CAUSE AND THE COST

There appear to be many reasons for the decline. Among them are complacency,

rising relative costs to attend our colleges and universities, unwillingness of state

and federal governments to spend more money to attract foreign students, changes

in political and economic conditions in a number of countries, and stepped up efforts

by others to obtain an increasing share of the lucrative international student market.

It appears that past successes have contributed to a complacent attitude on the

part of many institutions in the U.S. The seemingly never-ending growth in the

number of students coming into the country, along with a lack of serious competition, has caused us to miss the need to pay close attention to competing developments around the world.

The U.S. government may pay a high cost for its failure to foster a spirit of strong

and vital entrepreneurship in international education. Students from around the

world broaden and enrich the intellectual and social climate of our institutions, providing young Americans with invaluable understanding and appreciation of other

peoples and cultures. It is also true that in a period when public support of U.S.

higher education is diminishing and the costs of maintaining and improving quality

are rising, new revenue streams are essential. Foreign students in the United States

inject about $7.8 billion annually in tuition, fees and living expenses into our local

economies. And their presence creates an additional 100,000 jobs in the U.S.3

Probably even more important, a strong international student and alumni network helps to build the kinds of long-term relationships and trust essential for the

U.S. to be an effective global citizen and global competitor. When enrollment declines, we lose far more than tuition dollars. We begin to lose the opportunity to

make important friends around the world. Our positive international influence in

the world depends on others understanding and appreciating American culture.

International education is a key element in achieving that goal, so sustained support for this powerful instrument of foreign policy should be near the top of the

agenda for Congress and the President. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the

case.

CREATIVE AND COMMITTED COMPETITION

The United States has traditionally relied heavily on its overseas educational advising centers, supported by the United States Information Agency, to provide information about U.S. higher education to prospective foreign students. Yet, federal

fi.inds to support these centers have steadily diminished, forcing some of them to

close and services to be cut in others.4 While the United States government is decreasing its support for recruiting foreign students, other nations, particularly Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, are actively promoting their colleges and

universities around the world. Enrollment of foreign students in higher education

has become big business and is now an integral part of strategic planning by governments in many countries. Australia, for instance, actively promotes its attractive

67

lifestyle, its wide range of high quality curricula, and the value received for a dollar

spent to potential foreign students. The Australian International Education Foundation, established in 1994, also markets Australian education by linking it with

trade, investment, and diplomacy. Australia is one of the first countries to develop

an international alumni-networking system, and it is the first to host a convention

including foreign alumni from all its universities. Australia’s alumni in Singapore

number about 50,000; in Indonesia, between 40,000 and 50,000; while in Malaysia,

Australian alumni exceed 120,000.5 Australia’s share of international student enrollment has increased steadily from 1.6% in 1985 to 3.3% in 1994.6

Britain is also becoming a serious competitor in international education. It offers

comparatively low educational costs and is a big spender in recruiting foreign students. Its Educational Counseling Service actively promotes British education, particularly in Southeast Asia. And these strategies appear to be working. During

1996-97, Asian enrollment in British universities was up 27% from the year before,

and has increased an average of 20% annually since 1992-93.7

GROWING DEMAND AND GREATER OPPORTUNITY: A NEW CHANCE AT LEADERSHIP

The recent economic crisis in Asia has been an important factor for many international students in selecting Australia, Canada, and Britain as alternatives to the

U.S. for their studies. Even though this trend had begun before the crisis, the affordability of study in these countries has made them more attractive. During 1996-

97, Asian students comprised 57.6% of foreign student enrollment in the U.S. Asian

countries providing the most students were Japan (46,292), China (42,503), Korea

(37,130), India (30,641), and Taiwan (30,487).

The potential for significant growth over the next several years remains great.

Projections for 1995-2010 are that Asia will need an additional 800,000 international university places, and another 1.5 million places will be needed in the following 15 years.8 Of the 200 million people in Indonesia, 26 million are between

the ages of 15 and 25.9 Indonesia’s colleges and universities cannot hope to meet

that demand for higher education in their country. Other projections indicate that

the world population of college-age students will grow by 100 million over the next

10 years. These burgeoning youth populations, particularly in countries which appreciate the importance of a well-educated citizenry to their development plans, will

provide new opportunities for America to regain its preeminence in international

education. But nations facing many competing needs for limited resources will be

careful shoppers in the world education market. They will look for the most costeffective way to provide needed education services, and they will be reluctant to put

scarce capital into providing their own classrooms, labs, and dormitories. Alternatives which provide high quality services at low cost and at the same time diminish or even eliminate the need for expensive local infrastructure will define the market.

A precondition for any serious effort on our part to retain a leading role in international education is for the federal government to recognize, both in policy and action, that it is in the national interest to do so. It must restore and enhance its tangible support for international efforts and provide such support within the framework of a clearly defined strategy. Opportunities for technologically advanced, costeffective higher education delivery systems that have expensive infrastructures already in place may be unparalleled in history. The challenge for America will be

to offer the most affordable higher education, and technological superiority may provide the avenue for us to do that. If we are to maintain our position of leadership

in this important area and make the contribution to world society expected of us,

we must begin to emulate the enlightened policies of other advanced nations who

have seen the future of international education and are actively pursuing it.

——————— 1The Chronicle of Higher Education, Dec. 6, 1996. 2Open Doors, 1995-96.

3Open Doors, 1996-97.

4The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 29, 1998. 5The Straits Times, April 27, 1998. 6Open Doors, 1995-96.

7 Asian Wall Street Journal, October 20, 1997. 8Open Doors, 1995-96, p. 12. 9Meeting Notes, IIE Tenth Biennial Educational Associates Seminar on International Education, 1998.

68

APPENDIX IV: CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS

U.S. LEADERSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION: THE LOST EDGE?

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE—SEPTEMBER 24, 1998

List of Attendees

Name Title Institution

Ms. Pamela Alden Vice President, Planning

and Development

Educational Testing Service

Mr. Frank Alejandro Program Officer U.S. Agency for International Development

Mr. Gary Althen Director, Office of International Students and

Scholars

University of Iowa

Ms Mary Ashley Chief, Advising, Teaching

and Specialized Programs

U.S. Information Agency

Ms. Mariam Assefa Executive Director World Education Services,

Inc.

Ms. Ellen Babby Senior Director for Planning and DevelopmentNAFSA: Association of

International Educators

Mr. Roger Batchelor Bowling Green State University

Ms. Valerie A. Becker National Education Program AdministratorChrysler Corporation

Mr. Peter Becskehazy Chief, Advising and Student ServicesU.S. Information Agency

Dr. Jacquelyn Belcher President DeKaIb College

Ms. Becca Bell Deputy Division Director,

NIS Exchanges

IREX

Mr. Victor Betancourt Coordinator, International

Services

University of Maryland

University College

Dr. Peggy Blumenthal Vice President for Educational StudiesInstitute of International

Education

Mr. Michael Bonner Director, Center for Middle Eastern and North

African Studies

University of Michigan

Ms. Jennifer Bremer Director Kennan Institute

Dr. Barbara Burn Associate Provost for

International Programs

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Ms. Achamma

Chanderseekaran

Office of Service IndustriesU.S. Department of Commerce Ms. Audree Chase Coordinator of International Services

American Association of

Community Colleges

Mr. E. Thomas Coleman Vice President BASF Corporation

Ms. Marthena Cowart Director, Office of Public

Liaison

U.S. Information Agency

Mr. James Cramer Interim President and

CEO World Learning

World Learning

Ms. Marianne Craven Deputy Director, Office of

Academic Programs

U.S. Information Agency

Dr. William Cressey Vice President Council on International

Educational Exchange

Dr. Lois Cronholm Interim President CUNY Bernard M. Baruch College

Mr. William Dant Director, Humphrey Fellowship ProgramInstitute of International

Education

Dr. Dan E. Davidson President American Councils for

International Education

Mr. Paul Desruisseaux International Affairs EditorThe Chronicle of Higher

Education

Mr. John Deupree Director, International

Education

The College Board

Mr. Michael Ditchkofsky Vice President Peterson’s Dr. Joseph Duffey Director U.S. information Agency

69

Name Title Institution

Ms. Jeanne-Marie Duval Associate Executive DirectorNAFSA: Association of

International Educators

Mr. Stephen Eck Director of Graduate AdmissionsNew Jersey Institute of

Technology

Dr. Eileen M. Evans International Education

Program

George Washington University

Mr. Thomas Farrell Vice President, Exchange

Programs

Institute of International

Education

Ms. Marina Fernando Director, International

Studies Programs

City College of New York

Ms. Patricia Fesci Consultant, Academic

Leadership and Change

American Association of

State Colleges and Universities

Ms. Jeannette File-Lamb Executive Director Educational Testing Service

Ms. Lenore Yaffee Garcia Director, International AffairsU.S. Department of Education

Mr. Keith Geiger Director, Office of Academic ProgramsU.S. Information Agency

Dr. Allan E. Goodman President Institute of International

Education

Mr. Dale E. Gough Director, Office of International Education

Services

American Association of

Collegiate Registrars

and Admissions Officers

Ms. Madeleine F. Green Vice President American Council on Education

Ms. Virginia Hammell Assistant Director, Federal RelationsNational Association of

State Universities and

Land Grant Colleges

(NASULGC)

Ms. Linda Harbaugh U.S. Department of Commerce

Mr. Fred Hecklinger Dean of Student DevelopmentNorthern Virginia Community College, Alexandria Campus

Mr. Stephen Heyneman Vice President International Management and Development

Group, Ltd.

