Click for next page ( 268


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 267
appendix A Legislative History* T he current array of Title VI and Fulbright-Hays (Title VI/FH) inter- national education programs is the product of nearly 50 years of legislative accretion. The result is a dense and at times complicated legislative history. Title VI, for example, was conceived as a temporary emergency measure in the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Later it was extended and revised several times, then folded into the Higher Education Act in 1980 and reviewed every six years. Existing programs were amended or reorganized repeatedly, new programs created, and some programs introduced but later cancelled. Despite nearly a half-century of legislative adjustments, the fundamen- tal rationales for the programs have changed little since the decade after their inception. The original goals of providing linguistic and international expertise to serve the national interest and global understanding endure. So too does the original mechanism selected to serve that goal, that is, working with institutions of higher education. Within that broader framework, however, several interesting changes have occurred. For example: • In the last 25 years, the original goals were supplemented with the aim of linking Title VI to the nation’s economic competitiveness, producing two new programs. * This appendix is based largely on a paper written for the committee by Joanna Slater, who was then a graduate student at Columbia University. 

OCR for page 267
 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES • The original requirements that beneficiaries of certain Title VI programs enter teaching or public service were later dropped. • The relative emphasis placed on improving language skills versus increasing knowledge of area studies has shifted back and forth. • Outreach efforts beyond higher education became a priority. It is important to note that although the Title VI/FH 102(b)(6) pro- grams have a common administrative home in the U.S. Department of Education, they have distinct legislative trajectories. Unlike the Title VI programs, which have been pushed and prodded regularly by Congress, the Fulbright-Hays 102(b)(6) programs entered the governmental bloodstream in 1961 and have stayed there, nearly undisturbed, ever since. The adjust- ments to these programs have been more administrative than legislative. The legislative history outlined here therefore focuses on the Title VI program, which has been influenced by 10 major pieces of legislation since its inception. When it is possible to discern, we have highlighted the ap- parent congressional intent behind the various program changes to provide additional insight into the program’s evolution.1 Overall, the legislative history of the Title VI program reveals how something that started as “a planned response to a national emergency” gradually became a “focus of national resources for . . . understanding and managing interdependence, trade, security, and other international issues” (Ruther, 2002, p. 134). In that same time period, the programs grew to embrace all levels and catego- ries in the higher education system. However, while Congress adjusted the program configuration over time—largely by adding programs to address specific needs, such as international education for business purposes and the training of minorities—it did not make significant changes to the original core legislation. This evolution reflects shifting congressional priorities as well as efforts on the part of institutions of higher education and other constituencies to influence the future of the Title VI programs. In particular, the link between Title VI and foreign policy concerns has guided the programs since their inception in 1958. For example, the revision to Title VI that took place in 1998 provided a robust restatement of its goals for the post–cold war era. The legislative history of Title VI programs can be viewed as following three rough periods of development: the early years (1958-1972), when the foundation of the programs was established, a middle period (1973-1991) of embedding and revising, and the current phase (1992 onward), during 1 The programs that form Title VI have always represented a relatively small provision within a larger piece of legislation, first in the National Defense Education Act and later in the Higher Education Act. The result is that Title VI receives very little attention in congressional debates, which tend to be consumed by discussions of such topics as student loan programs.

