[Senate Hearing 106-878]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
69-748 CC WASHINGTON : 2001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri BARBARA BOXER, California
BILL FRIST, Tennessee ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Stephen E. Biegun, Staff Director
Edwin K. Hall, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota, Chairman
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina BARBARA BOXER, California
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
BILL FRIST, Tennessee RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
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)
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.
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 voluntary 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 in-boxes 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 establish 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See page 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 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 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.
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
popular-vote, 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 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 cross-walking 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. 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 integration 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 programs, 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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of No. of
No. of Average mentions in mentions in
Users Rating 5 MOST 5 LEAST
Useful 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of Average
Users 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
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.
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 low-ranked 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
low-ranked 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
well-founded 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 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
full-time.
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 challenge 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?
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.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other
Program/Activity National Democracy/ Economic Law Mutual National
Security Human Rights Prosperity Enforcement Understanding 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.
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 journalists. 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 mini-internships.
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 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. 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.
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 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 non-partisan, 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 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
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 know-how 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 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 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.
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 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:]
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, 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.
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.
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 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 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.
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 mid-career
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 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.
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 duplicate 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
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 opportunities 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 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.
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.
Oftentimes--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.
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 aggressively 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 NAFSA-Alliance 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 financially-disadvantaged 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.
______
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 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 universities. 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 experience 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 cross-culturally competent is central to
U.S. security and economic interests in the twenty-first century and,
accordingly, should promote the experiencing of the world first-hand 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.
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;
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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
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.
(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.
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 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.
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. colleagues. 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.
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 education
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 ceaseless 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.
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
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 cost-effective 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,
cost-effective 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.
--------------
\1\ The Chronicle of Higher Education, Dec. 6, 1996.
\2\ Open Doors, 1995-96.
\3\ Open Doors, 1996-97.
\4\ The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 29, 1998.
\5\ The Straits Times, April 27, 1998.
\6\ Open Doors, 1995-96.
\7\ Asian Wall Street Journal, October 20, 1997.
\8\ Open Doors, 1995-96, p. 12.
\9\ Meeting Notes, IIE Tenth Biennial Educational Associates
Seminar on International Education, 1998.
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 Educational Testing Service
Development
Mr. Frank Alejandro Program Officer U.S. Agency for International
Development
Mr. Gary Althen Director, Office of International University of Iowa
Students and Scholars
Ms Mary Ashley Chief, Advising, Teaching and U.S. Information Agency
Specialized Programs
Ms. Mariam Assefa Executive Director World Education Services, Inc.
Ms. Ellen Babby Senior Director for Planning and NAFSA: Association of International
Development Educators
Mr. Roger Batchelor .................................... Bowling Green State University
Ms. Valerie A. Becker National Education Program Chrysler Corporation
Administrator
Mr. Peter Becskehazy Chief, Advising and Student Services U.S. Information Agency
Dr. Jacquelyn Belcher President DeKaIb College
Ms. Becca Bell Deputy Division Director, NIS IREX
Exchanges
Mr. Victor Betancourt Coordinator, International Services University of Maryland University
College
Dr. Peggy Blumenthal Vice President for Educational Institute of International Education
Studies
Mr. Michael Bonner Director, Center for Middle Eastern University of Michigan
and North African Studies
Ms. Jennifer Bremer Director Kennan Institute
Dr. Barbara Burn Associate Provost for International University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Programs
Ms. Achamma Chanderseekaran Office of Service Industries U.S. Department of Commerce
Ms. Audree Chase Coordinator of International American Association of Community
Services 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 World Learning
Learning
Ms. Marianne Craven Deputy Director, Office of Academic U.S. Information Agency
Programs
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 Institute of International Education
Program
Dr. Dan E. Davidson President American Councils for International
Education
Mr. Paul Desruisseaux International Affairs Editor The 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
Ms. Jeanne-Marie Duval Associate Executive Director NAFSA: Association of International
Educators
Mr. Stephen Eck Director of Graduate Admissions New 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 City College of New York
Programs
Ms. Patricia Fesci Consultant, Academic Leadership and American Association of State
Change Colleges and Universities
Ms. Jeannette File-Lamb Executive Director Educational Testing Service
Ms. Lenore Yaffee Garcia Director, International Affairs U.S. Department of Education
Mr. Keith Geiger Director, Office of Academic U.S. Information Agency
Programs
Dr. Allan E. Goodman President Institute of International Education
Mr. Dale E. Gough Director, Office of International American Association of Collegiate
Education Services Registrars and Admissions Officers
Ms. Madeleine F. Green Vice President American Council on Education
Ms. Virginia Hammell Assistant Director, Federal National Association of State
Relations Universities and Land Grant
Colleges (NASULGC)
Ms. Linda Harbaugh .................................... U.S. Department of Commerce
Mr. Fred Hecklinger Dean of Student Development Northern Virginia Community College,
Alexandria Campus
Mr. Stephen Heyneman Vice President International Management and
Development Group, Ltd.