Mr. Ralph Hines Director, International

Education and Graduate Programs

U.S. Department of Education

Ms. Gail Hochhauser Senior Director, Special

Programs Division

NAFSA: Association of

International Educators

Mr. John K. Hudzik Professor and Dean of

International Studies

and Programs

Michigan State University

Mr. James P. Hurley Director of International

Education

Pikes Peak Community

College

Ms. Arlene Jackson Director, Center for International ProgramsVirginia Commonwealth

University

Ms. Marlene M. Johnson Executive Director and

CEO

NAFSA: Association of

International Educators

Mr. Victor C. Johnson Senior Director of Public

Affairs

NAFSA: Association of

International Educators

Dr. Larry H. Jones Associate Dean University of the South

Ms. Mary C. King Executive Director Association of Professional

Schools of International

Affairs

Dr. Benjamin Ladner President The American University

Dr. Richard Lariviere Associate Vice President University of Texas-Austin

70

Name Title Institution

Dr. Marjorie Peace Lenn Executive Director Center for Quality Assurance in International

Education

Mr. Charles Lenth Director of Policy Studies,

Higher Education

Education Commission of

the States

Ms. Beverly Lindsey Director, J. William Fulbright Scholarship

Board

U.S. Information Agency

Ms. Martha Loerke Director, Network Scholarship ProgramOpen Society Institute

Dr. John P. Loiello Associate Director for

Educational and Cultural Affairs

U.S. Information Agency

Mr. David Longanecker Assistant Secretary for

Postsecondary Education

U.S. Department of Education

Mr. James F. Lynch, Jr. Director, International

Students and Scholars

Pennsylvania State University

Hon. Raymond E. Mabus Former Governor of Mississippi

Mr. C. Peter Magrath President National Association of

State Universities and

Land Grant Colleges

Ms. Ann Marinoni Director of International

Studies

Lake Superior State University

Ms. Mary Beth Marklein USA Today

Mr. Michael McCarry Executive Director Alliance for International

Educational and Cultural Exchange

Mr. Robert McCarthy Director, Office of East

European and NIS Affairs

U.S. Information Agency

Ms. Mada McGill Assistant to the Deputy

Director

Council for the International Exchange of

Scholars

Mr. David McNierney Office of Service IndustriesU.S. Department of Commerce

Dr. Shah M. Mehrabi Professor of Economics Montgomery College

Ms. Cindy Barnes Ochoa Past President American Association of

Intensive English Programs

Ms. Jody Olsen Senior Vice President Academy for Educational

Development

Hon. Donald M. Payne Member of Congress

Hon. William Perry Former Secretary of Defense

Mr. Norman Peterson Director, International

Programs

Montana State University

Ms. Linda A. Pfister Vice President Educational Testing Service

Ms. Rachell Punchatz Executive Director, MarketingEducational Testing Service

Mr. Hoyt Purvis Chairman, J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship BoardUniversity of Arkansas

Ms. Margaret Pusch Associate Director Intercultural Communication Institute

Dr. Hazel Reed Dean, School of Graduate

Studies

Delaware State University

Dr. Sharon Robinson Chief Operating Officer Educational Testing Service

71

Name Title Institution

Mr. William Rugh Ambassador America-Mideast Educational and Training

Services, Inc.

(AMIDEAST)

Mr. McKinney H. Russell Senior Coordinator of Academic and Training ProgramsInternational Research

and Exchanges Board

(IREX)

Dr. Ted Sanders President Southern Illinois University

Ms. Linda Scatton Director, International ActivitiesEducational Testing Service

Dr. Robert A. Scott President Ramapo College

Ms. Catherine Sevcenko Senior Program Officer Academy for Educational

Development

Ms. Alonia C. Sharps Assistant to the President

for Minority Affairs and

Affirmative Action Programs

Prince George’s Community College

Dr. Judith Siegel Deputy Associate Director

for Educational and

Cultural Affairs

U.S. Information Agency

Mr. Robert O. Slater Director National Security Education Program (NSEP)

Mr. Andrew F. Smith President The Amencan Forum for

Global Education

Mr. Michael John

Stopford

Senior Assistant to the

President for International Affairs

The American University

Mr. Ned D. Strong Executive Director LASPAU (Harvard)

Dr. Shirley Strum-Kenny President SUNY Stony Brook

Mr. Jerry Sullivan Executive Director AACRAO

Ms. Mary Ann Swain Provost SUNY Binghamton

Mr. Peter D. Syverson Vice President Council of Graduate

Schools

Dr. Julia Taiber Assistant Director Alliance for International

Educational and Cultural Exchange

Ms. Marie Taris Ohio State University

Dr. Orlando Taylor Dean, Graduate School of

Arts and Sciences

Howard University

Mr. Peter C. Thorp Vice President Citibank

Mr. Stephen J.

Trachtenberg

President George Washington University

Dr. Barbara Turlington Director, Office of International EducationAmerican Council on Education

Mr. Jay Van Den Berg Vice President, AdministrationWhirlpool Corporation

Mr. David L. Warren President National Association of

Independent Colleges

and Universities

Ms. Norma Williamson Team Leader U.S. Information Agency

Dr. Craig Dean Willis President Lock Haven University

Dr. H. J. Zoffer Senior Counsel, University Center for International StudiesUniversity of Pittsburgh

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. SHERRY MUELLER

Senator Grams, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the domestic impact

of the State Department’s International Visitor Program. My name is Sherry

Mueller. I have the privilege of serving as the Executive Director of the National

72

Council for International Visitors (NCIV)—the nonprofit, professional association for

the private sector partners of the State Department who implement the International Visitor Program. Each year more than 80,000 volunteers—citizen diplomats—are involved in the activities of our 97 community-based member organizations throughout the United States. Our members organize professional programs,

cultural activities and home visits for the distinguished foreign leaders who participate in the International Visitor Program. A list of our members by state is appended. You each have a membership directory and copy of NCIV’s latest publication A Salute to Citizen Diplomacy.

When assessing the impressive results of the International Visitor Program, we

usually focus on the Visitors themselves—the positions of prominence that alumni

attain and their accomplishments. For example, we note former Prime Minister

Kaifu of Japan learned about the Peace Corps during his IV trip and years later

helped found the Japanese equivalent. The current Minister of Justice of Poland

credits her deeper understanding of democratic institutions and a market economy

to her experience as an International Visitor.

We also focus on how the Program enables U.S. Embassy personnel to be more

effective. Last January, all U.S. ambassadors were asked to rank public diplomacy

products and programs. In 2000 as in 1993, the last year the survey had been conducted, the International Visitor Program was the most highly rated.

However, when discussing the national interest it is also imperative to focus on

the domestic impact of exchange programs. I have conducted research and currently

spend approximately 20% of my time ‘‘on the road’’ meeting with these dedicated

citizen diplomats. Why do Americans volunteer for the International Visitor Program—and for other exchange programs as well?

• The most important reason can best be illustrated by an adaptation of the original ad for a Pony Express rider.

Wanted: Young wirey, skinny fellows under the age of 18. Must be expert

riders willing to risk death daily. Wages $25 per week Orphans preferred.

If I were to rewrite this ad for NCIV members, it would read:

Wanted: Young at heart of all ages. Must be well-organized, eager to learn,

and willing to risk breaking stereolypes daily. Wages—won’t be discussed.

Idealists preferred.

Our volunteers come from all walks of life and represent the diversity of their

communities—but they are all idealists. They care about promoting human rights

and civic participation. Whether in Tennessee, Texas, California or Wisconsin,

whether farmers, bankers, doctors, or teachers, these volunteers relish the opportunity to make a difference, as one of our member’s phrases it, ‘‘one handshake at

a time.’’

• Their second major motivation is the education of their children. Through extensive school programs and home hospitality, the children of these citizen diplomats enjoy a valuable supplement to their education. As a volunteer from

Freeport, Illinois asserted: ‘‘My daughter can discuss intelligently places her

classmates can’t find on a map.’’

• Many volunteers are involved with the International Visitor Program and other

exchanges to counter the ugly American image. The Arkansas Council for International Visitors was established in the early 1960s to counter the negative

publicity surrounding the integration of Central High School. Founder Fred

Darragh observed that hosting newly independent African visitors helped advance integration in many U.S. communities.

• Still others are involved because they are responsible for economic development

in their communities and the International Visitor Program and other exchanges provide valuable connections and cross-cultural experiences, particularly for small and medium sized businesses.

• The International Visitor Program reaches a broad spectrum of the community.

It involves a cross-section of institutions and individuals who might never have

the opportunity to study or travel abroad. ‘‘Travel by proxy’’ is the way one volunteer described her involvement.

After receiving the invitation to testify, I sent out a broadcast fax to our members

inviting statements. They sent wonderful articles and quotations (some are attached) that illustrate the remarkable outreach of the International Visitor Program.

Despite the tremendous constituent involvement in exchanges, the overall direct

exchanges appropriation fell 31% adjusted for inflation since FY1993. Funding for

73

the International Visitor Program is 34% below FY1993. (See attached chart.) Fewer

participants and shorter trips mean that for NCIV community member organizations, the program has diminished by approximately 40%. During a recent visit to

Grand Island and Lincoln, Nebraska, our volunteers spoke of declining numbers and

their concern that fewer foreign leaders get to smaller and more rural communities

where they can have such a great impact. These concerns are all too common.

NCIV is a member of The Alliance. We enthusiastically echo Ms. Johnson’s request for a congressional caucus and a national policy on international education.

Citizen diplomats leverage an enormous amount of resources for exchanges locally

but they need your leadership at the national level.

