entertainers. When they are abroad on these tours why doesn't the State Department and the U.S. Information Service cultural affairs officers schedule them for appearances before young people of the countries in the countries they are visiting, including university audiences, thus saving tax money and spreading America's message at one and the same time?

I think it is significant to note that early in October at the very time that Mr. Robert H. Thayer (special assistant to the Secretary of State) was speaking in New York City to the President's Music Committee about the difficulty of including young educational talent from our institutions of higher education in the President's special international cultural exchange program he was advising Members of Congress that Ambassador Llewellyn Thompson had requested that such young educational talent in the arts be sent to Moscow. Ambassador Thompson was moved, no doubt, to make this request by the astonishing success of Van Cliburn, a Juilliard graduate, who, by the way, received absolutely no financial help from the President's program. His expenses were paid with funds raised by the Institute of International Education from the Martha Baird Rockefeller Fund. Mr. Thayer also told us that Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker had requested that young educational talent in the arts be sent to India. What then becomes of the classic defense of the Department of State of its present program's virtual exclusion of young people; that American cultural affairs officers and top Embassy people have demanded the great professional groups and don't want educational talent? The State Department, by the way, has done nothing to date about these significant requests by the American Ambassadors in the U.S.S.R. and India except to study them.

The agreement for cultural exchanges with the Soviet Union includes a provision for "university exchanges of faculty and students," and clearly this agreement doesn't rule out educational talent in the arts. There is no reason why we cannot work out this particular type of exchange of educational talent with the U.S.S.R. and other Iron Curtain countries, just as we have with so many other countries under the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt programs where between 3,000 to 4,000 of the 35,000 to 40,000 exchangees during the past 10 years have been in the arts. That this is so is shown by a New York Times article of December 25, 1959, to the effect that one of the U.S. students who went to the Soviet Union last September is studying at the Moscow Musical Conservatory. The New York Times says:

"The U.S. Government is understood to be strongly in favor of continuing and enlarging the student exchange program. Officials remark that the American students during their academic year in Moscow or Leningrad are able to befriend more Russians than any American diplomat or news correspondent can do during his entire service in the Soviet Union.

"Young Americans and Russians are reported to be establishing personal contacts in lecture halls, libraries, cafeterias, and dormitories of Soviet institutions of higher learning with ease and eagerness. This alone, in the opinion of U.S. officials, would be sufficient for justifying the entire exchange program and advocating its expansion. * * *

"Kenneth Holland, president of the Institute of International Education here, declared that 'it is important for us to have students who know the U.S.S.R., even if they do not advance in their specific fields' in the course of their Russian year.

"Mr. Holland talked with many American students during a visit to the Soviet Union earlier this year. He said he was impressed with their knowledge of Russian affairs and had found that despite the limitations they were encountering their experience was invaluable."

If President Eisenhower's call for massive exchanges is to be carried out with maximum effect then the United States should embark upon a broad program to provide two-way cultural exchanges with all nations, with particular emphasis on young people. You will be pleased to know that Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, Democrat, of Minnesota, Representative Harris B. McDowell, Democrat, of Delaware, and I have introduced legislative proposals (S. 1827; H.R. 6876 and H.R. 7533) to put this type of program into effect. We want to see the Humphrey-Thompson Act (Public Law 860, 84th Cong., which made the President's special international cultural exchange program permanent) amended to specifically provide for more widespread cultural exchange of young artists and art groups, and we think that at least 50 percent of the funds appropriated for this program should be devoted to young Americans if the President's call for massive exchanges is to have any real meaning. We hope President Eisen

hower will support this, and that he will call in his budget message next month for an immediate raising of the present picayune $2 million to an amount respectably nearer the $20 million which he annually requests for the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt programs.

I was very pleased to hear that the Young Democratic Clubs of America, at their recent national convention, adopted a resolution which urges the Republican administration to utilize the power they have been given not only to send throughout the world our large artistic groups and universally accepted artists whose appeal is primarily to the sophisticated audiences of the world's capitals, but also the groups with fine artistic merit who would represent our local creativity and to include in the exchange program, as was intended by the sponsors of the legislation, young artists of great merit.

I completely support the idea that we should create and help finance with Federal funds university circuits at home and abroad. Such programs would certainly more fully display our cultural achievements and assets as well as help us learn more about the people of other nations. Here the sharing of our cultural resources with the people of other nations, which I mentioned earlier, would have significant meaning and results. In my considered view, the question of whether one or another great American orchestra plays with that extra shade of polish, and is a fraction better in its technique than a similar great aggregation in Europe or the Soviet Union cannot compare with the importance of reaching and influencing the leaders of tomorrow's world through our young American student exchanges in all fields.