OCR for page 267
 APPENDIX A which the scope of the programs has been broadened. See Attachment A for the complete current statute. (Attachment A is available online. Go to http://www.nap.edu and search for International Education and Foreign Languages.) LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS (1958-1972) Three pieces of legislation form the foundation for today’s Title VI/FH programs: the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the Mutual Educa- tional and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, and the International Education Act of 1966. Although the latter was never funded, its programs, focus, and some of its language were later incorporated into Title VI. National Defense Education Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-864) The launch of the unmanned satellite Sputnik by the Soviet Union on October 4, 1957, provided the impetus for the legislation that was to be- come the National Defense Education Act (NDEA). The scientific coup by the country’s cold war rival produced widespread alarm and, by December of the same year, the Eisenhower administration announced its legisla- tive proposal to address the situation. Much of the administration’s plan focused on improving scientific expertise, but it also included graduate fel- lowships and grants to universities for language study. After two different versions of the proposed legislation were introduced in Congress in 1958, six months of hearings followed. For the most part, however, the testimony demonstrated a “conspicuous silence” (Gumperz, 1970, p. 51) regarding the language title in the bill. One exception was the testimony of Lawrence Derthick, the commis- sioner for education, who noted that the bill’s “fundamental objective is to improve greatly the quality of foreign language instruction at all levels of our education system. . . . [A]s a first step, the urgent need is to improve the language competence of teachers and supervisors now in service and to seek to stimulate the whole field of language instruction.”2 Only two outside groups lent their support to the embryonic Title VI: the Modern Language Association (MLA) and the American Council of Learned Societies. Some of the provisions included in Title VI can be traced to the influence of the MLA and its executive director, William Parker, who wrote a book in 1954 entitled “The National Interest and Foreign Languages.” Parker was a vocal advocate for greater government support of foreign language teaching in higher education and recommended integrating foreign language and area 2 SenateCommittee on Labor and Public Welfare, Hearings on Science and Education for National Defense, 85th Con., 2nd sess., February 1958, 343.

OCR for page 267
0 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES study. He later joined the U.S. Office of Education “to help administer the new structures [he] had done so much to create” (Gumperz, 1970, p. 59). The overall aim of the NDEA was to correct “critical areas of shortage and neglect which now carry highest priority in the national interest”3—in particular, science, math, and foreign languages. In describing the purpose of the section that would become Title VI, the House committee report states that its primary objective is to extend and improve the teaching of foreign languages in the United States. It adds that the title will also “pro- vide the means of preparing more Americans to conduct governmental, business, and cultural relations in an effective way.” 4 To create such language specialists and improve foreign language in- struction, the act relied on four main tools: • Language and area centers for instruction in modern foreign lan- guages and other fields “needed to provide a full understanding” of the areas in which those languages are used. The centers would be operated by institutions of higher education under contract with the government, which would provide up to 50 percent of the funding. The foreign languages taught in the centers were limited to those for which “adequate instruction” was not already readily available in the United States (National Resource Centers). • Stipends to individuals engaged in such language training, with the understanding that the recipients would be “available for teaching a modern foreign language in an institution of higher education or for [sic] other service of a public nature” (Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships). • Studies and research on the need for foreign language instruction, improved teaching methods, and the development of specialized teaching materials (International Research and Studies). • Summer and academic year language institutes for foreign language teachers in elementary or secondary schools. Like the language and area centers, the institutes would be operated by institutions of higher education under contract with the government (this part of Title VI was later repealed and transferred). The congressional debate on the legislation featured discussions on the scarcity of scientists in the United States, the alarming Soviet advantage in technical fields, and the advisability of federal meddling in higher education. 3 House Committee on Education and Labor, Report No.  to accompany H.R. , 85th Cong., 2nd sess., July 15, 1958, 4743. 4 House Committee on Education and Labor, Report No.  to accompany H.R. , 85th Cong., 2nd sess., July 15, 1958, 4743.

