Senator YARBOROUGH. The next witness is Dr. Mansfield I. Smith, director of Washington operations of the Experiment in International Living, Washington. Is Dr. Smith here?

Come around, Dr. Smith.

Do you have a written statement, Dr. Smith?

STATEMENT OF DR. MANSFIELD I. SMITH, DIRECTOR OF WASHINGTON OPERATIONS, EXPERIMENT ON INTERNATIONAL LIVING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. SMITH. I have, sir, but I have not prepared it in multiple copies yet because of the time limitation.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Well, proceed in your own way and we will try to divide the time equally between you and the witness representing the U.S. Youth Council. The president is here from New York. Mr. SMITH. My name is Mansfield I. Smith. My position is director of Washington operations for the Experiment in International Living and I come before you as a representative of the experiment.

Let me begin by conveying to you, Senator Yarborough, the personal regrets of the experiment's president, who hoped to appear before you himself this morning but was called away by a matter of the utmost urgency, and I feel both gratified and honored to be called in his stead. The headquarters of the experiment, as you know, are in Putney, Vt., but it is a worldwide educational exchange in the lexicon of the tens of thousands of persons who have taken an active part in experiment programs since the organization was founded 36 years ago in 1932.

Senator YARBOROUGH. What is the population of Putney?
Mr. SMITH. 1,200 at the last count.

Senator YARBOROUGH. That is a pretty good sized town. My hometown has a population of 600.

Mr. SMITH. Flowing in and out of Putney every day is a floodtide of oral communication comprising thousands of directives and information which will move some 2,000 young Americans in carefully planned programs of educational exchange to 4 dozen countries during the year ahead, most of them on a 2-month summer vacation program and which will bring, perhaps 2,400 young people from 95 nations to the United States. Another 600 will journey between second and third countries, not including our own, for the U.S. experiment is but one of 60 national organizations, each of them manned by citizens of the country concerned, and all of them comprising the worldwide confederation known as the International Experiment.

By rough calculation then, about 4,500 young people from nearly all the nations of the world will participate in experiment programs during 1968-69. But the sum total of participants is less significant and less impressive than the potential value of their individual and collective experience.

The experiment tries to give to each of its members nothing less than a sense of what it means to be a citizen of the world. The approach is deceptively simple. Each experimenter lives for a month in a family in the nation he is visiting. He lives with them not as an honored guest nor as a paying guest but as a participating family

member. Thus he finds himself in a living laboratory for testing his own ability to surmount a cross-cultural challenge, will he be able to adjust successfully to his family? Will they be able to adjust to him?

It is this intensely personal all-engrossing process of mutual accommodation which makes this overseas program an experiment in cross-cultural understanding, and it is for this very reason that we continue to call our organization the experiment.

For the young person who succeeds there is the stunning selfrevelation that he can get along even in times of disagreement and stress with the citizens of another nation who have habits of thought, word and deed which may be very different from his own.

In brief, then, the experiment has been devoted over the past three and a half decades to furthering the very purposes which Senate bill S. 1779 has been designed to serve.

We wish to endorse this bill not only as a constructive alternative to the covert funding process which has brought such embarrassment and pain to so many worthy educational exchange organizations which were truly deserving of government support but, as a contribution, to the concept of public-private partnerships in those international educational endeavors which clearly serve the national interest.

We do not, however, offer our endorsement without the caveat or proviso. For one thing, we must necessarily qualify our expertise as applying only to that aspect of the bill which envisions the movement of persons across national borders in organized programs which tend to serve the objectives set forth in section 1.

For another, we must coufess to a nagging concern that our response to the great promise of S. 1779, our enthusiasm, our sense of commitment, our determination to participate, may all come a cropper unless there is more pervasive recognition on the part of the American people and the Representatives in Congress that international educational exchange serves the national interest in ways that deserve their wholehearted fiscal support.

The simple fact, and we have not seen any cause to be encouraged on this score, is that the International Education Act of 1966, which signaled a major step toward a productive partnership of the Federal Government with colleges and universities concerned with strengthening international components of research and curricular has not yet been funded. The budget in the Department of State has been reduced from $53 million to $46 million in 2 consecutive years, with the immediate result that grants-in-aid to organizations such as the experiment have even been sharply curtailed or altogether eliminated. Grants from any Government source in these days are few and far between, and prospects for the next fiscal year seem even grimmer. The experiment has not been hurt so badly as some because our board of trustees wisely decided several years ago to permit no more than 25 percent of our gross operating budget to be funded by Government contracts, and to diversify our Government grant folio by seeking grants from as many different agencies as possible, to hedge against a crippling loss of any one contract through budgetary cutback.