For this reason, the national showcase program which my colleague, Representative Harris B. McDowell, Jr., has recently espoused, and which passed the House of Representatives with the help of the leaders of the American Educational Theater Association in 1952 and was passed over without prejudice in the Senate at the same time, is a plan which has my wholehearted support. For years I have wanted to see our talented young American artists given more recognition on the national scene and particularly through a program in the Nation's Capital by which their talents could be displayed to the Nation and the world.

As a corollary, then, to a national showcase program there should be a worldwide Olympiad of the Arts and Sciences held regularly in Washington, D.C., which would afford competition between talented young people from all nations. Such an arts and sciences competition could sponsor contests for awards in piano, cello, violin, youth orchestras, choral and chamber groups, ballet, folk dancing, and other forms of the dance such as ballet in which the U.S.S.R. excels, painting, sculpture, readings, and drama and poetry presentations. It is also desirable that under this program comparable talent competitions in the Nation's Capital be held in mathematics, physics, biology, and the other sciences. These Olympiads should be judged by an international jury of renowned artists and specialists in the various fields. The winners would immediately attain international recognition and be awarded substantial prizes. It is quite reasonable to assume, I have been advised by Dr. Oliver J. Caldwell, Assistant Commissioner for International Education, U.S. Office of Education, a long-time and able advocate of the proposal for a worldwide Olympiad of the Arts and Sciences, that such an international Olympiad program, if carefully planned, would be as significant as the Nobel Prize Awards in the years to come. As President Eisenhower said at Delhi University in India :

"More enduringly than from the deliberations of high councils, I believe mankind will profit when young men and women of all nations and in great numbers study and learn together. In so doing, they will concern themselves with the problems, possibilities, resources, and rewards of their common destiny. "Through the centuries nations have sent their youth armed for war to oppose their neighbors. Let us in this day look on our youth, eager for a larger and clearer knowledge, as forces for international understanding; and send them, one nation to another, on missions of peace."

As we go forward, then, along this great highway into the future to a less troubled era I believe we can be resourceful enough to find the best possible methods to surmount any roadblocks which may be planted by those with axes to grind. I have in mind, for instance, the fact that the American Educational Theater Association already has a committee for U.S. touring by foreign university dramatic groups. I understand that this committee is at work seeking private engagements in the United States for educational groups from other countries, and it should have-if it is to really accomplish its great objectives,

both status and public funds comparable to the program the American National Theater and Academy carries on for the Department of State.

A word about the little matter of the double expense in presenting performances of professional foreign artists in our country because of union policy that American artists must be paid during a performance even though these American artists are not performing in the attraction. Here a bit of statesmanship is required on the part of top State Department officials. My, my, if they can't develop a policy to surmount such a roadblock, how can they possibly negotiate successfully with other nations?

My own suggestion, for what it is worth is as follows: If there are to be standbys, then why not react to this situation by providing, under the President's cultural exchange program, that such matching funds be utilized in a way similar to the funds of the music performance trust fund which is managed by representatives of the American Federation of Musicians, AFL-CIO, the broadcasting industry, and the public. Standby funds could and should be used to provide increased employment of American artists and, at the same time, cultural attractions could be offered under the fund's auspices throughout the United States. Cooperative arrangements could undoubtedly be worked out by the Department of State, with the blessing of the Congress, between the theater and music industry, the Federal Government, and such powerful unions as Actors' Equity Association, the Associated Actors and Artistes of America, AFL-CIO, the American Guild of Musical Artists, and the American Federation of Musicians, or whatever the unions involved. All it takes is good will on both sides and I know this is present.

In my opinion, if we are to capture the imagination and the minds and hearts of the peoples of the free world as well as the millions of uncommitted peoplesthe United States must more definitively supply the energy, the resourcefulness, the creative power and talent which is ours to give than it has done so far. If this is to take place then several steps must be taken by the American Educational Theater Association in cooperation with other national educational organizations concerned with the arts in education. You must work together toward