OCR for page 267
 APPENDIX A At least one representative scoffed at the notion that the bill—intended as a temporary measure—would be short-lived: “There is nothing so permanent as a temporary Government agency. Nor is there anything more lingering than the emergency in which it was born,” noted William Dawson (R-UT) in the House of Representatives debate on the bill on August 7, 1958. Several representatives bemoaned the lack of language skills in the American diplomatic corps, especially when compared with their Soviet counterparts. The foreign language section of the bill inspired little con- troversy and at least one staunch defender, Representative James Roosevelt (D-CA): In all conscience there is probably no section of the bill which would be entitled to more universal support than this section. . . . [L]anguage instruction in our schools and colleges is so badly neglected that we do not even have enough people who are proficient in French, Spanish, and German to meet the requirements of our international affairs. . . . The fast-moving events of the last few years have dramatically—often, for us, tragically—revealed the emergence of the peoples of Africa and Asia into the centers of world power. Yet for the most part we know nothing of their languages and all too little of their cultures.5 Some parts of the discussion are surprisingly contemporary. One rep- resentative described his shock upon discovering that only five American diplomats working in Arabic-speaking countries were fluent in the language (the comparable figure for the Soviet Union, he claimed, was 300). An- other representative shared this frustration but went on to note that “even though we train these individuals in foreign languages under this bill, there is nothing in the bill that can compel them to go to Lebanon or any other territory or country on the face of the earth after they have learned that foreign language.”6 President Eisenhower signed the NDEA into law in September 1958. The law was authorized for an initial period of four years, but Congress repeatedly extended its life span at different points during the 1960s. The 1958 statute left significant concepts open to interpretation—for example, what exactly constituted a “center.” The center concept was not formally delineated in the act and it “in no way prescribed the directions of growth which a center was to take. . . . The doctrine of “local option”—the center’s right to self-determination—prevailed from the beginning” (Axel- rod and Bigelow, 1962, pp. 13-14). The most enduring legacy of the act was the establishment of a fed- eral role in stimulating certain programs in higher education. When once universities funded foreign language and international studies internally or 5 Congressional Record, House, August 7, 1958, 16692-3. 6 Congressional Record, House, August 7, 1958, 16568.

OCR for page 267
 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES looked to private foundations for such support, the legislation introduced the option of federal funding. Although the amount of funding available was modest, it nevertheless represented a significant change in the academic landscape. As Ellen Gumperz has noted, once institutions of higher educa- tion are in “competition for federal funds, they must suffer the fortunes of the national market economy so created” (1970, p. 76). Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-256) Much like the NDEA three years earlier, the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 was shaped by cold war concerns. Politi- cians and diplomats worried that the Soviet Union was bolstering its own educational and cultural exchanges and wanted to ensure that American programs remained effective. Brooks Hays, then the assistant secretary of state, wrote a letter in support of the legislation, arguing that it would allow the United States to maintain its advantage in this arena at a time when “competitive efforts by the adversaries of free society are continually increasing.”7 The main goal of the legislation was to consolidate and simplify a host of existing governmental exchange programs in order to better serve Ameri- can interests abroad. The House committee report, for example, remarks that, “in the current struggle for the minds of men, no other instrument of foreign policy has such great potential.”8 The legislation aimed not only to better coordinate visits by foreigners to the United States, but also to im- prove the flow of Americans abroad, whether they were students, teachers, artists, or athletes. In the service of this latter objective, legislators proposed a section on overseas study for teacher training. This was a new type of exchange, focusing on “language training and specialized studies of areas or countries [by] Americans who teach such subjects in schools, colleges, and universities.”9 The final wording of the statute aimed to support visits and study abroad by teachers and “prospective teachers.” The House commit- tee noted that it expected the administrators of the program to implement “rigid criteria”10 to ensure that recipients enter teaching for a certain period of time following the program abroad. In the congressional debate on the legislation, Senator J. William Ful- 7 House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Report No. -0 to accompany H.R. , 87th Cong., 1st sess., August 31, 1961, 2775. 8 House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Report No. -0 to accompany H.R. , 2759. 9 House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Report No. -0 to accompany H.R. , 2765. 10 House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Report No. -0 to accompany H.R. , 2765.