NCIV members across the United States strongly support increased funding for

all State Department exchanges. We urge that the International Visitor Program,

not only be restored to its FY1993 levels, but that it be expanded to cover inflation

and needed new initiatives. Specifically, we request that you identify additional new

money in FY2002 to fund the GREAT Program (GrassRoots Exchange And Training

Program) that would—under the auspices of the International Visitor Program—enable an additional 400 participants to come to the United States each year. These

new participants would be local officials, representatives of Chambers of Commerce,

and other community leaders who would spend the last 5-7 days of their 21 days

in the States in their current (or in a potential) Sister City to develop plans of action

and strengthen Sister City relationships. This addition to the International Visitor

Program would serve as a model generating synergy among exchange programs and

expand U.S. efforts to build stronger commercial and cultural ties between U.S.

leaders and their counterparts abroad. A statement of support for the GREAT Program from Sister Cities International is appended. Senator Grams, we appreciate

your interest in this new initiative.

If the world consisted of 100 people, only five would live in the United States. We

must learn to communicate—to work well with the other 95. The International Visitor Program and other exchanges help us do just that.

Thank you for underscoring that fact by holding this hearing.

International Visitor Program Statistics

Fiscal Year Grant Visitors Nominal Dollars1 Constant Dollars2

1993 .......................................................................................... 2,983 52.3 52.3

1994 .......................................................................................... 3,109 51.2 48.0

1995 .......................................................................................... 3,083 49.4 39.0

1996 .......................................................................................... 2,393 41.1 36.1

1997 .......................................................................................... 2,595 39.1 35.1

1998 .......................................................................................... 2,505 39.2 36.1

1999 .......................................................................................... 2,581 41.1 36.1

2000 (estimate) ........................................................................ 2,499 41.7 35.0

1 Nominal Dollars in millions.

2 Constant Dollars adjusted for inflation.

In real terms, the overall direct Exchanges appropriation fell 31 percent adjusted

for inflation since FY1993. IVP funding is now 34 percent below FY1993—the peak

year for inflation-adjusted exchanges budget authority since FY1966.

[Attachments.]

Community Organization Members of the National Council for International Visitors

Community Organizations City State

International Services Council of Huntsville-Madison County .................................................... Huntsville AL

Arkansas Council for International Visitors ................................................................................ Little Rock AR

World Affairs Council of Arizona ................................................................................................. Scottsdale AZ

Tucson Council for International Visitors .................................................................................... Tucson AZ

University of California, Davis—International Agricultural Visitors Program ............................ Davis CA

International Visitors Council of Los Angeles ............................................................................. Los Angeles CA

UCLA International Visitors Bureau ............................................................................................. Los Angeles CA

International Relations Council of Riverside ............................................................................... Riverside CA

Sacramento Council for International Visitors ............................................................................ Sacramento CA

International Visitors Council of San Diego ................................................................................ San Diego CA

International Diplomacy Council .................................................................................................. San Francisco CA

Silicon Valley Forum International Visitor Program .................................................................... San Jose CA

74

Community Organization Members of the National Council for International Visitors—Continued

Community Organizations City State

International Visitors and Protocol Foundation of Orange County ............................................. Santa Ana CA

Stanford University, Office for International Visitors .................................................................. Stanford CA

Boulder Council for International Visitors ................................................................................... Boulder CO

Colorado Springs Committee for International Visitors .............................................................. Colorado Springs CO

Institute of International Education—Rocky Mountain Regional Center ................................... Denver CO

International Center of New Haven ............................................................................................. New Haven CT

World Affairs Council, Hartford, CT ............................................................................................. West Hartford CT

International Hospitality Committee of Fairfield County, CT ...................................................... Westport CT

Delaware Council for International Visitors (DELCIV) ................................................................. Greenville DE

International Resource Center of Jacksonville ............................................................................ Jacksonville FL

International Council of Central Florida, Inc. ............................................................................. Longwood FL

Florida Space Coast Council for International Visitors ............................................................... Melbourne FL

Miami Council for International Visitors ..................................................................................... Miami FL

Georgia Council for International Visitors ................................................................................... Atlanta GA

Pacific & Asian Affairs Council ................................................................................................... Honolulu HI

Iowa Council for International Understanding ............................................................................ Des Moines IA

Council for International Visitors to Iowa Cities (CIVIC) ............................................................ Iowa City IA

International Visitors Center of Chicago ..................................................................................... Chicago IL

Freeport Area International Visitors Council ............................................................................... Freeport IL

Geneseo International Thanksgiving Fellowship Program ........................................................... Geneseo IL

Paris International Thanksgiving Fellowship ............................................................................... Paris IL

Springfield Commission on International Visitors ....................................................................... Springfield IL

Rock River Valley International Fellowship ................................................................................. Sterling IL

International Center of Indianapolis ........................................................................................... Indianapolis IN

Louisville International Cultural Center (LICC) ........................................................................... Louisville KY

Council for International Visitors of Greater New Orleans ......................................................... New Orleans LA

WorldBoston ................................................................................................................................. Boston MA

Massachusetts Institute of Technology ....................................................................................... Cambridge MA

Harvard University Marshal’s Office ............................................................................................ Cambridge MA

World Affairs Council of Western Massachusetts, Inc. ............................................................... Springfield MA

International Center of Worcester ................................................................................................ Worcester MA

World Trade Center Institute ....................................................................................................... Baltimore MD

World Council of Maine ............................................................................................................... Portland ME

University of Michigan International Center ............................................................................... Ann Arbor MI

International Visitors Council of Metropolitan Detroit ................................................................ Detroit MI

International Visitor Committee of Mid-Michigan ....................................................................... East Lansing MI

Minnesota International Center ................................................................................................... Minneapolis MN

International Visitors Council of Greater Kansas City ................................................................ Kansas City MO

The World Affairs Council of St. Louis ........................................................................................ St. Louis MO

The International Visitors Center of Jackson .............................................................................. Jackson MS

Montana Center for International Visitors ................................................................................... Bozeman MT

Charlotte’s Council for International Visitors .............................................................................. Charlotte NC

Piedmont Triad Council for International Visitors ....................................................................... Greensboro NC

Research Triangle International Visitors Council ........................................................................ Research Triangle Pk NC

Minot Area Council for International Visitors .............................................................................. Minot ND

Grand Island Council for International Visitors .......................................................................... Grand Island NE

Mayor’s Committee for International Friendship ......................................................................... Lincoln NE

Kiwanis Club of Omaha, Inc. ...................................................................................................... Omaha NE

New Hampshire Council on World Affairs ................................................................................... Durham NH

Albuquerque Council for International Visitors .......................................................................... Albuquerque NM

Santa Fe Council on International Relations .............................................................................. Santa Fe NM

International Visitors Council of Northern Nevada ..................................................................... Reno NV

International Center of the Capital Region ................................................................................. Albany NY

Buffalo-Niagara Region Council for International Visitors, Inc. ................................................. Buffalo NY

Rochester International Friendship Council ................................................................................ Rochester NY

International Center of Syracuse ................................................................................................. Syracuse NY

Akron International Friendship .................................................................................................... Akron OH

International Visitors Council of Greater Cincinnati ................................................................... Cincinnati OH

Cleveland Council on World Affairs ............................................................................................. Cleveland OH

International Visitors Council, Inc. .............................................................................................. Columbus OH

International Institute of Toledo .................................................................................................. Toledo OH

Oklahoma City International Visitors Council ............................................................................. Oklahoma City OK

Tulsa Global Alliance ................................................................................................................... Tulsa OK

World Affairs Council of Oregon .................................................................................................. Portland OR

75

Community Organization Members of the National Council for International Visitors—Continued

Community Organizations City State

International Visitors Council of Philadelphia ............................................................................ Philadelphia PA

Pittsburgh Council for International Visitors .............................................................................. Pittsburgh PA

World Affairs Council of Rhode Island ........................................................................................ Providence RI

South Carolina World Trade Center—Charleston ....................................................................... Charleston SC

Columbia Council for International Visitors ................................................................................ Columbia SC

Dacotah Territory International Visitor Program .......................................................................... Rapid City SD

Memphis Council for International Visitors ................................................................................. Memphis TN

Nashville Council for International Visitors ................................................................................ Nashville TN

International Hospitality Council of Austin ................................................................................. Austin TX

Dallas Committee for Foreign Visitors ........................................................................................ Dallas TX

El Paso Council for International Visitors ................................................................................... El Paso TX

World Affairs Council of Greater Fort Worth ............................................................................... Fort Worth TX

Institute of International Education—Southern Region ............................................................. Houston TX

San Antonio Council for International Visitors ............................................................................ San Antonio TX

International Visitors Utah Council ............................................................................................. Salt Lake City UT

Center for International Programs, Virginia Commonwealth University ..................................... Richmond VA

The Vermont Council on World Affairs, Inc. ................................................................................ Burlington VT

World Affairs Council of Seattle/Tacoma .................................................................................... Seattle WA

Spokane International Exchange Council .................................................................................... Spokane WA

Yakima Valley Council for International Visitors ........................................................................ Wapato WA

International Institute of Wisconsin ............................................................................................ Milwaukee WI

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE INTERNATIONAL VISITOR PROGRAM—A 60TH

ANNIVERSARY INITIATIVE

GrassRoots Exchange And Training Program (GREAT) for Conununity Leaders

Concept Paper—September 14, 2000

GOAL

The overarching goal of the GrassRoots Exchange And Training Program is to

provide opportunities for U.S. elected officials and other community leaders to build

enduring personal and institutional relationships—both commercial and cultural—

with their counterparts abroad. Participants should have some responsibility for economic development and providing a governance climate conducive to the growth of

medium and small businesses.

DESCRIPTION

Each year as part of the State Department’s International Visitor Program, U.S.

Embassy Committees, with advice from Sister Cities representatives, will select 400

local officials, representatives of Chambers of Commerce, and officers of Sister Cities

organizations to participate in a 21 day International Visitor Program. Delegations

of 5-8 officials will travel to Washington, DC, two other appropriate communities,

and their Sister City, to meet, share best practices and make plans with their U.S.

counterparts.