In a negative sort of way we have had cause to rejoice over S. 1779 in times of budgetary stringency for we have discovered for ourselves that there is no area of official involvement in international affairs so innocuous, so noncontroversial, so unrepresented by a

vociferous lobby or nervous electorate so relatively susceptible to the budgetary scissors as the cultural exchange activities.

We cannot ask those of you who will determine the fate of S. 1779 can you somehow hold out the promise of a less tenuous relationship for your willing and dedicated partners in the private sector? Is there a real need for the kind of financial assistance proposed in

the bill?

For most, if not all, of the private nonprofit organizations working in the field of international educational exchange, the answer must surely be an unequivocal "Yes."

The experiment, as an example, must aggressively seek contributions from alumni, friends and foundations in the amount of $300,000 a year to keep its programs going, this out of a gross operating budget of from $2 to $21⁄2 million annually.

The reason is simple enough and persuasive enough. In decades past travel abroad was the prerogative of the rich or the very well to do. More recently it has increasingly become a middle class phenomen. But with an important reservation for young people attending college, even families of better than average income, a trip abroad during a summer vacation may be out of the question, and for them a program fee of $1,000 might just as well be $1 million. Yet many of these may be the very persons who will benefit the most from a significant cross-cultural experience.

The directorship of the experiment is embarked upon a program with a view toward making it possible for deserving young people in the United States to go abroad through its programs, through scholarship subsidies, and for young people from other countries to visit the United States on programs offered well below costs.

These subsidies are especially important for those going to and coming from the nations of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, because of the high cost of traversing the distances involved and because of the low-income level of participants from the developing nations.

How then, do we use the grants-in-aid we receive? Almost without exception to open up experiment programs for outstanding people who ordinarily find them beyond financial reach, despite the most persistent and vigorous efforts on our part to hold costs to an absolute minimum.

If the International Health, Education, and Labor Foundation comes to pass, as we devoutly hope it will, it must immediately devise a setup of operating principles to guide its relationship with organizations such as ours. Some of these principles are implicit in what has already been said. Let me spell them out and add a few others.

Should funds become available to the new foundation, the crucial question will not be that of program evaluation, as one might expect; that is, deciding for what purposes grants should be given, but rather an organizational accreditation

Senator YARBOROUGH. Dr. Smith, I am sorry to interrupt but we have seven and a half minutes left for the other witness. We either must ask you to lay your statement in and let me read it or we screen the other witness out entirely, and he has come down from New York to testify.

Mr. SMITH. I would much rather

Senator YARBOROUGH. It will be printed in full in the record so that the other members will be able to study it.

Thank you very much.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you very much for your willingness to share the remaining time with the president of the U.S. Youth Council.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. MANSFIELD I. SMITH, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OPERATIONS OF THE EXPERIMENT IN INTERNATIONAL LIVING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

My name is Mansfield I. Smith, and my position is Director for Washington Operations of The Experiment in International Living.

Let me begin by conveying to each of you the personal respects and regrets of Experiment President F. Gordon Boyce, who had hoped to appear himself this morning, but who was called away at the last minute on a matter of the utmost urgency. I feel both gratified and honored to be serving in his stead.

The Experiment, as you know, has its headquarters in Putney, Vt. Putney is a small town by any standard; but it is a town which looms large in the atlas of worldwide educational exchange, and in the lexicon of the tens of thousands of persons who have taken an active part in Experiment programs since the organization was founded 36 years ago, in 1932.

Flowing in and out of Putney every day is a flood-tide of oral and written communication, comprising the thousands of directives and informationals which will move some 2,000 young Americans on carefully-planned programs of educational exchange to four dozen countries during the year ahead (most of them on two-month summer vacation programs) and which will bring perhaps 2,400 young persons from 95 nations to the United States. Another 600 will journey between second and third countries not including our own; for the United States Experiment is but one of 60 national organizations, each of them manned by citizens of the country concerned, and all of them comprising the worldwide confederation known as the International Experiment.

By rough calculation, then, about 4,500 young people from nearly all the nations of the world will participate in Experiment programs during 1968-1969. But the sum total of participants is less significant, and less impressive, than the potential value of their individual and collective experience. The Experiment tries to give to each of its members nothing less than a sense of what it means to be a citizen of the world. The approach is deceptively simple. Each Experimenter lives for a month with a family in the nation he is visiting. He lives with them not as an honored guest, nor as a paying guest, but as a participating family member. Thus, he finds himself in a living laboratory for testing his own ability to surmount a cross-cultural challenge. Will he be able to adjust successfully to his family? Will they be able to adjust to him? It is this intensely personal, allengrossing process of mutual accommodation which makes his overseas program an experiment in cross-cultural understanding-and it is for this very reason that we continue to call our organization The Experiment. For the young person who succeeds, there is the stunning self-revelation that he can get along, even in times of disagreement and stress, with the citizens of another nation who have habits of thought, word, and deed which may be very different from his own.