OCR for page 267
 APPENDIX A bright (D-AR) declared, “The activities of the [Soviet] bloc do serve as a reminder of the foreign policy significance of exchanges, and of the need to put our own house in order.”11 Representative John Lindsay (R-New York) described the prior approach to educational and cultural exchanges as “piecemeal and sporadic,” despite the fact that such programs are “an es- sential part of our foreign relations. . . . Educational and cultural exchange is as fundamental—though far less costly—an instrument of foreign policy as our massive programs of defense and foreign aid.”12 Thanks to the intervention of the U.S. Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare, the act featured a provision that allowed the president to transfer authority for certain exchanges to different arms of the govern- ment—a move aimed squarely at the teacher exchanges created by Section 102(b)(5). In a letter to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Abra- ham Ribicoff, the secretary of health, education, and welfare, wrote that the aim of such exchanges was “essentially the same” as the programs of Title VI—that is, to promote “modern foreign language training and area studies in U.S. schools, colleges, and universities.”13 He asked that the au- thority for these exchanges be vested in his department, and the president later agreed. In later years these programs “were recast into more functional cat- egories to ensure balanced coverage with available resources (for example, Faculty Research Abroad, Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad, Group Projects Abroad, and Foreign Curriculum Consultants, now Seminars Abroad-Bilateral Projects)” (Vestal, 1994, p. 129). No further major legis- lative changes to these programs occurred. International Education Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-698) In a speech given in honor of the bicentennial of the Smithsonian Insti- tution in fall 1965, President Lyndon Johnson announced the creation of a broad initiative in global health and education. “Ideas, not armaments, will shape our lasting prospects for peace,” he told the assembled digni- taries. “The conduct of our foreign policy will advance no faster than the curriculum of our classrooms.” In a speech to Congress in February 1966, he outlined a 20-point plan to bolster international education in the United States while also strengthening educational assistance and disease preven- tion efforts abroad. For some of the points mentioned, new legislation was required. 11 CongressionalRecord, Senate, June 27, 1961, 11400. 12 CongressionalRecord, House, September 6, 1961, 18273-4. 13 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearings on the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act, 87th Cong., 1st sess., March and April 1961, 109.

OCR for page 267
 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES During the hearings on the proposed legislation, John Gardner, the secretary of health, education, and welfare, testified that it was “based on a new premise—the premise that international education at home and edu- cational relations with other nations are permanent and important aspects of our national interest. . . . [T]he reason becomes plain when we think about the enemy we seek to conquer. That enemy is ignorance, inadequate skills, parochialism, and lack of sensitivity as to why people from different cultures react and behave differently.”14 Instead of instituting training mechanisms or educational exchanges to directly serve national security or foreign policy goals, the International Education Act (IEA) sought to improve international studies more broadly. The rationale provided in the act was that “a knowledge of other countries is of the utmost importance in promoting mutual understanding and coop- eration between nations.” The goals of the legislation were twofold: to build a strong base at the graduate level for international research and studies and to allow students at the undergraduate level “a chance to learn more about the world and the cultures, customs, and values of other countries.”15 The latter program was included for substantive as well as political reasons: ever since the pas- sage of the NDEA, smaller universities and colleges had agitated for their share of federal support for international studies and language programs (Gumperz, 1970, p. 68). The act’s two main sections established the following programs: • Grants to institutions of higher education to operate graduate cen- ters for research and training in international studies and the international aspects of professional and other fields of study; grants to nonprofit agen- cies and organizations were also authorized for the same objective; and • Grants to institutions of higher education to assist them in strength- ening undergraduate instruction in international studies, including such activities as curriculum development, expansion of language courses, and training of faculty members abroad. A separate provision in the IEA also made three amendments to the NDEA that (1) revised the NDEA to allow area centers to focus on such languages as French, Spanish, and Italian, (2) removed the 50 percent ceil- ing on federal participation in centers, and (3) allowed the government to fund centers through grants as well as contracts. Although the IEA was a White House initiative, the Johnson admin- 14 Congressional Record, House, March 30, 1966, 7284. 15 SenateCommittee on Labor and Public Welfare, Report No.  to accompany H.R. , 89th Cong., 2nd sess., October 12, 1966, 3566.