1. The establisment of a permanent division at the State Department in the Bureau of International Cultural Relations to handle the massive exchanges in the arts which must be developed as a central and integral part of this massive exchange program which President Eisenhower has called for. Such a permanent division must be headed by a distinguised educator, and must be staffed by leaders drawn from the arts departments of our colleges and universities. At the same time, the Advisory Committee on the Arts established by the HumphreyThompson Act (Public Law 860, 84th Cong.) must be reorganized and strengthened with the addition of leading educators from our college and university art departments. For several years now, every time the White House appointed people to an art commission in Washington, the District of Columbia Auditorium Commission, and the Advisory Committee on the Arts at the State Department are examples, the names of George Murphy and Robert Montgomery-from Hollywood via the Republican National Committee turned up. The names conspicuous for their absence, even from the Advisory Committee on the Arts of the National Cultural Center were those of Dr. Howard Hanson, director of the Eastman School of Music, and president of the National Music Council, other officials of the National Music Council, and distinguished art educators generally. At the present time the official directly in charge of the President's cultural exchange program at the Department of State is Mr. James Magdanz who has no background at all in the arts. He is a former budget officer, and no doubt a good budget officer. However, many of the present limitations of this vital program, for instance, its virtual exclusion of educational talent, is directly due to an astounding lack of familarity with today's significant fine arts programs in our Nations' colleges and universities on the part of leading State Department officials. (H.R. 6876, Thompson; H.R. 7533, McDowell; and S. 1827, Humphrey, go to the heart of the problem sketched here.)

2. The status and quality of our cultural affairs officers abroad must be sharply raised, and legislation will be offered soon to do this.

3. The establishment of a worldwide Olympiad of the Arts and Sciences and a national showcase program in our Nation's Capital has been developed by Representative McDowell, and will be introduced early in January 1960 by several sponsors in both Houses.

4. The establishment of a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Sponsors include Senators Hubert H.

Humphrey; Paul H. Douglas; and James E. Murray; and Representatives Emanuel Celler; John V. Lindsay; James G. Fulton; Seymour Halpern; Stuyvesant Wainwright; Lee Metcalf; Carroll D. Kearns; Edith Green; Dominick V. Daniels; Robert N. Giaimo; Carl Elliott, committee chairman; and John A. Lafore, Jr., and Frank Thompson, Jr.

5. The establishment of the position of Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for the Coordination of International Educational and Cultural Relations has passed the Senate under the sponsorship of Senators J. William Fulbright and Hubert H. Humphrey. House sponsors include Representatives Wayne L. Hays, Stuyvesant Wainwright, John V. Lindsay, James G. Fulton, and Frank Thompson, Jr.

6. If the American National Theater and Academy is to continue in the future to enjoy its special privileged status as sole professional manager of the State Department's cultural exchange program with other nations then ANTA's reorganization must be sought. As you know, ANTA was chartered by the Congress in 1935 as a theater organization and it is undoubtedly rendering as great a service to the American theater and to American drama as the National Music Council-likewise chartered by the Congress-is rendering to American music. When the State Department selected ANTA in 1954 for the important role of professional manager of the President's cultural exchange program which was authorized by the Congress in July of that year, ANTA set about creating advisory panels in music, the dance, and so on and more recently has established academic screening committees to advise it on outstanding talent in our colleges and universities in the performing arts. These latter committees are: The oversea touring committee of the American Educational Theater Association, and the academic screening committee of the music panel. After 5 years the time has come, I am convinced, to expect ANTA, in fairness and justice to the other art fields, to elevate these advisory panels and academic screening committees to a position where they are an integral part of ANTA itself, and in full charge of their respective fields of interest in the arts. These panels and committees should, at the same time, be broadened to provide the American Educational Theater Association, the National Music Council, the Music Educators National Conference, and the National Association of Schools of Music and other similar groups a more significant role in keeping with their importance in our society. ANTA would be a true arts council.

Alternatively, the American Educational Theater Association and the National Council of the Arts in Education should be contracted with directly by the State Department to manage our developing program of educational exchanges in the arts of the theater. For ANTA to continue to manage our cultural exchange program for the State Department without such significant internal changes would be comparable to the Department of Defense contracting with General Motors to manage its entire procurement program covering everything from submarines and airplanes to tanks and trucks. You can well imagine what giant aircraft companies like Douglas and Boeing and great automobile manufacturing companies like Ford and Chrysler would think of this. If it became known that

the Defense Department was even considering establishing the kind of arrangement the State Department has with ANTA the outcry occasioned by Defense Secretary Wilson's remark that “What is good for General Motors is good for the country" seem like a lark by comparison.