In brief, then, The Experiment has been devoted over the past 31⁄2 decades to furthering the very purposes which Senate Bill S. 1779 has been designed to serve. We wish to endorse this bill not only as a constructive alternative to the covert funding process which has brought such embarrassment and pain to so many worthy educational-exchange enterprises, which were truly deserving of Government support, but as a contribution to the concept of public-private partnership in those international-education endeavors which clearly serve the national interest.

We do not, however, offer our endorsement without caveat or proviso. For one thing, we must necessarily qualify our expertise as applying only to that aspect of the bill which envisions the movement of persons across national borders on organized programs which tend to serve the objectives set forth in Section 1. For another, we must confess to a nagging concern that our response to the

great promise of S. 1779-our enthusiasm, our sense of commitment, our determination to participate-may all come a cropper, unless there is a more pervasive recognition, on the part of the American people and their representatives in Congress, that international educational exchange serves the national interest in ways which deserve their wholehearted fiscal support.

The simple fact is that we have not seen any cause to be encouraged on this score. The International Education Act of 1966, which signalled a major step toward a productive partnership of the Federal Government with colleges and universities concerned with strengthening the international components of their research programs and curricula, has not yet been funded. The budget of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State, has been reduced from $53 million to $46 million in two consecutive years, with the immediate result that grants-in-aid to organizations such as The Experiment have either been sharply curtailed or altogether eliminated. Grants from any Government source these days are few and far between; and prospects for the next fiscal year seem even grimmer.

The Experiment has not been hurt so badly as some, because our Board of Trustees wisely decided several years ago to permit no more than 25% of our gross operating budget to be funded by Government contracts, and to diversify our Government portfolio by seeking grants from as many different agencies as possible, to hedge against crippling loss of any one contract through budgetary cutback. In a negative sort of way, we have had cause to rejoice at our own foresight. In times of budgetary stringency, we have discovered to our sorrow, there is no area of official involvement in international affairs so innocuous, so noncontroversial, so unrepresented by a vociferous lobby or a nervous electorate, so readily susceptible to the budgetary scissors, as educational and cultural exchange. We cannot help but ask those of you who will determine the fate of S. 1779: "Can you some how hold out the promise not of a less strenuous, but of a less tenuous relationship for your willing and dedicated partners in the private sector?" Is there a real need for the kind of financial assistance proposed in the bill? For most, if not all, of the private, nonprofit organizations working in the field of international educational exchange, the answer must surely be an unequivocal "yes." The Experiment, as an example, must aggressively seek contributions from alumni, friends, and foundations in the amount of $300,000 a year to keep its programs going this out of a gross operating budget of two to two-and-a-half million dollars annually. The reason is simple enough, and persuasive enough. In decades past, travel abroad was the prerogative of the rich or of the very well-todo. More recently, it has increasingly become a middle-class phenomenon-but with an important reservation. For young people attending college, even from families of better-than-average income, a trip abroad during the summer vacation may be out of the question. For them, a program fee of $1,000 might as well be a million. Yet many of these are the very persons who would most benefit from a significant cross-cultural experience. The Experiment has directed a large proportion of its talents and resources toward making it possible for deserving young people from the United States to go abroad on its programs through scholarship subsidies, and for young people from other countries to visit the United States on programs offered well below cost. These subsidies are especially important for those going to and coming from the nations of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, because of the high cost of traversing the distances involved, and because of the low income levels of participants from the developing nations. How, then, do we use the grants-in-aid we receive? Almost without exception, to open up Experiment programs for outstanding young people who would ordinarily find them beyond financial reach, despite the most consistent and vigorous efforts on our part to hold costs to an absolute minimum.

If the International Health, Education, and Labor Foundation comes to pass, as we de voutly hope it will, it must immediately devise a set of operating principles to guide its relationship with organizations such as ours. Some of these principles are implicit in what has already been said-let me spell them out and add a few others.

Should funds become available to a new Foundation, the crucial problem will not be that of program evaluation, as one might expect-that is, of deciding for what purposes grants should be given; but rather, or organizational accreditationthat is, of deciding to what organizations funds should be given. The problem of accrediting educational-exchange organizations has never been tackled directly either by Government or by the private sector-or if it has, the results are nowhere apparent. Organizational performance in the educational-exchange field varies from dubious to outstanding; but it is a measure of the nonprofessionalism