OCR for page 267
 APPENDIX A istration provided little help to the House managers working to pass the bill. At the time, the administration was besieged with other issues, among them “urban rioting, civil rights and Black Power demonstrations, antiwar protests, and concerns about inflation” (Vestal, 1994, p. 67). Opposition to the bill surfaced during the congressional debates on the new measure. Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC), for example, questioned the wisdom of spending on a new domestic program while the country was at war in Vietnam. Senator Fulbright voiced the opposite view: “If there is any hope at all for a peaceful world,” he declared, “It will result from the kind of activity for which this bill provides.”16 Although the bill was eventually passed and later signed into law in Oc- tober 1966, opposition from Congress continued to plague the IEA, which was never funded. Numerous factors contributed to its failure: the president was consumed with the war in Vietnam, while Congress was increasingly distrustful of presidential initiatives and wary of new spending. One scholar described the mood on Capitol Hill as one of “weariness and a feeling of having been overcommitted, at home at abroad, by an Administration that enters ventures without looking down the road to where they may lead” (Vestal, 1994, p. 94). Theodore Vestal also believes that “the lack of political clout” (Vestal, 1994, p. 119) on the part of representatives of higher education contributed to the defeat of the IEA. Still, the unfunded IEA—like a “continuing stream of light from a dead but brilliant star” (Ruther, 2002, p. 119)—would provide the direction for several of the changes to Title VI over the fol- lowing two decades. The IEA’s supporters drew several lessons for future international education efforts from its demise: don’t disregard the national security rationale for such programs, try to make sure the program isn’t mistaken for foreign aid, and beware of a situation in which legislation is hostage to larger domestic and geopolitical forces. Education Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-318) Despite an attempt by the Nixon administration to eliminate Title VI, lobbying by representatives of higher education (combined with an inter- vention by national security adviser Henry Kissinger himself) managed to save the programs. Still, the Nixon and Ford administrations represented a difficult time for the advocates of Title VI, who found themselves engaged in a constant struggle against funding cuts. The Educational Amendments of 1972 once again extended and revised the programs. At the same time, the amendments enshrined a shift in federal higher education policy toward 16 Congressional Record, Senate, October 13, 1966, 26562-3.

OCR for page 267
 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES prioritizing student aid over support to institutions. This shift in turn con- tributed to the difficult funding environment for Title VI. The amendments reflected both the goals of the IEA and arguments ad- vanced by higher education advocates during the hearings on the proposed legislation. Two important new arguments for the programs surfaced in the testimony: the first was that the centers served as a national resource and therefore it was critical to maintain and expand them; the second was that the centers had a positive impact beyond their immediate university sur- roundings by disseminating expertise to other educational institutions and to society writ large. This line of argument presaged the role the centers would later play in outreach efforts. The most significant change to Title VI stemming from the 1972 amend- ments was the creation of an undergraduate grant program similar to that envisioned by the IEA: the Undergraduate International Studies and For- eign Language Program. The purpose, according to the House committee report, was to reflect the conviction that “additional emphasis should now be placed on undergraduate education in language and area studies” and that “the center approach be modified to include a more program oriented concept of language and area studies.”17 EMBEDDING AND REVISING (1973-1991) Fifteen years after its inception, Title VI could be deemed a success: although originally a temporary program, it had been extended several times. Still, debates remained over the appropriate funding levels, how broadly the programs should extend across the higher education system, which languages warranted focus, and whether the programs were effective in addressing foreign policy concerns. Especially in the early to mid-1970s, some of these debates would trans- late into a difficult period for Title VI. As Nancy Ruther has noted, during this time the programs were “consolidated and refined in the trenches of regulations rather than on the sunny playing fields of legislative initiatives and authorizations of earlier periods” (2002, p. 119). Things began to look up during the Carter administration. In 1980, Title VI finally found a permanent statutory home within the Higher Edu- cation Act (HEA). It also began to incorporate a new rationale for interna- tional education efforts—economic competitiveness. The result was several new programs as well as minor amendments to existing programs. 17 HouseCommittee on Education and Labor, Report No. - to accompany H.R. , 92nd Cong., 2nd sess., October 8, 1971, 2499.