ASSUMPTIONS

1. Local (municipal and county) and other community leaders are the pool from

which national leaders will emerge.

2. Privatization on the scale now occurring around the world will only succeed if

(a) there are healthy, viable government structures to tax, regulate, and provide a

sound legal context for the private sector actors and (b) creative partnerships between the public and private sectors are encouraged.

3. To avoid duplication and take advantage of the synergy of two flagship exchange programs, this initiative would make possible unprecedented collaboration

between two national networks of citizen diplomats—the National Council for International Visitors and Sister Cities, International.

4. There is an avalanche of information about globalization and economic development available, but not enough firsthand human experience to enable government

officials to analyze, evaluate, and derive maximum benefit from it for their commuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
76

nities. This short-term professional exchange program will provide this needed firsthand international experience.

5. The United States has a vested interest in democracy—building and increasing

civic participation at home as well as around the globe.

Selection of Participants: Participants in the GREAT program will visit the United

States under the auspices of the U.S. Department of State’s International Visitor

Program. They will be selected by U.S. Embassy Committees, with advice from appropriate Sister Cities representatives. Each program will be built around a specific

theme or themes such as preserving water resources, promoting economic development and trade, or building NGO management.

Each participant must be willing to make presentations to school classes and to

other audiences while in the United States. Ability to speak English will be considered when selecting candidates for this program. However, interpreters will be provided in cases where the participants do not speak English.

Program Management: The U.S. Department of State’s Office of International

Visitors will manage the program. The Office of International Visitors will also be

in consultation with Sister Cities International and the National Council of International Visitors. The partnership between NCIV and SCI combines the strengths

of two internationally recognized networks of citizen diplomats.

SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL,

1424 K STREET, NW, SUITE 600,

Washington, DC, September 12, 2000.

Dr. SHERRY MUELLER,

Executive Director,

National Council of International Visitors.

DEAR DR. MUELLER:

Sister Cities International (SCI) would like to express its enthusiastic support for

the GrassRoots Exchange and Training Program (GREAT), which you will be presenting to the Senate International Operations Subcommittee on September 14th.

We believe that this proposal combines the unique strengths of both our organizations, and will foster an innovative, focused and sustainable approach to the International Visitor Program.

Sister Cities International is committed to fostering citizen diplomacy through its

incredible network of 3500 communities linked together around the world in 137 different countries. Our local chapters bring together municipal officials and community leaders to foster international exchange programs. These efforts are volunteer

based, and bring out the very best in international collaboration. We recognize the

importance of partnerships in achieving our goals, and we welcome this opportunity

to work together with your organization to put forward this new initiative to the

Senate International Operations Subcommittee.

Increasingly, local governments through their sister city programs, are seeking

new ways in which to foster international engagement at the community level. As

globalization sweeps our planet, our cities and towns are committed to building

‘‘globally competitive communities.’’ This is being done through partnerships with

civic and educational institutions, with business and technology centers, and

through citizens and their nonprofit organizations.

Building ‘‘globally competitive communities’’ requires our communities to adapt

and change within our rapidly globalizing planet. It is about:

• Enabling our communities and their citizens to be globally competitive, not just

economically but in every aspect of life. While economics are critically important, communities must also be competitive in terms of education, the environment, health and other quality of life issues, which form the very fabric or our

communities.

• Providing a platform for our citizens to be engaged as ‘‘global citizens’’ in an

effort to build international bridges of friendship, mutual respect, and support.

• Establishing partnerships, linkages and coalitions and unleashing the incredible

interests, passions, and talents or citizens have for making a difference by

‘‘thinking globally and acting locally.’’

The GrassRoots Exchange and Training Program (GREAT) is a very important

new initiative. Sister Cities International stands with the National Council of InterVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
77

national Visitors on presenting this proposal to Senator Grams and the International Operations Subcommittee, which he chairs.

Sincerely yours,

CHUCK STOKKE, President,

Sister Cities International,

Former Mayor, Menomonie, Wisconsin.

TIM HONEY, Executive Director,

Sister Cities International.

PIEDMONT TRIAD COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL VISITORS, INC.,

815 WEST MARKET STREET,

Greensboro, NC, September 11, 2000.

TRIAD RESOURCES SPEAK OUT FOR PTCIV

‘‘. . . I have had the opportunity of meeting (PTCIV) visitors from around the world

including Morocco, Korea, and all parts of Europe. These meetings have benefited the

Center and assisted us in planning some of our programs . . . including an upcoming

sojourn to Morocco for our Bryan School MBA students.’’

Riad Ajami, Director

Center for Global Business Education and Research

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

‘‘At the time, Sara Lee happened in be having difficulty resolving a trademark

issue in Korea. Leon Porter, who was then Chief Counsel of Sara Lee Personal Products, and I were able to have very productive meetings with these two gentlemen (distinguished Korean lawyers).’’

Arthur J. DeBaugh, Chief Counsel

International Property Law Department

Sara Lee Corporation

Winston-Salem, NC

‘‘. . . a visit from citizens of Uzbekistan . . . was a mutually joyous event—particularly in the eleventh grade Honors English class made up of Asian, African-American, Palestinian and Caucasian students.’’

Dr. Ann Pember, Special Populations Coordinator

Ben L. Smith High School

Greensboro, NC

‘‘At one of the meetings, I met . . . an enterprising young fellow from Lithuania.

I subsequently engaged him to handle our affairs in the Baltic States . . . which resulted in us being able to widen our sources of imported plywood . . . I consider my

dues and time to PTCIV a worthwhile endeavor and feel both myself and my company get an excellent return on our investment.’’

William F. Doran, Vice President

Hardwood Plywood Sales

Columbia Forest Products

Greensboro, NC

‘‘I was pleased to receive Mr. Mallia and Mr. Azzopardi and you, yourself. I agree

that each opportunity we use to share information reduces the wall of ignorance

which separates and cripples us.’’

Maya Angelou

Reynolds Professor

Wake Forest University

Winston-Salem, NC

‘‘I have found occasions arranged by PTCIV to be far more productive than those

occurring under other circumstances . . . Local government is of particular interest

to many visitors since it is the critical link between individuals, neighborhoods, and

requisite services. It is a ‘missing link’ in many nations accustomed to totalitarian

systems and the absence of authority at the local level.’’

Carolyn S. AlIen, Former Mayor

City of Greensboro, NC

‘‘It is impossible to put a monetary value on the goodwill and contacts that have

been generated by the dozens of visitors I have met over the years I now have busiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
78

ness contacts all over the world which I believe are of great value to me. I thank you

and the PTCIV for the outstanding job you do in promoting global contacts.’’

Joe Carroll, Publisher

Furniture/Today

High Point, NC

‘‘(PTCIV) offers a viable, established vehicle for volunteers to participate in International goodwill efforts . . . as evidenced by the long roster of visitors to our region.

The many volunteers and small staff of PTCIV operate very effectively as a highly

specialized mentoring organization with clearly substantiated and documented instances of ‘satisfied customers’ ’’

Thomas L. Stapleton, CED/FM

Manager, Business Assistance and Development

City of Greensboro, NC

‘‘. . . I have observed . . . international visitors . . . have gained a clearer appreciation of the culture and business opportunities afforded by our area . . . These Visitors

(who already hold responsible positions in their communities) often attain positions

of leadership and . . . will . . . encourage commerce and communication with our

area and the State of North Carolina.’’

Jonathan V. Maxwell, County Attorney

Guilford County, NC

‘‘Not only have you promoted better awareness of this area within our own citizenry, but you have also educated many folks from overseas about the Triad, its industry, culture, and people . . . At the University of North Carolina at Greensboro

. . . we have developed strong programs of cooperation with Romania and Moldova,

largely built upon contacts provided though PTCIV auspices.’’

Charles H. Lyons

Associate Provost for International Programs

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Excerpts from letters on file at the office of The Piedmont Triad Council for International Visitors, Inc. Document updated: July 27, 2000.

INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY COUNCIL,

San Francisco Bay Area, September 12, 2000.

To: Sherry L. Mueller

Subject: Senate Hearing

On behalf of the 1,200 member International Diplomacy Council of the San Francisco Bay Area, I am writing to respectfully urge you to expand support of the International Visitor Program. IDC was founded 48 years ago and is one of the largest

international visitor programs in the country. We schedule over 14,000 professional

and cultural appointments for approximately 1,500 visitors each year.

Our two and one-half year old Education Enrichment Program brings the international visitor into the classroom with in depth discussion on human rights, rule

of law, economics, HIV/AIDS, international relations, the list goes on. In its short

life, over 4,400 Bay Area students and teachers have been impacted by this highly

acclaimed program. In fact, we cannot keep up with the student and teacher demand! And the 400 plus international visitors who have participated in this program find it one of the most rewarding parts of their U.S. visit.

The International Visitor Program advances the U.S. national interest by putting

a human face on American foreign policy, sharing American values and democratic

institutions, and by fostering economic ties with rapid developing overseas markets.

Large and small businesses in the nine Bay Area counties, including Silicon Valley,

have benefited significantly from the professional appointments with the visitors.

Business development opportunities have occurred through many of these meetings—Hewlett-Packard, Cisco Systems, Oracle, AirTouch and some of the small and

upcoming e-commerce companies to name just a few.

We count on your committee’s support for international education and cultural exchange.

SHARON DEZORDO,

Executive Director.

79

NORTH ARKANSAS COLLEGE,

Harrison, AR, September 8, 2000.

