ica's greatest composers; Ray Harrison, music critic; two specialists on jazz; Dr. Carlton Sprague Smith, musical advisor to Lincoln Center and many others who come to the monthly meetings from as far as California and Texas.

On the dance panel we have Agnes De Mille, Martha Graham, Walter Terry, the dance critic for the Herald Tribune, and others.

On the drama panel we have Warren Caro of the Theater Guild, Elliot Norton, the famous Boston critic, Richard Coe from the Washington Post, myself, and others.

All of these panels serve without pay and are religious in attendance at the monthly meetings.

They are all ruthless in refusing to recommend to the State Department anything or anyone not top drawer.

This expertise and I must say that we have now found a new word. It used to be know-how. Now it is "expertise," so that I must be in the fashion and use the word "expertise."

This expertise cannot be bought or even hired. Therefore I hope this committee will consider that with two already chartered organizations already functioning with experience behind them, ANTA and the National Music Council, this bill will accept their services and incorporate them in the final result, rather than duplicate what these chartered organizations have already done and are equipped to do by setting up other advisory committees or panels. You would have to call on the same people anyway to get the best advice, because they are the best in the country and, if you did not get the best, you would have second best and the second best would have to go to the best to be instructed.

ANTA heartily endorses the bills introduced by Representative Thompson called H.R. 4172 and H.R. 4174 and respectfully calls your attention to itself and the National Music Council. As ANTA speaks its recommendation for these bills, you have already heard that the National Council of Music says the same.

I wish that I had brought with me a report on the National Cultural Center here in Washington and the speech that the Honorable L. Corrin Strong made the other day when he said this, and he was quoting. As far as I remember it, it was that this person he quoted said that in the 18th century we achieved a political democracy and in the 19th century an economic democracy, and that he hoped that in the 20th century we would achieve and put into being a cultural democracy.

Thank you very much.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Miss Wood. I hope that we can, too. I would like very much some time to see the National Cultural Center completed. I do not know where the $75 million is going to come from; nor do I know whether the trustees, of which I am one, will finally decide to build, as I think the National Cultural Center should be built, a little bit at a time so that we perhaps can have an opera house before we have a restaurant or something like that.

When you, for Mr. Martin's benefit, said "we" during your presentation and your description of the selection of groups to go overseas, you meant ANTA, did you not?

Miss Wood. Yes. I am speaking for ANTA. They asked me to speak to you.

Mr. THOMPSON. And that has been the Government agency through which these groups have gone abroad.

Miss WOOD. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. I do think ANTA, the National Music Council, and the American Educational Theater Association have the best on their panels and have selected only top drawer people. I have felt, as one who has been intimately acquainted with the activities of these groups, that it is pitiful that the President's program has so little money and half of that should be devoted to trade fairs. However, last fall, during the campaign, President Kennedy and Mr. Nixon both called for a large increase in this program, financially and otherwise.

It is not that trade fairs are unhealthy or are not good, but they do not achieve nearly as much as does Marian Anderson, for instance, or some of the other projects. Perhaps consideration should be given to separating them, and I am pleased to see that this is being done in legislation sponsored by Senator Fulbright (S. 1154) and Congressman Harris B. McDowell, Jr. (H.R. 5204). Consideration must also be given to enlarging greatly the amount of money available, to the inclusion of our many fine education groups, such as the Howard University Choir, and individuals, and young artists like Van Cliburn, in the program.

Miss WOOD. Yes, sir; because we have the same amount of money allotted now as was allotted 62 years ago and we have 10 or 20 new countries to serve and it always has to be done on a nickel or two. If it were not that a great many of the people are dedicated to the service of their own country, we could not get the fine artists that we have had.

Mr. THOMPSON. The President's program has indeed done a remarkable job, but it should do much more, and it should be a true exchange program, inviting artists from abroad as well as sending artists abroad. I have made a speech or two on this and I shall include one of them at the conclusion of your remarks. I feel quite strongly on this matter, since I was the author, with Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, of the act which made the President's program permanent, as I have mentioned.

Mr. MARTIN. I have no questions.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much.

(The following was submitted for the record:)

[From the New York Times, Friday, May 19, 1961]

STOCKHOLM REVIEWERS ARE MIXED IN REVIEWS OF U.S. STAGE TROUPE

STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN, May 18.-Applause laced with disappointment was touched off here by the 3-night 3-play stand of the Theater Guild's American Repertory Company.

Stockholm's reviewers joined today in applauding last night's performance of Thornton Wilder's "The Skin of Our Teeth" at the Royal Dramatic Theater here.

Characterizing Helen Hayes as "dazzling," and June Havoc as providing a "great experience," the semiofficial Stockholm Tidningen said "the best had been saved till last." It described Leif Erickson as having made a "brilliant recovery" from his opening performance Monday night.