Mr. Ralph Hines Director, International Education U.S. Department of Education
and Graduate Programs
Ms. Gail Hochhauser Senior Director, Special Programs NAFSA: Association of International
Division Educators
Mr. John K. Hudzik Professor and Dean of International Michigan State University
Studies and Programs
Mr. James P. Hurley Director of International Education Pikes Peak Community College
Ms. Arlene Jackson Director, Center for International Virginia Commonwealth University
Programs
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
Dr. Marjorie Peace Lenn Executive Director Center for Quality Assurance in
International Education
Mr. Charles Lenth Director of Policy Studies, Higher Education Commission of the States
Education
Ms. Beverly Lindsey Director, J. William Fulbright U.S. Information Agency
Scholarship Board
Ms. Martha Loerke Director, Network Scholarship Open Society Institute
Program
Dr. John P. Loiello Associate Director for Educational U.S. Information Agency
and Cultural Affairs
Mr. David Longanecker Assistant Secretary for U.S. Department of Education
Postsecondary Education
Mr. James F. Lynch, Jr. Director, International Students and Pennsylvania State University
Scholars
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 U.S. Information Agency
and NIS Affairs
Ms. Mada McGill Assistant to the Deputy Director Council for the International
Exchange of Scholars
Mr. David McNierney Office of Service Industries U.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, Marketing Educational Testing Service
Mr. Hoyt Purvis Chairman, J. William Fulbright University of Arkansas
Foreign Scholarship Board
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
Mr. William Rugh Ambassador America-Mideast Educational and
Training Services, Inc. (AMIDEAST)
Mr. McKinney H. Russell Senior Coordinator of Academic and International Research and Exchanges
Training Programs Board (IREX)
Dr. Ted Sanders President Southern Illinois University
Ms. Linda Scatton Director, International Activities Educational 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 Prince George's Community College
Minority Affairs and Affirmative
Action Programs
Dr. Judith Siegel Deputy Associate Director for U.S. Information Agency
Educational and Cultural Affairs
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 The American University
for International Affairs
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 Howard University
Sciences
Mr. Peter C. Thorp Vice President Citibank
Mr. Stephen J. Trachtenberg President George Washington University
Dr. Barbara Turlington Director, Office of International American Council on Education
Education
Mr. Jay Van Den Berg Vice President, Administration Whirlpool 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 University of Pittsburgh
for International Studies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________
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 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 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal Dollars\1\ Constant
Fiscal Year Grant Visitors Dollars\2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Services Council of Huntsville AL
Huntsville-Madison County.
Arkansas Council for International Little Rock AR
Visitors.
World Affairs Council of Arizona..... Scottsdale AZ
Tucson Council for International Tucson AZ
Visitors.
University of California, Davis-- Davis CA
International Agricultural Visitors
Program.
International Visitors Council of Los Los Angeles CA
Angeles.
UCLA International Visitors Bureau... Los Angeles CA
International Relations Council of Riverside CA
Riverside.
Sacramento Council for International Sacramento CA
Visitors.
International Visitors Council of San San Diego CA
Diego.
International Diplomacy Council...... San Francisco CA
Silicon Valley Forum International San Jose CA
Visitor Program.
International Visitors and Protocol Santa Ana CA
Foundation of Orange County.
Stanford University, Office for Stanford CA
International Visitors.
Boulder Council for International Boulder CO
Visitors.
Colorado Springs Committee for Colorado Springs CO
International Visitors.
Institute of International Education-- Denver CO
Rocky Mountain Regional Center.
International Center of New Haven.... New Haven CT
World Affairs Council, Hartford, CT.. West Hartford CT
International Hospitality Committee Westport CT
of Fairfield County, CT.
Delaware Council for International Greenville DE
Visitors (DELCIV).
International Resource Center of Jacksonville FL
Jacksonville.
International Council of Central Longwood FL
Florida, Inc..