OCR for page 267
 APPENDIX A Education Amendments of 1976 (P.L. 94-482) The Education Amendments of 1976 did not make any major changes to the existing Title VI programs. However, they did institute a new pro- gram to deepen student understanding of “cultures and actions of other nations to better evaluate the international and domestic impact of major national policies.” Unlike other Title VI programs, the grant recipients under the program were not limited to institutions of higher education. Ruther suggests that the program was a response to “increasing pressure from post-secondary education and school advocacy groups traditionally distant from core Title VI funding” (2002, p. 126). Four years later, the program was transferred to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Foreign Language Assistance Program). The program’s short tenure in Title VI illustrates the scramble for resources among different constituen- cies in education and the focus of Title VI on higher education. It also demonstrates the fact that beyond the centerpiece programs of Title VI—the centers and their fellowships—there continued to be a good deal of flux in the program mix. Education Amendments of 1980 (P.L. 96-374) After weathering a hostile funding environment for much of the 1970s, the Title VI programs received a more positive form of attention under the Carter administration. President Carter created the Commission on Foreign Language and International Studies by executive order in 1978. A year later, it produced a report calling for $178 million in new funding for international education programs.18 More broadly, the late 1970s were a time of concern about the place of the United States in the world economy as the country appeared to lose ground to more nimble competitors. In 1979, for example, Congress passed major trade legislation. For Title VI, such concerns translated into an entirely new section, with the aim of promoting activities that “contrib- ute to the ability of United States business to prosper in an international economy.” In its report on the bill, the House Committee on Education and Labor emphasized the “interdependent nature of the world’s economy” and the “vulnerability of the United States if it does not become more aware of the cultures and languages of other countries.” Representative Paul Simon (D-IL) initiated hearings in 1979 with the goal of finding Title VI a more permanent statutory home in HEA. Origi- nally intended as a temporary measure, Title VI had become a permanent 18 Ruther notes that due to the timing and focus of the report, these recommendations were not as effective as they might have been. It was not completed in time for the 1979 hearings on incorporating Title VI into the Higher Education Act.

OCR for page 267
 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES (3) curriculum planning and development; (4) bringing visitor scholars and faculty to the center to teach or to conduct research; and (5) training and improvement of the staff, for the purpose of, and subject to such conditions as the Secretary finds necessary for carrying out the objectives of this section. (c) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.— (1) MANDATORY ACTIVITIES.—Program and activities to be con- ducted by centers assisted under this section shall include— (A) interdisciplinary programs which incorporate foreign lan- guage and international studies and training into business, finance, management communications systems, and other professional curricula; (B) interdisciplinary programs which provide business, finance, management communication systems, and other professional train- ing for foreign language and international studies faculty and de- gree candidates; (C) programs, such as intensive language programs, available to members of the business community and other professionals which are designed to develop or enhance their international skills, aware- ness, and expertise; (D) collaborative programs, activities, or research involving other institutions of higher education, local educational agencies, profes- sional associations, businesses, firms, or combinations thereof, to promote the development of international skills, awareness, and expertise among current and prospective members of the business community and other professionals; (E) research designed to strengthen and improve the international aspects of business and professional education and to promote integrated curricula; and (F) research designed to promote the international competitiveness of American businesses and firms, including those not currently active in international trade. (2) PERMISSIBLE ACTIVITIES.—Programs and activities to be con- ducted by centers assisted under this section may include— (A) the establishment of overseas internship programs for students and faculty designed to provide training and experience in inter-

OCR for page 267
 APPENDIX A national business activities, except that no Federal funds provided under this section maybe used to pay wages or stipends to any participant who is engaged in compensated employment as part of an internship program; (B) the establishment of linkages overseas with institution of higher education and other organizations that contribute to the educa- tional objectives of this section; (C) summer institutes in international business, foreign area studies, foreign language studies and other international studies designed to carry out the purposes of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph; (D) the development of opportunities for business students to study abroad in locations which are important to the existing and future economic well-being of the United States; (E) outreach activities or consortia with business programs located at other institutions of higher education for the purpose of provid- ing expertise regarding the internationalization of such programs, such as assistance in research, curriculum development, faculty development, or educational exchange programs; and (F) other eligible activities prescribed by the Secretary. (d) ADVISORY COUNCIL— (1) ESTABLISHMENT-In order to be eligible for assistance under this section, an institution of higher education, or combination of such in- stitutions, shall establish a center advisory council which will conduct extensive planning prior to the establishment of a center concerning the scope of the center’s activities and the design of its programs. (2) MEMBERSHIP ON ADVISORY COUNCIL—The center advisory council shall include— (A) one representative of an administrative department or office of the institution of higher education; (B) one faculty representative of the business or management school or department of such institution; (C) one faculty representative of the international studies or foreign language school or department of such institution; (D) one faculty representative of another professional school or department of such institution as appropriate;