Such praise for the third of the three plays the troupe is presenting in Europe under the sponsorship of the State Department helped to cover the largely negative reaction to the second attraction. William Gibson's "The Miracle Worker,”

put on here Tuesday night, was deplored by Dagens Nyheter, Sweden's leading paper, as a weak play whose "banal tendencies" the troupe was unable to conceal. Disagreeing, the Conservative Party newspaper Svenska Dageladet added, nevertheless, a double-edged comment The play about the childhood of Helen Keller, it said, had “a nobility one had hardly expected from American theater, even on its highest level."

There was a sprinkling of empty seats through the house, apparently because a Swedish version has long been running here. The theater was full, however, for both "The Skin of Our Teeth" and for the opening bill Monday night, Tennessee Williams' "The Glass Menagerie."

Both critics and audience were generous with applause for the Williams play. But the labor-owned newspaper Aftonbladet echoed some of the intermission comments in the lobby when it said Miss Hayes, with her "affected" performance, "was not in her best form, and the play was not either."

All in all, the American Repertory Company's reception here was decidedly warmer than the cool one in Copenhagen 2 weeks ago. There the Berlingske Tiende, Denmark's leading paper, asked:

"Is this American theater at its best? That we refuse to believe."

The troupe opens tomorrow night in Helsinki, Finland, where Finnish National Theater directors have waited with fingers crossed ever since the composition of the company was announced.

"It had better be good," one commented a couple of months ago. "The Russians always send their best."

[From the Congressional Record, Jan. 13, 1960]

THE INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM

(Extension of remarks of Hon. Hubert H. Humphrey, of Minnesota, in the Senate of the United States, Wednesday, Jan. 13, 1960)

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, many times in the past I have been proud to associate myself with the legislation on arts and culture introduced by Representative Frank Thompson, Jr., of New Jersey. In particular, I recall our bill passed by the 84th Congress to insure that the President's international cultural exchange program would become permanent policy.

It is to the administration of that law-Public Law 860-84-that the distinguished Representative from New Jersey referred in a speech on the American Educational Theater Association on December 28, 1959. Representative Thompson said:

"Under the current program of the President's international cultural exchange program as administered by the Department of State, of 115 attractions which have been sent abroad, only a half-dozen or less than 6 percent, have been educational talent-university or college theater or music groups. ***This program is so weighted with professionals that it might justly be called the 6percent program rather than the President's international cultural exchange program. It should also be noted that there is no cultural exchange in the program at all."

Ambassador Llewellyn Thompson in Moscow and Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker in Delhi have requested the State Department to send young educational talent in the arts to Russia and India, hoping to repeat the success of Van Cliburn, for example. However, the administration has only talked about this exchange and no young talent has been sent to either of these countries. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this fine speech on recruitment of educational cultural talent for our exchange program be printed in the Appendix of the Record.

(There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:)

ADDRESS BY CONGRESSMAN FRANK THOMPSON, JR., OF NEW JERSEY, BEFORE THE AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL THEATER ASSOCIATION, DELIVERED IN WASHINGTON, D.C., ON DECEMBER 28, 1959

Dr. Young, Dr. Cole, Dr. Selden, Dr. Morrison, distinguished friends and guests, it is an honor and a pleasure for me to have this opportunity to discuss with such a select group some of the pressing problems and suggested solutions which this 23d annual convention of the American Educational Theater Asso

ciation must deal with. My remarks might well be titled "Democracy Needs a Broader Cultural Emphasis," since they are especially directed to the need for stimulating a more widespread cultural awareness in the United States and in sharing this enthusiasm with people throughout the world. I think it particularly important that we understand that our approach to the arts must be one of sharing them with other peoples, rather than one of using the arts for political ends. For if our primary purpose in our national policy is political we shall fail. Political results may very well follow as a result of sharing the arts, as indeed they have followed the educational exchanges authorized by the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt Acts. But in the arts as in education, it must be primarily a matter of exchanges, and this is something that is entirely missed in Washington these days due to a belief that everything from breakfast cereals to our way of life can be "sold."

The American Educational Theater Association can exert a tremendous force for the stimulation of a signficant cultural impact which could be felt both in this country and abroad. Through positive action your association, in effective cooperation with other cultural organizations, can, with imagination, purposefulness and hard work, effect a cultural renascence. This will require your wholehearted direction, support, and effort-for, as Walter Lippmann has pointed out," the renascence will have to come from men of learnings"-men who know, because they live the intellectual life, what a renascence would be. However, before we can achieve this goal of a fuller cultural awakening there are obstacles to be overcome. It is my deside today to discuss some of the areas, nationally and internationally, in which your particular kind of leadership is specifically required.

Just recently, for example, Richard B. McLanathan, who was the curator of the U.S. art exhibit at the Moscow Fair (now director of the community arts program of the Munson-Williams-Proctor Institute at Utica, N.Y.), reported to the U.S. Information Agency and other Government agencies that he found throughout Europe and the U.S.S.R. that people were looking to the United States for cultural leadership. People are looking for evidence that the United States will not only take up Mr. Khrushchev's challenge regarding economic competition, he said, but that we also will demonstrate more fully than we have done so far that we have "a lot to spare in the esthetic and cultural field as well."