There are other areas directly relating to the arts fields which I want to discuss with you also and briefly because of the time limitation. For several years I have urged that the status of our cultural affairs officers be raised and given a status equal to that of cultural affairs officers of other nations. I have introduced legislation to effect this change. We must create a career foreign service system in the U.S. Information Agency equal to that in the Department of State-of which it was originally an integral part to insure the ability to recruit high caliber people. Abbott Washburn, Deputy Director of the U.S. Information Agency, recently urged the need for legislation to correct the present deplorable situation. He pointed out that—

"The system under which we continue to operate is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. Americans in our oversea service may hold appointments only as Foreign Service Reserve or Foreign Service Staff officers. Chiefly because of the lower ceiling on staff salaries, the Agency's most important and valuable officers our public affairs officers and other top officials overseas-hold appointments as Foreign Service Reserve officers which in no sense meets our needs for a career service system. Reserve appointments are authorized under the Foreign Service Act for temporary service not to exceed 5 years. While Reserve

officers are accorded the same salary and allowances as Foreign Service officers, the limitations on tenure make the Reserve category an antithesis of a career service. In addition, Reserve officers have no job security. Under the law, they may be separated at any time for any reason.

"As you know, many of our posts are located in areas where work is demanding and living is hard. Moreover, the work, itself, whatever the location, requires experience, expert knowledge, and a high level of ability and character."

Cultural affairs officers are, indeed, key men in the long-range program of presenting America's cultural image to the world. They surely deserve to be recognized as permanent career officers. I intend to continue to push for legislation which would accomplish this necessary change.

When the Congress convenes I am very hopeful, too, that we will act quickly to establish a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts. In my opinion this would represent a significant cultural step forward on the part of the Federal Government. A Federal Advisory Council on the Arts would formally recognize the essential role of the Government in promoting the arts. "There should be a Federal advisory agency as provided in several bills now pending before Congress," a resolution adopted by the Democratic Advisory Council on December 7, 1959, says, "with general authority to assist in formulating plans to develop the cultural resources of the United States, and to promote general appreciation of the beauty and educational value of works of art, literary and musical compositions, and of the contribution of performing artists in all fields."

It is interesting and significant, I think, from a long-range point of view, in our Nation's cultural development that the bills in the Congress to establish a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts, and to carry out much of the legislative program I have outlined in my remarks today, now have the support of strong elements in the Democratic Party at the national level. The Young Democratic Clubs of America at their Toledo, Ohio, national convention in November 1959, and the Democratic Advisory Council at its New York City meeting on December 7, 1959, endorsed the bills in the Congress in support of the fine arts.

It will be interesting and important to observe if the organizations of the Republican Party follow suit, with regard to the fine arts legislation in the Congress-much of which has been sponsored by individual members of the Republican Party-including the bill for a Federal Advisory Council on the Arts which President Eisenhower first recommended to the Congress in his message on the State of the Union in 1955. The fine arts must have bipartisan support, just as our foreign policy does. Unfortunately, the Republican Party has tended to regard the arts in a more personal light as a handmaiden of political advantage. I need only remind you that the Committee of the Arts and Sciences for Eisenhower (CASE) established in the fall of 1956 had as its purpose, not the advancement of the fine arts, but the election of a leading official of the Republican Party. Such a committee can only discount the great purpose which the fine arts have in any democratic society. Certainly Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers never conceived of the arts in this particular context. We in the Congress would deeply appreciate hearing much more than we do at present from the cultural leaders of our States and districts just as we presently hear from representatives of labor, agriculture, commerce, and industry. How many of you have contacted those sponsors of fine arts legislation in the Congress to tell them you appreciated their introduction of fine arts bills in the Congress? I'll wager not many, yet this is an essential part of the democratic process.

The need for greater understanding and support of the cultural activities of the Federal Government must be developed at the grassroots level, and must be given wider publicity. I would hope that the American Educational Theater Association will, as a part of its work here in its annual convention, adopt strong resolutions in support of some of the matters which I have discussed with you today in order that we as a Nation may move forward in 1960 along the hard and difficult road to artistic and cultural maturity.

More of our citizens must come to know about the forthcoming $60 million funds drive for the National Cultural Center and the exciting plans of architect Edward D. Stone for it which are now sorely threatened by a road-and-bridge complex developed by the Republican-controlled city government of the District of Columbia which doesn't have to account to the voteless citizens of Washington for its actions and which has had no firm direction from President Eisenhower who appointed its members. There is the added riddle of what the National Cultural Center will do about the educational fine arts. Despite the law which specifically lists the educational fine arts, including even the children's