OCR for page 267
00 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES (E) one or more representative of local or regional businesses or firms; (F) one representative appointed by the Governor of the State in which the institution of higher education is located whose normal responsibilities include official oversight or involvement in State- sponsored trade-related activities or programs; and (G) such other individuals as the institution of higher education deems appropriate such as a representative of a community college in the region served by the center. (3) MEETINGS --In addition to the initial planning activities required under subsection (d)(1), the center advisory council shall meet not less than once each year after the establishment of the center to assess and advise on the programs and activities conducted by the center. (e) GRANT DURATION; FEDERAL SHARE— (1) DURATION OF GRANTS—The Secretary shall make grants under this section for a minimum of 3 years unless the Secretary determines that the provision of grants of shorter duration is necessary to carry out the objectives of this section. (2) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost of planning, establishing and operating centers under this section shall be— (A) not more than 90 percent for the first year in which Federal funds are received; (B) not more than 70 percent for the second such year and (C) not more than 50 percent for the third such year and for each such year thereafter. (3) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.-The non-Federal share of the cost of planning, establishing, and operating centers under this section may be provided either in cash or in-kind. (4) WAIVER OF NON FEDERAL SHARE. --In the case of an institu- tion of higher education receiving a grant under this part and conduct- ing outreach or consortia activities with another institution of higher education in accordance with section 612(c)(2)E, the Secretary may waive a portion of the requirements for the non-Federal share required in paragraph (2) equal to the amount provided by the institution of higher education receiving such grant to such other institution of higher education for carrying out such outreach or consortia activities. Any

OCR for page 267
0 APPENDIX A such waiver shall be subject to such terms and conditions, as the Secre- tary deems necessary for carrying out the purposes of this section. (f) GRANT CONDITIONS.—Grants under this section shall be made on such conditions as the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the objectives of this section. Such conditions shall include— (1) evidence that the institution of higher education, or combination of such institutions, will conduct extensive planning prior to the establish- ment of a center concerning the scope of the center’s activities and the design of its programs in accordance with subsection(d)(1); (2) assurance of ongoing collaboration in the establishment and op- eration of the center by faculty of the business, management, foreign language, international studies, professional international affairs, and other professional schools or departments, as appropriate; (3) assurance that the education and training programs of the center will be open to students concentrating in each of these respective areas, as appropriate; and (4) assurance that the institution of higher education, or combination of such institutions, will use the assistance provided under this section to supplement and not to supplant activities conducted by institutions of higher education described in subsection (c)(1). SEC. 613 EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS (a) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary shall make grants to, and enter into contracts with, institutions of higher education to pay the Federal share of the cost of programs designed to promote linkages between such institutions and the American business community engaged in international economic activity. Each program assisted under this part shall both enhance the international academic programs of institutions of higher education and provide appropriate services to the business community which will expand its capacity to engage in commerce abroad. (b) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.—Eligible activities to be conducted by institutions of higher education under this section shall include, (1) innovation and improvement in international education curricula to serve the needs of the business community, including development of new programs for nontraditional, mid-career, or part-time students; (2) development of programs to inform the public of increasing inter-