Mr. McLanathan further reported, I am told, that people throughout the world believed that the United States and its allies could withstand any economic or political pressures which the Soviet Union and its satellites might exert. We can do this, they are convinced, only if we are strong culturally. According to Mr. McLanathan, the people of the world believe the United States and the U.S.S.R. offset each other in the economic area. Their decision to follow either the United States or the U.S.S.R. ultimately will depend, he thinks, on the balance sheet evidence of cultural resources and leadership. History clearly documents the fact that civilizations are remembered more for their contributions to the fine arts, to music, the theater, to literature, to painting and sculpture and architecture than they are remembered by the battles which they have fought. It is my belief, and I know it can be documented, that one of the major ways in which we can turn reluctant and uneasy military allies-and the millions of uncommitted people of the world-into friends is to earn their respect through our own respect for our own cultural leadership and achievements in the deeply related fields of education, science, and the fine arts.

As we know, President Eisenhower is a leading exponent of this point of view. In his speeches in India, for example, he called for a massive interchange of mutual understanding through exchange of students. I might add, parenthetically, that he also took the lead in forming a very effective Committee of the Arts and Sciences for Eisenhower in the fall of 1956.

For a number of years, 10 in fact, the great value of exchanging students, the leaders of tomorrow's world, has been proved by the successful Fulbright and Smith-Mundt programs. A massive expansion of these and other programs will be a welcome and valuable step toward creating the international understanding so essential to a permanent peace. Dare we hope that the forthcoming budget message of the President will request the funds which will be needed to finance the President's massive exchange? I look forward anxiously to the opportunity to vote for such a program. My colleagues and I would, I am sure, be much more willing to appropriate the additional funds needed to implement these massive exchanges if the State Department shows the same good judgment it has

displayed in the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt programs and works with and through our country's major educational organizations for the implementation of these new exchanges which the President has called for.

I am concerned, however, that the President has endorsed massive exchanges as a grand design because I question how well this will actually be carried out in the field of exchanges in the arts-your association's particular interest-as long as all public funds for cultural and artistic exchanges are chaneled through one organization, the American National Theater and Academy, and no other organization, even the American Educational Theater Association, or the National Music Council which-like ANTA-has a congressional charter, is permitted to develop any know-how in this vital area because of the restrictive practices of the Department of State. Yet, at the same time, the leading educational organizations such as the American Council on Education and the National Education Association, and the Institute of International Education, are given a major role by the State Department in the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt programs. To illustrate what I have in mind, under the current program of the President's international cultural exchange program as administered in the Department of State by Mr. James Magdanz of 115 attractions which have been sent abroad only a half dozen, or less than 6 percent, have been educational talent-university or college theater or music groups. In my opinion, and also in the opinion of such important national groups as the National Education Association, the National Association of Schools of Music, the National Music Camp at the University of Michigan, the Music Educators National Conference, the National Art Education Association-to name only a few-this program is so weighted with professionals that it might justly be called the 6-percent program rather than the President's international cultural exchange program. It should also be noted that there is no cultural exchange in the program at all, as there is in the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt programs. So we now find that many of the Nation's most talented performers, its young artists, who could be our country's most successful cultural ambassadors, witness Van Cliburn, are actually used less than 6 percent of the time.

For the record I will read from some of the glowing newspaper and official reports on the success of the performances of our university theater groups who haved toured abroad just in case Mr. Magdanz and Mr. Robert H. Thayer, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for the Coordination of International Educational and Cultural Relations, missed them. The reaction of people in Latin America, India, and parts of Africa was significant. These accounts prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the great and lasting impact America's talented young artists are making wherever they are given the opportunity to appear by our cloistered policymakers.

"The visit of the University of Minnesota players to São Paulo was a success from every point of view," we are advised by the American Consulate General. "They attained a level of the best professionals in many countries in Latin America," according to the Diario de São Paulo.

The American Embassy, New Delhi, reported home that the Wayne State University Players were "a fine group and did an amazing job in the face of many vicissitudes while they were in Delhi. Their performances were excellent. They met people well and were eager and enthusiastic in their contacts with Indian students and other play groups. They made an outstanding contribution, with a grueling schedule, to the feeling of good will and in the advancement of knowledge about the American university drama."

The American Embassy in Ghana reported that the Florida A. & M. University Players "had a net effect favorable to the United States. * * * The players were quite effective in their social relations with Ghanians before and after their performances, and left many fast friends behind them when they left Ghana." This report is supported by the comment in the Ghanaian that "Their visit is a fine example of what can be done by actors who love the theater and are willing to give their spare time to not only the glamorous side of it but also to the equally exacting tasks of stage management and general organization.'

Clearly, talented groups of this type can be a major asset to the United States in its program to give the peoples of the world a broader understanding of America's culture and purposes. As you know so well, since you pioneered it, the Department of Defense sends a large number of college and university drama and music groups abroad to entertain our troops in distant theaters of operation. These groups are much more popular with our troops than most professional