To: Sherry Mueller

Subject: Exchange Programs and the National Interest

Since June of 1988, North Arkansas College in Harrison, Arkansas has served as

the host of the Harrison Council for International Visitors (HCIV), an associate

council of the Arkansas Council for International Visitors (ACIV), one of the members of the National Council for International Visitors (NCIV) network. Our location

in a small, rural community in the Ozark Mountains has enabled Northark and

HCIV’s local volunteers to offer special experiences to our guests from other countries. These international visitors have been unanimous in their praise for the personal attention they’ve received and the quality of their experiences in Harrison. In

return, our local ‘‘citizen diplomats’’ have had an opportunity to meet emerging leaders from more than 60 different countries. These international visitors have made

numerous presentations to area college and high school classes, civic clubs, and

other groups.

The benefits of having a CIV in a community of our size are innumerable. The

program has literally offered our area citizens and Northark’s students a window

on the world, exposing them to people, ideas, and cultures that they otherwise

would never have had an opportunity to experience.

This program is a shining example of the positive outcomes that can result when

local volunteers, guided by experienced professionals, are given an opportunity to

assist their country in its quest to be a positive influence in the global community.

If better understanding of other cultures and people is vital to United States security interests, certainly the Visitors Program is critically important in that effort.

JORDAN, DUNLAP, PRATHER & HARRIS, L.L.P.,

BANK ONE PRESTON, SUITE 400, 8111 PRESTON RD.,

Dallas, TX, September 12, 2000.

To: Sherry Mueller

The Dallas Committee for Foreign Visitors, acting under the auspices of the Dallas Council for World Affairs, was formed more than 40 years ago by Mrs. Clyde

Emery, deceased. This organization has at its purposes:

‘‘A. To receive foreign visitors sent to Dallas by the various governmental

agencies, and to provide them personalized local itineraries, including professional appointments and hospitality, satisfying the requirements suggested by

U.S. embassies, through the national programming agencies.

‘‘B. To involve as many local citizens as possible in each visitor’s program,

without exploiting the visitor.

‘‘C. To continue serving as an all-volunteer organization.’’

We strongly believe that these three elements are like a three legged stool. All

must be present for the best results.

Others may address the impact of the citizen to citizen approach on the lives and

careers of the many thousands of foreign visitors who have come to Dallas and received the benefit of our collective services. For our part, the participation of our

volunteers has had immense impact upon their own lives. Friendships have been

formed extending throughout the world. We have learned much of the world and

have come to a better understanding that we are all part of the human race with

more similarities than differences. Reciprocal visits have been made. Home hospitality has affected the families of our volunteers. This perhaps is best illustrated by

the following story:

Jill was a senior in highschool. Her mother and father and her grandmother had

all been active in the work of our organization since shortly after its inception. Jill

grew up with meeting guests from all over the world. In her grandmother’s guest

book there were people from over 60 countries who had been at her house. Jill was

selected as TACT finalist. This is the Teen Age Citizenship Tribute sponsored by

the Dallas Morning News. In the final selection process, Jill was asked the question,

‘‘What person do you admire the most that you know and why?’’ She promptly replied, ‘‘It would be a teacher from Afghanistan I met at our home; who if he was

lucky would eventually own a bicycle. He had such a love of his country and was

so committed to serving his students and his country that I greatly respected and

admired this man.’’

80

This is but an example of the effect of the International Visitor Program upon our

several hundred volunteers who over the years have labored and enjoyed the work

and opportunity to meet with interesting people from throughout the world. We believe that they have made a contribution to international understanding whereby

they become a personification of the U.S. for the visitor and similarly the visitor has

become a personification of his or her country to our volunteers.

This program should be increased. At our end, we act as an all volunteer organization donating our time and money in the interests of better international understanding and because we enjoy it.

Respectfully,

JERRY N. JORDAN,

Chair Elect, Steering Committee,

Dallas Committee for Foreign Visitors.

TULSA GLOBAL ALLIANCE,

2819 EAST 10TH STREET,

Tulsa OK, September 12, 2000.

To: Sherry L. Mueller

Subject: NCIV Testimony

Dear Sherry:

Below is some additional information about Tulsa Global Alliance and our experience with the International Visitor Progrant.

Tulsa Global Alliance annually hosts between 100 and 125 visitors from over 30

countries through the U.S. Department of State International Visitor Program.

These visitors interacted with over 700 Oklahomans during their professional meetings and home hospitality experiences and have had a substantial and positive impact on our community, economically and culturally. International visitors have

served as guest speakers in local classrooms, assisted local businesses in making

contacts abroad, and offered hospitality to Oklahomans who visit their countries.

I hope this helps.

BOB LIESER,

Program Director.

MEXICAN VISITOR—MARCH, 1999

Tulsa Global Alliance (TGA) hosted Dr. Zidane Zeraoui, and International Visitor

from Mexico, from March 23-26, 1999. Dr. Zeraoui is Director of the International

Relations Department at the Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de

Monterrey (Monterrey Tec) in Monterrey, Mexico. In keeping with Dr. Zeraoui’s interest in U.S.-Mexican relations, TGA arranged professional meetings with media,

government agencies, NGOs and civic groups that represent the Hispanic community of Tulsa.

During his visit to Tulsa, Dr. Zeraoui enjoyed home hospitality with Mr. Rodger

Randle, Professor of International Relations at the University of Oklahoma Tulsa

campus. He has also served as President of Sister Cities International and is a

former Mayor of Tulsa. Since March 1999, Dr. Zeraoui has returned to Tulsa as a

guest of Prof. Randle and the University of Oklahoma. The two of them are organizing a joint conference between the University of Oklahoma and Monterry Tec

that will take place both in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Monterrey, Mexico.

The conference, scheduled for Spring of 2001, will focus on U.S.-Mexican relations

and on each country’s perceptions of the other. ‘‘Dr. Zeraoui’s visit shows how the

International Visitor Program can bring about long-term relationships between institutions in the United States and other countries. This conference is a direct result

of his visit to Tulsa and could contribute to improved U.S.-Mexican understanding.’’

KAZAKH VISITORS—JUNE, 2000

From June 7-10, 2000, TGA hosted a group of International Visitors from

Kazakhstan through the U.S. Department of State Office of International Visitors.

This program was coordinated nationally by Meridian International Center. The

three Kazakhs, reporters from the city of Atyrau, report on the oil and gas industry

and its impact on the environment. Atyrau is located about fifty miles north of a

vast petroleum reserve in the northern Caspian Sea that may well be the largest

oil discovery anywhere in the world in the past 20 years.

81

During their visit to Tulsa, they met with representatives of the Tulsa World and

KJRH Channel 2 to find out how reporters research stories in the United States,

and with staff of the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board (OERB) to learn about

OERB’s efforts at cleaning up abandoned oil sites. The highlights of their stay in

Oklahoma were visits to Parker Drilling and Phillips Petroleum, two companies currently doing business in Kazakhstan. The meetings focused on the two companies’

operations in Kazakhstan and the steps taken by both companies to address environmental concerns. At Parker Drilling, the company’s chairman, Mr. Robert

Parker, Sr., and the Vice President for Corporate Business Development, Mr. John

Gass, hosted the visitors.

At Phillips Petroleum, the visitors met Mr. Edd Grigsby Vice President for Investor and Public Relations, and Mr. Bill Berry, Vice President for the Eurasia Division

of Phillips Petroleum Corporation. Mr. Grigsby said that the visit was ‘‘a good example of how the International Visitor program can introduce American businesses to

potentially useful contacts abroad.’’

[From the Sapulpa Daily Herald, September 13, 1999]

PERUVIAN POLITICAL AND LEGAL ADVISOR VISITS CREEK COUNTY

He was here by invitation. Arriving fresh from a whirlwind tour of New York City

and Washington D.C., the Peruvian visitor who arrived at the Creek County Courthouse in Sapulpa Friday afternoon came with the express purpose to meet local officials in mid-America to learn how the electoral machine here works, by examining

specifically how it works in Creek County. In all actuality, it would be his first real

look at how democracy in the United States operates.

Guillermo Gonzalez, a chief political and legal advisor to three members of the

Peruvian Congress—and a potential Congressional candidate in his own right—entered the office of the Creek County Election Board, accompanied by interpreter

Dylan G. Westfeldt, and was greeted at the door by Creek County Election Board

Secretary Joy Naifeh and state Sen. Ted Fisher. The visit was arranged by the

Tulsa Global Alliance under the auspices of the U.S. Information Agency’s International Visitor Program. The Tulsa Global Alliance is a non-profit organization

dedicated to promoting international awareness and understanding throughout

Northeastern Oklahoma.

‘‘It’s wonderful having you here,’’ Naifeh said, extending a hand. Naifeh manages

the electoral process for the 39 voting polls throughout Creek County. Gonzalez,

speaking through Westfeldt, said he was pleased to be here, and after a moment

of introduction, began immediately to ask about Creek County’s political engine.

‘‘Well, over there is one of our voting machines,’’ Naifeh said, pointing to the computerized instrument that reads bar-coded data from the various polling sites. The

small crowd hovered over the device for a moment, looking at the printed materials

similar to what is used during an actual election. After a moment, Naifeh invited

them into her office for a more detailed interview and discussion.

Once inside, Westfeldt, speaking for Gonzalez, gave a little more explanation for

Gonzalez’s visit. He said Gonzalez, who holds a law degree and has worked as a

journalist in both print and electronic media, wanted to see how the administration

of elections happen in mid-America, more because he didn’t want to focus on the

large metropolitan areas. ‘‘He wanted to see how elections in small cities worked,’’

Naifeh said later. ‘‘Having learned about Oklahoma from the Oklahoma City bombing and the recent tornadoes and his knowledge of the Five Civilized Tribes, that’s

why he wanted to come here,’’ she said. Besides, Westfeldt said, Gonzalez has a

wide range of experience in political, legal and academic positions and he wanted

to learn how election integrity is maintained. ‘‘He’s also interested in the role of legislative staffs at the state level as well as the federal level and political campaigning,’’ Westfeldt said.