Florida Space Coast Council for Melbourne FL
International Visitors.
Miami Council for International Miami FL
Visitors.
Georgia Council for International Atlanta GA
Visitors.
Pacific & Asian Affairs Council...... Honolulu HI
Iowa Council for International Des Moines IA
Understanding.
Council for International Visitors to Iowa City IA
Iowa Cities (CIVIC).
International Visitors Center of Chicago IL
Chicago.
Freeport Area International Visitors Freeport IL
Council.
Geneseo International Thanksgiving Geneseo IL
Fellowship Program.
Paris International Thanksgiving Paris IL
Fellowship.
Springfield Commission on Springfield IL
International Visitors.
Rock River Valley International Sterling IL
Fellowship.
International Center of Indianapolis. Indianapolis IN
Louisville International Cultural Louisville KY
Center (LICC).
Council for International Visitors of New Orleans LA
Greater New Orleans.
WorldBoston.......................... Boston MA
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA
Harvard University Marshal's Office.. Cambridge MA
World Affairs Council of Western Springfield MA
Massachusetts, Inc..
International Center of Worcester.... Worcester MA
World Trade Center Institute......... Baltimore MD
World Council of Maine............... Portland ME
University of Michigan International Ann Arbor MI
Center.
International Visitors Council of Detroit MI
Metropolitan Detroit.
International Visitor Committee of East Lansing MI
Mid-Michigan.
Minnesota International Center....... Minneapolis MN
International Visitors Council of Kansas City MO
Greater Kansas City.
The World Affairs Council of St. St. Louis MO
Louis.
The International Visitors Center of Jackson MS
Jackson.
Montana Center for International Bozeman MT
Visitors.
Charlotte's Council for International Charlotte NC
Visitors.
Piedmont Triad Council for Greensboro NC
International Visitors.
Research Triangle International Research Triangle NC
Visitors Council. Pk
Minot Area Council for International Minot ND
Visitors.
Grand Island Council for Grand Island NE
International Visitors.
Mayor's Committee for International Lincoln NE
Friendship.
Kiwanis Club of Omaha, Inc........... Omaha NE
New Hampshire Council on World Durham NH
Affairs.
Albuquerque Council for Albuquerque NM
International Visitors.
Santa Fe Council on International Santa Fe NM
Relations.
International Visitors Council of Reno NV
Northern Nevada.
International Center of the Capital Albany NY
Region.
Buffalo-Niagara Region Council for Buffalo NY
International Visitors, Inc..
Rochester International Friendship Rochester NY
Council.
International Center of Syracuse..... Syracuse NY
Akron International Friendship....... Akron OH
International Visitors Council of Cincinnati OH
Greater Cincinnati.
Cleveland Council on World Affairs... Cleveland OH
International Visitors Council, Inc.. Columbus OH
International Institute of Toledo.... Toledo OH
Oklahoma City International Visitors Oklahoma City OK
Council.
Tulsa Global Alliance................ Tulsa OK
World Affairs Council of Oregon...... Portland OR
International Visitors Council of Philadelphia PA
Philadelphia.
Pittsburgh Council for International Pittsburgh PA
Visitors.
World Affairs Council of Rhode Island Providence RI
South Carolina World Trade Center-- Charleston SC
Charleston.
Columbia Council for International Columbia SC
Visitors.
Dacotah Territory International Rapid City SD
Visitor Program.
Memphis Council for International Memphis TN
Visitors.
Nashville Council for International Nashville TN
Visitors.
International Hospitality Council of Austin TX
Austin.
Dallas Committee for Foreign Visitors Dallas TX
El Paso Council for International El Paso TX
Visitors.
World Affairs Council of Greater Fort Fort Worth TX
Worth.
Institute of International Education-- Houston TX
Southern Region.
San Antonio Council for International San Antonio TX
Visitors.
International Visitors Utah Council.. Salt Lake City UT
Center for International Programs, Richmond VA
Virginia Commonwealth University.
The Vermont Council on World Affairs, Burlington VT
Inc..
World Affairs Council of Seattle/ Seattle WA
Tacoma.
Spokane International Exchange Spokane WA
Council.
Yakima Valley Council for Wapato WA
International Visitors.
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 communities. 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 International 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 business 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.
______
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.''
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.
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.''
______
To: Sherry L. Mueller
From: Patricia Gehri
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
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
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 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.
______
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.
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 low-risk 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 short-term 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.
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. 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 students 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 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 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 bi-partisan 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.