In Peru, the political engine has less regulation than it does in the U.S., said

Fisher, who was present not merely to greet the visitors and offer his insights on

the Oklahoma political machine, but because he also chairs the Economic Development Committee and he’s a member of the Tulsa Global Alliance. ‘‘It’s good to know

your neighbors,’’ Fisher said. ‘‘When you know them, understanding creates a bond,

and a bond trust. And from that trust, peoples of the world can learn to live and

work in harmony.’’

82

To: Sherry L. Mueller

From: Patricia Gehri <ICCF.FL@worldnet.att.net>

Subject: re congress

The International Visitors Program benefits not only the International Visitors by

learning about our nation first hand, but it benefits our own citizens through cultural exchanges. One example, would be Belarus, here to follow the primary elections in the Central Florida Area. These 10 visitors are the opposition party to a

very dictatorial government. A panel was initiated which consisted of local government elected officials: this consisted of Mayors, Vice Mayors, Commissioners and

news media. They had many questions to ask on our form of government and how

our elected official ran a campaign.

One Commissioner stated to the press that this was a humbling experience. Here

Belarus was fighting to vote and have a free election and we had to answer that

perhaps 19% to 22% would come out and vote for a local election. The exchanges

that occur among our visitors, whether in schools, or a waste dump always brings

about a positive understanding on both sides. The Intern programs and college credit program has enable this Council to open up the world to our student Interns. The

more that our students and the community learn about our international visitors

brings a strengthening respect for each other. There is no way to equate what one

and one conversations means to our country, but we do feel by these International

Visitors having the opportunity to ask questions and have our citizens answer them

honestly brings about a mutual respect on both sides. Planting seeds of friendship

and understanding is a lot cheaper than a peace keeping mission.

Thanks, Patricia.

To: Sherry Mueller

From: Karen Turner <KTurner@IVCCinti.Org>

Subject: September 14th Hearing

Sherry,

Listed below are some quotes from a tri-fold publication we use that may be helpful:

Dr. George Vredeveld, University of Cincinnati Center for Economic Education:

‘‘IVC plays an important role in enhancing global understanding. Visitors learn from

local hosts and these hosts learn from visitors. Importantly, our community learns

more about itself through the opportunity that the IVC makes available to us.’’

David B. Lee, Marketing Director, F&W Publications, Inc.: ‘‘What a wonderful

program for Cincinnati. In todays increasingly global world and economy, we need

to understand and relate to other cultures. . . .’’

10th Grade Student, Lakota High School: ‘‘Dear International Visitors Council,

Thank you for sending our class newspapers. Since we are learning about diversity,

it was fun to read about it in a newspaper for a change. I normally don’t get a

chance to read the paper. From getting to read these papers, I feel more in touch

with the world.’’

Joe Mass, president of JTM Food Group: ‘‘I am grateful the International Visitors

Council gives me the opportunity to exchange viewpoints with other cultures. I am

glad to have the opportunity to help, in some small way, to get Russia on its feet.

The stability of our global economy impacts my business directly. IVC does a great

job helping our foreign visitors gain useful knowledge in growing their businesses.’’

From an International Visitor: ‘‘This IVC Program taught me that Americans are

anxious to share their knowledge and experience. . . and that they’re willing to learn

from us to.’’

To: Sherry L. Mueller

From: Diane Elton <delton@ucrac1 .ucr.edu>

Subject: Comments for Hearing

My Personal Gratitude for a Lifetime Civic Gift.

Having studied abroad for the academic year 1969-70, I was thrilled to realize a

dream of finally visiting Washington, D.C. after having seen the capitals of so many

other nations. The IYP and Riverside’s local affiliate, The International Relations

Council, permitted this onetime 26-year old to visit her nation’s capital as a citizen

diplomat. With that 1975 COSERV/NCIV conference, I felt the palpable difference

83

of freedom and access available to me as a U.S. citizen from what I had felt as a

young visitor, for example to the former Soviet Union. Indeed over these decades,

I relish my exchanges with colleagues who also express their gratitude to the IVP

for permitting them to ‘‘feel’’ the connectedness between what we offer in service to

international understanding and foreign policy in our home towns and the national

perspective in Washington, D.C. I truly do not know of a more effective means of

linking the legislative and executive profiles of this country in the minds and hearts

of individual citizens than the International Visitor Program.

IMPACT SPOTS

(1) Volunteers worry how a former delegate of a GrassRoots Democracy (Phelps

Stokes) group is doing with his NGO promoting community justice . . . in Colombia.

Volunteers reassured a couple of years later during a local visit by the U.S. Ambassador to Colombia that all is well.

The Department of State needs to be able to continue to provide this full domestic

array of expression of our foreign policy. The nature of world affairs requires multiple and reinforcing experiences for an informed citizenry who will better engage

the International Visitor.

(2) A stunning model of healthful living, the Executive Director of New Zealand

Nutrition Foundation extols a class of attenuates at one of the most ethnically diverse high schools to pay attention to their nutrition. According to the coach, the

athletes really did exhibit, at least for a month, different eating patterns. Beyond

the improved performance in sport the visitor promised, the students commented

that was the first personal interaction they had had with someone from New Zealand and inquired how she got all the way to Riverside, California.

So developed the opportunity to educate some emerging voters of America on the

impact and value of volunteering and how the government develops foreign policy.

Besides, we all like to think that the team won that day’s tough Homecoming game

with the extra IVP boost.

(3) Quick! A What do you know about Djibouti? message raced through the volunteer ranks as Riversiders prepared to receive the first visitor from this new country.

Nothing in print from ordinary sources, save the masterful briefing prepared by the

Post.

This IVP provided the extremely important message about the fast-changing, contemporary political world. Our volunteers felt compelled to campaign for more foreign news in local press and an expansion of resources in the local library.

(4) Unexpected Memorable Spirituality. Completing a visit on governance with the

Tribal Council of the San Manual Band of Mission Indians, the Mayor of Santiago

del Estero, Argentina, asked for the closing moment. With eloquence equal to the

native tongue of the Band, the Mayor (not a native speaker) recited in the language

of the indigenous tribe of his city a beautiful ‘‘poem’’ which turned out to be the

Lord’s prayer. Silence and emotion crossed cultures.

Many aspects of the IVP can not be measured. Testimonials must be given equal

or higher value than mere quantitative reports.

To: Sherry L. Mueller

From: Albuquerque C. International-Visitors

Subject: ACIV Inputs for Sept. 14 Hearing

Dear Sherry, thank you for requesting our input for your hearing. Here are our

ideas:

ACIV is an all volunteer organization which hosts approximately 300 visitors annually. We believe that peace in the world happens when people know and trust

one another.

Our volunteers meet and escort visitors throughout Albuquerque and New Mexico,

and home hospitality often provides international visitors their first exposure to an

American home.

Our ‘‘citizen diplomats’’ are very motivated by the very positive interactions and

feedback we receive from our visitors.

For example: A recent visitor from Hong Kong stated: ‘‘The opportunity to got to

ordinary people’s home gave me a better understanding of the American Society.’’

A visitor from Vietnam said: ‘‘A visit to Isleta Pueblo completely changed my understanding of the Native American.’’

Sherry, best of luck. Could you please send us a copy of your final testimony?

BILL YARNALL.

84

To: Sherry L. Mueller

From: Maria Wrigley, Director, UCLA International Visitors Bureau

Subject: Importance of the International Visitors Program

Dear Sherry: In response to your request in support of the International Visitor

Program, I would like to submit following statement.

The UCLA International Visitors Bureau has actively supported the International

Visitor Program since 1967 and has served as a liaison between UCLA administrators/faculty and international academic and professional leaders. The staff and volunteer ‘‘citizen diplomats’’ have provided appropriate contacts between hundreds of

international visitors and the UCLA community which have developed into, mutually beneficially, intellectual exchanges and strategic alliances.

The UCLA curriculum, research, and cultural programs encompass a broad spectrum of instruction and inquiry with respect to the nations, peoples and languages

of the world. The University is a magnet to visiting scholars who wish to engage

in the exchange of knowledge around the globe.

It is of vital importance to foster these international exchange programs which

play a major role in enhancing international understanding among citizens of the

world.

We urge the support of this people-to-people International Visitor Program.

We wish you a very successful presentation to a cause, which we, at the UCLA

International Visitors Bureau, strongly support—to foster international understanding.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES,

INTERNATIONAL VISITORS CENTER,

Los Angeles, CA, Semptember 9, 2000.

SHERRY MUELLER, Ph.D.,

National Council for International Visitors,

1420 K Street, NW, Suite 800,

Washington, DC.

DEAR SHERRY:

I have been a volunteer in the UCLA International Visitors Bureau for several

years. Meeting many international visitors sponsored by the State Department has

been a most rewarding and enriching experience. As a volunteer ‘‘citizen diplomat’’

I provide support to the staff members of the UCLA International Visitors Bureau

and have established personal friendships with visitors from around the globe.

I strongly recommend the support of the international exchange programs in our

national interest.

Sincerely,

ANNETTE LEHMANN.

SPRINGFIELD COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL VISITORS,

109 NORTH SEVENTH,

Springfield, IL, September 13, 2000.

Re: Statement of support for the International Visitors Program

The City of Springfield created the Springfield Commission on International Visitors in 1962. For 38 years volunteers have enthusiastically contributed their time,

local and state leaders have been actively involved in the programming, and thousands of internationals have benefited from their visits to Springfield. The fact that

this city has sustained this program with financial support and staffing for almost

40 years says more than anything else does about its importance and value to our

community.

KAREN HASARA, Mayor.

85

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF INTENSIVE ENGLISH

PROGRAMS (AAIEP)

Mr. Chairman:

We deeply appreciate this opportunity to encourage our government to support

the President’s April 19, 2000 Memorandum on International Education Policy, in

which he stated ‘‘We are committed to . . . encouraging students from other countries to study in the United States.’’ The biggest single discouragement to such student mobility is the existence of outdated regulations which lead to inappropriate

and expensive visa-processing at U.S. consular posts, and an unnecessary enforcement burden on the already overburdened U.S. immigration system.

Our organization represents the intensive English program sector of higher education. Over 300,000 international visitors come to the United States every year to

learn English and to experience American life. These visitors represent a significant

part of the U.S. export economy, spending over $2 billion annually. Their visits to

the U.S. and enrollments in intensive English programs (hereafter IEP) are fully financed from their own or other funds from abroad. These nonimmigrant visitors

should not be confused with non English-speaking residents of the U.S. or immigrants whose English instruction is publicly funded. These visitors bring far more

financial benefit to the communities in which they stay than merely paying tuition

to intensive English programs. They stay with families or in extended-stay lodging,

they rent or buy cars, they visit local tourist attractions.

Other English-speaking countries (principally Australia, Canada and the United

Kingdom) compete aggressively for this IEP market. They already enjoy a significant advantage in this competition over the U.S. in having very active government

support for their industry along with less stringent entry requirements for this lowrisk group.

In addition to the enormous financial benefits these 300,000 international visitors

bring to the communities in which they stay, they represent a very significant foreign policy asset when they return home. They are exceptionally well placed by educational and family background (as well as by their English training) to achieve positions in the leadership elite of their countries. They remember their time in our

country with affection and respect. This translates into a web of invaluable connections for the U.S. around the world.

This is a young industry: most U.S. intensive English programs were established

in the 1970’s and 1980’s. It has grown as mass tourism, globalization, open markets,

and the pervasive influence of the United States have grown. Knowledge of the

English language is now recognized as prerequisite to success in the global economy.

The United States is alone among English-speaking countries in treating shortterm English-language program participants as equivalent to long-term students,

requiring student visas, rather than as tourists. This requirement unnecessarily and

very significantly increases costs at overseas U.S. consular posts, and leads to large

numbers of potential visitors choosing Australia, Canada, or the United Kingdom

for their short study-visit, rather than the United States. This increase in government-costs, and decrease in export-income, comes with no improvement in the integrity of the U.S. immigration system.

We urge your attention to the removal of outdated and unnecessary obstacles to

international student mobility.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FULBRIGHT ASSOCIATION

The Fulbright Association is a private, nonprofit membership association of more

than 6,000 Fulbright alumni. The Fulbright Association supports and promotes the

Fulbright Program and works to strengthen the national and global networks of

Fulbright alumni. The Association facilitates relationships among, and the public

service of, former Fulbright grantees. The Association’s 37 chapters across the country provide hospitality and enrichment activities for foreign Fulbright students,

scholars, and teachers during their stay in the Unied States

International educational and cultural exchange initiatives like the Fulbright Program bring considerable and tangible benefits to the U.S. national interest. These

people-to-people exchanges benefit the economy, strengthen the educational system,

and enrich not only the lives of the exchange participants, but the communities and

institutions in which they reside and work.

86

Since its establishment by Congress in 1946, the Fulbright Program has provided

grants to over 200,000 individuals. These Fulbright exchanges between U.S. students, teachers, and scholars and their counterparts in approximately 140 other

countries result in significant benefits to U.S. communities. The Fulbright Program

helps to strengthen relationships among individuals and institutions across borders,

promoting a more stable and peaceful world. Fulbright exchanges develop critical

foreign language, cross-cultural and area studies skills needed among U.S. citizens

to meet the challenges of a new century. Through its merit-based, open, selection

processes and its bilateral decision-making, the Fulbright Program provides extraordinary opportunities for sharing knowledge and for promoting democratic values.

Core funding from the U.S. government supports the global Fulbright Program

and helps to leverage cost-sharing from a significant number of foreign governments

and from private sources. In order to secure the foundation of Fulbright exchanges

worldwide and to maximize opportunities to leverage other resources, restoration of

adequate U.S. funding is essential. Cuts in funding since 1996 have diminished U.S.

capacity to identify and develop U.S. leaders with critical international perspectives

and foreign leaders with informed perceptions of U.S. goals. The Fulbnght Program—whose acceptance here and abroad is a national asset—furthers long-term

U.S. interests in an increasingly complex international geopolitical world and must

be funded accordingly.

The Fulbright Association advocates increased support for the Fulbright Program

and other international educational and cultural exchanges. A renewed commitment

to international exchanges would indicate recognition of the broad and vital role exchanges play in strengthening the U.S. national interest both at home and abroad.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. ALLAN E. GOODMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee.

Thank you for affording me this opportunity to submit this statement for the

record on a topic that is so important to America’s future. Increasing international

educational exchange is the best investment we can make to assure a more peaceful

world and one in which America has friends. By focusing attention on this issue,

the Subcommittee is helping to promote a national, bipartisan consensus on an issue

of critical import for the 21st Century.

For the past two years, I have been the President and Chief Executive Officer of

the Institute of International Education (IIE). Prior to that I spent nearly 20 years

as a dean at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service and director of

graduate programs there. I have also served in government. In both worlds, my

focus has been on preparing people to live and work in the ever more interconnected

global economy in which we now live.

The Institute of International Education is the world leader in the exchange of

people and ideas. The Institute was founded at the end of World War I by two winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, Elihu Root and Nicholas Murray Butler, and a renowned professor of diplomatic history, Stephen P. Duggan. They founded the Institute on the premise that educational exchange would foster an understanding of

other peoples and cultures and, in the long run, make the world a less dangerous

place.

We at IIE design and administer a range of programs which foster international

educational exchange. We do this for governmental agencies, corporations and foundations. IIE has administered the Fulbright Educational Exchange Program on behalf of the U.S. Department of State since its inception. IIE proposed and then lobbied for the creation of the non-immigrant student visa in 1921, and is today the

leading source of information on student mobility and study abroad opportunities

for students, scholars and college foreign student advisors. In November, during

International Education Week, we will be issuing the results of the 51st annual census of international educational exchange trends, known in the trade as Open Doors.

For half a century, the United States has been the destination of choice for those

studying abroad. We are still the world leader, but the percentage of those studying

here has declined from over 40% to 30% in the past ten years. The implications of

a continued erosion of this market share are ominous. It will adversely affect our

economic security, our colleges and our future.

Nearly 500,000 foreign students study in the United States each year. The Department of Commerce considers this an export of services valued at $13 billion dollars annually. Other countries have for years been seeking to encroach on the

Unites States’ market share for foreign study. For purely economic reasons, the U.S.

87

should protect this. For policy reasons, we should seek to have the largest possible

number of students from abroad experience life in our country and come to understand our democratic institutions and our economic system.

Foreign students coming to the United States are important to America’s future.

Studying here gives them an opportunity to observe and to live in an open democratic system of government, experiencing all the freedoms we take for granted.

They perfect their English language skills and learn about the economic potential

of our country as a trading partner. Upon their return to their country of origin,

they take with them an appreciation of democracy that is sure to influence their

relationship with their own government. Their perspectives are informed by their

personal experience of American values and the American way of life. As they mature professionally, they will be more inclined to turn to the States as a supplier

of products with which they have some familiarity. Those who enter the diplomatic

corps or other government service will view the U.S. with an understanding and appreciation that can only come from having lived here.

On June 18 of last year, British Prime Minister Tony Blair launched a campaign

to increase the number of international students in the U.K. by 75,000. His stated

goal is ‘‘to have 25 percent of the global market share of higher education students’’ studying in the U.K. In pursuing that, his government has funded a $7.78 million

marketing campaign to develop the U.K. educational brand. In launching the campaign, Blair noted the long term mutual benefits:

People who are educated here have a lasting tie to our country. They promote Britain around the world, helping our trade and our diplomacy. It is

easier for our executives and our diplomats to do business with people familiar with Britain.

Similar initiatives have been announced in recent months by the governments of

France, Germany and Australia. These countries recognize the dividends that accrue from opening educational doors. Their academic leaders truly believe in the importance of intercultural learning.

Our colleges and universities need the intellectual stimulation that foreign students provide, especially at the undergraduate level. About four percent of students

enrolled in American higher education are non-U.S. citizens. As a former professor,

I know that having foreign students in class changes not only how one teaches, but

also what students learn. With so few Americans studying abroad, increasing the

number of foreign students here offers an opportunity for U.S. students to learn

from, and work together with, someone from another culture.

For students from the U.S., an opportunity to study abroad, to learn other languages and other cultures, is essential preparation for senior management positions

in global corporations. Today only about 115,000, less than one percent of American

college students study abroad, however, and very few speak a second language fluently. We can and should do better. Indeed we must, if our corporations are to retain their competitive strength in this world economy.

With the advent of a new century and an unprecedented period of globalization,

the United States needs a policy to actively promote international educational exchange.

We have very few tools and not enough resources to assure America’s prominence

in the international educational field. President Clinton took an initial step in this

direction with the issuance of a memorandum to the Secretaries of State and of

Education, directing them to work toward that end. Secretary of Education Richard

Riley has addressed the elements of such a policy. Recently, the President declared

the week of November 13 to 17 to be International Education Week. Congressman

Ben Gilman, Chairman of the Committee on International Relations of the House

of Representatives introduced legislation (The International Academic Opportunity

Act of 2000, H.R. 4528) which, if enacted, would provide scholarship assistance to

students with demonstrable financial need to assure them the opportunity to benefit

from an international educational exchange opportunity. The Gilman Scholarships

would be limited to U.S. citizen students receiving Pell Grant assistance. These are

all welcome steps.

The Administration’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year, includes $225 million for international educational exchanges such as the Fulbright Program. Public

opinion polling in many developing countries tells us that the United States is perceived by many as the greatest threat to world peace today. The amount requested

for educational exchange is woefully inadequate to support the single best means

we have to rebut that sentiment.

The budget also provides $3.1 million for overseas advising centers serving as the

gateways for foreign students seeking to study in the United States. This compares

to the investment of more than twice that by the U.K. to entice international stuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:08 Feb 07, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 69748 SFRELA2 PsN: SFRELA2
88

dents to study there, and more by the other countries seeking a share of that market.

We need champions in Congress to support educational exchange and to defend

the government’s strategic role in encouraging it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking the leadership to highlight a topic of significance for our country as we enter the 21st Century, a century where not only what

people learn, but where they learn it could make the difference between war and

peace.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT B. KAPLAN, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF APPLIED

LINGUISTICS (FORMERLY, DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA)

Please accept the following contribution to the hearing record on the benefits of

International Education Programs.

Knowledge depends critically on the free flow of information, and the free flow of

information, in turn, depends on the ability of persons to move internationally for

educational purposes.

Over the past forty years, I have engaged actively in international education and

therefore I take the liberty of speaking from the perspective of a private citizen and

an expert. International educational activity has taken me to more than 30 countries, has enabled me to ‘‘profess’’ at academic institutions in all those countries, and

has further provided the opportunity to meet professional colleagues not only from

the more than 30 countries indicated but from a much broader base. On the other

hand, I have had the opportunity to teach literally thousands of international students studying in the United States.

It is shocking that the United States has carelessly wasted the resources of the

huge multilingualism of its own population and has failed to recognize the enormous

foreign policy assets represented by International Education Programs. At the almost trivial level, international students represent a significant ‘‘export’’ income.

Quite aside from that, International Education not only brings talented individuals

to the United States to study, but it permits U.S. citizens to travel to, and study

in, other countries, in other cultures, among other ethnicities, and thus to learn

other languages. The monolingualism of a significant part of the U.S. population is

equally shocking. But the NAFSA statement on International Education is no doubt

already a part of the hearing record, and there should be no need to rehearse its

contents here.

It is critical that the federal government take cognizance of the assets it has

frittered away. The Congress, on the contrary, has enacted legislation the effect of

which is to impose greater and greater barriers to the free movement of scholars

and the free flow of information. The enactment of such legislation is based, at least

in part, on a fear of the infiltration of ‘‘terrorists’’ into the U.S. society, but the number of terrorists among international students (a trivial figure) is far exceeded by

the number of terrorists who are U.S. citizens. The Congress and the federal agencies have imposed fees that guarantee the arrival in the United States of only some

minor segment of the elite rather than the rank and file of the best and brightest.

This letter is a heartfelt plea for rationality on the part of the Congress. There

is, now more than ever before, a need for a national policy on International Education—a policy that will allocate resources to the uninhibited movement of intellectual talent into and out of this country, a policy that will facilitate the movement

of intellectual talent rather than inhibit it, a policy that will not only remove political obstacles but that will take a rational approach to the financial support of reasonable costs to support such movement rather than putting the full burden on the

backs of those least able to pay (it is a readily observable fact that the denser the

bureaucracy the greater the cost of supporting it), a policy that will recognize the

huge asset represented by multilingualism in the U.S. population and will simultaneously support an increase in multilingualism by encouraging the learning of languages other than English, a policy that will, once and for all, put an end to the

illogicality of declaring English the official language of the United States, which, if

enacted, will cost far more than the support of language learning and international

exchange and which will constitute an absurdity akin to designating crab grass an

endangered species.

It is surely not too much to expect farsightedness and intelligence on the part of

the country’s leadership. It is not too much to expect the Congress to act in the best

interests of the nation rather than in the best interests of any political party, any

89

special pleading, any vestiges of isolationism drawing the nation into the past instead of moving it into the future.

In 1990, the Native American Languages Act was enacted. The Senate is now considering an amendment to that Act (S. 2688) to establish Native American language

‘‘survival’’ schools. This is a major step in the right direction. To preserve and augment the linguistic diversity of the United States, why can’t the Congress consider

similar legislation for all ethnic minority languages? And then it is only a small further step to act to insure language learning among English monolinguals. Such linguistic foresight will strengthen the nation, minimize intercultural misunderstanding, and assure that international educational exchanges will profit those who

participate.

There is nothing to lose, and everything to gain. I respectfully urge the Congress

to enact, in the present session, a National International Education Policy designed

to remove obstacles and enhance opportunity for all citizens.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANA BRESEE KEETH, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL

SCHOLARS OFFICE, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

We would like to contribute the following statement for the hearing record on the

benefits of international education programs. This is in connection with the senate

hearings on international education that were held on September 14.

Speaking for the International Scholars Office at the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, we strongly support an international education policy for the United

States. MIT is committed to the exchange of foreign students and scholars, and to

sending U.S. students and faculty members abroad for educational experiences. Out

of a total body of 9,845 students, 2,255 are from overseas studying toward undergraduate and graduate degrees. In the course of a given year, nearly 1,400 scholars

from overseas are teaching in their fields of specialization and/or undertaking

ground breaking research in many technological fields here on campus.

We are very encouraged by President Clinton’s April 19 memorandum calling for

an international education policy, and are most eager to see such a policy put into

practice. An international education policy highlights the importance to the U.S. of

foreign student and scholar exchanges. It acknowledges the interdependence of the

world and the growing importance of international educational exchanges, cross-cultural understanding and collaborative research. Such a policy sends a positive message of welcome to overseas students and scholars contemplating study in the U.S.,

and to those providing funds for their support. It can simultaneously promote foreign language study in the United States and encourage U.S. students and scholars

to seek more cultural and educational opportunities overseas. It can also provide incentive to U.S. colleges and universities to initiate, promote and expand international programs and activities.

Implementing an international education policy would go a long way toward resolving a national ambivalence about the value of foreign nationals. A united sense

of purpose and an agreed upon set of goals would inform everything from educational programs and opportunities to immigration regulations. It would help to

dispel the erroneous image created in recent years that foreign students are synonymous with terrorist acts. It would correct the longstanding misconception that the

number of highly skilled and talented foreign scholars coming to share their knowledge and expertise in colleges and universities needs to be restricted each year due

to labor market concerns. Immigration regulations, initiatives and procedures could

be made to coincide with the national vision and fit into a more integrated whole.

We are grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this very important dialog.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WORLD LEARNING

When 23 young students embarked from New York harbor for France in June

1932, the ‘‘Experiment in International Living’’ was born. Founder Donald Watt believed that fostering deep connections between individuals by living and learning together would transcend borders and create understanding between cultures, and ultimately, peace. Nearly seven decades later in this age of globalization, his vision

is more relevant than ever as individuals are increasingly important players in

international relations.

World Learning, one of the nation’s oldest and largest non-profit exchange organizations, based in Brattleboro, Vermont, continues to run Experiment programs. This

summer over 900 high school students from 40 U.S. states were immersed in the

90

cultures of 24 countries around the world. In addition to the broader goals of mutual

understanding and intercultural learning, such programs very personally change

lives. Several current U.S. ambassadors and two members of the 106th Congress,

for example, first gained an interest in foreign affairs as youth on Experiment programs.

World Learning and its accredited School for International Training (SIT) now administer a wide range of international exchange programs, including college study

abroad and professional skills training. While the majority of World Learning’s programs—and exchange opportunities in general—are privately funded, World Learning believes that federal public policy plays a critical role in the promotion of international exchange. The government articulates the national interest rationale for

international exchange and federally-sponsored programs leverage significant private resources. Therefore, World Learning is pleased to endorse President’s Clinton

April 2000 International Education Policy and calls on the Committee to support bipartisan legislation that would help to realize the goals set out in the policy.

SIT Study Abroad offers 56 semester-length programs in 42 countries with a special emphasis on non-traditional locations; it is the largest sender of students to Africa and Asia. Programs have substantive themes such as community development

and peace and conflict studies. SiT also has pioneered efforts to diversify the study

abroad population, including providing scholarships to science students from Historically Black Colleges and Universities. World Learning urges the Committee to

offer a companion bill to Chairman Ben Gilman’s legislation, H.R. 4528, to establish

a grant program so that students of limited financial means gain the opportunity to

study abroad.

In this short statement, we would like to highlight two English Language Programs, small but important activities administered by World Learning’s School for

International Training for the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The English Teaching Fellow Program sends some 40 teachers with

Master’s degrees in English as a Second Language around the world to increase the

American presence, enhance American cultural training, and improve academic

standards in the teaching of English. A participant in Cambodia recently wrote that

‘‘The presence of an English Teaching Fellow has significantly improved English

language teaching at my host institution, the Royal University of Phnom Penh.’’

The EFL Fellow Program sends seasoned American language professionals to

serve in the Independent States of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

The primary objective of the program is to promote the teaching and learning of

English as a vehicle to foster and develop democracy. A recent fellow increased understanding of legal English in Romania by working with judges in four regions of

the country. World Learning has found that these programs have high impact with

limited investment and have demonstrated measurable success in meeting their objectives. World Learning appreciates the continued support of the Committee for the

English Language Programs.

Finally, World Learning would like to thank the Foreign Relations Committee for

its continued oversight as the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs moves to

open to fair and transparent competition the large exchange program grants—some

for the first time in 50 years. Expanding the pool of partners will help ensure that

federally-sponsored exchange programs are of the highest quality and conducted in

the most costeffective manner possible.

Æ