OCR for page 267
0 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES national economic interdependence and the role of American business within the international economic system; (3) internationalization of curricula at the junior and community col- lege level, and at undergraduate and graduate schools of business; (4) development of areas studies programs and interdisciplinary inter- national programs; (5) establishment of export education programs through cooperative arrangements with regional and world trade centers and councils, and with bilateral and multilateral trade associations; (6) research for and development of specialized teaching materials, including language materials, and facilities appropriate to business- oriented students; (7) establishment of student and faculty fellowships and internships for training and education in international business activities; (8) development of opportunities for junior business and other profes- sional school faculty to acquire or strengthen international skills and perspectives; (9) development of research programs on issues of common interest to institutions of higher education and private sector organizations and associations engaged in or promoting international economic activity; (10) the establishment of internships overseas to enable foreign lan- guage students to develop their foreign language skills and knowledge of foreign cultures and societies. (11) the establishment of linkages overseas with institutions of higher education and organizations that contribute to the educational objec- tives of this section; and (12) summer institutes in international business, foreign area and other international studies designed to carry out the purposes of this section. (c) APPLICATIONS.—No grant may be made and no contact may be en- tered into under the provisions of this part unless an institution of higher education submits an application at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may reasonably require. Each such application shall be accom- panied by a copy of the agreement entered into by the institution of higher education with a business enterprise, trade organization or association en- gaged in international economic activity, or a combination or consortium of such enterprises, organizations or associations, for the purpose of estab-

OCR for page 267
0 APPENDIX A lishing, developing, improving or expanding activities eligible for assistance under subsection (b) of this section. Each such application shall contain assurances that the institution of higher education will use the assistance provided under this part to supplement and not to supplant activities con- ducted by institutions of higher education described in subsection (b). (d) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share under this part for each fiscal year shall not exceed 50 per centum of the cost of such program. SEC. 614. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. (a) CENTERS FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS EDUCATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated $11,000,000 for the fiscal year 1993 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years to carry out the provisions of section 612. (b) EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAMS.—There are authorized to be appropriated $7,000,000 for fiscal year 1993, and such sums as may be necessary for the 4 succeeding fiscal years, to carry out the provisions of section 613. PART C—INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY SEC. 621. MINORITY FOREIGN SERVICE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary is authorized to award a grant, on a competitive basis, to an eligible recipient to enable such recipient to establish an Institute for International Public Policy (hereafter in this part referred to as the ‘Institute’). The Institute shall conduct a program to sig- nificantly increase the numbers of African Americans and other underrepre- sented minorities in the international service, including private international voluntary organizations and the foreign service of the United States. Such program shall include a program for such students to study abroad in their junior year, fellowships for graduate study, internships, intensive academic programs such as summer institutes, or intensive language training. (b) DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE RECIPIENT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—For the purpose of this part, the term ‘eligible recipient’ means a consortium consisting of 1 or more of the following entities:

OCR for page 267
0 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES (A) An institution eligible for assistance under part B of title I11 of this Act. (B) An institution of higher education which serves substantial numbers of African American or other underrepresented minority students. (C) An institution of higher education with programs in training foreign service professionals. (2) HOST INSTITUTION.-Each eligible recipient receiving a grant under this section shall designate an institution of higher education as the host institution for the Institute. (c) APPLICATION.—Each eligible recipient desiring a grant under this section shall submit an application at such time, in such manner, and ac- companied by such information as the Secretary may reasonably require. (d) DURATION.—Grants made pursuant to this section shall be awarded for a period not to exceed 5 years. (e) MATCH REQUIRED.—The eligible recipient of a grant under this section shall contribute to the conduct of the program supported by the grant an amount from non-Federal sources equal to at least one-fourth the amount of the grant, which contribution may be in cash or in kind. SEC. 622. JUNIOR YEAR ABROAD PROGRAM. (a) PROGRAM AUTHORITY.—The Institute shall conduct, by grant or contract, a junior year abroad program. The junior year abroad program shall be open to eligible students at institutions of higher education, includ- ing historically Black colleges and universities as defined in section 322 of this Act, tribally controlled Indian community colleges as defined in the Tribally Controlled Community College Assistance Act of 1978, and other institutions of higher education with significant minority student popula- tions. Eligible student expenses shall be shared by the Institute and the institution at which the student is in attendance. Each student may spend not more than 9 months abroad in a program of academic study, as well as social, familial and political interactions designed to foster an understand- ing of and familiarity with the language, culture, economics and governance of the host country. (b) DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE STUDENT.—For the purpose of this section, the term ‘eligible student’ means a student that is—

OCR for page 267
0 APPENDIX A (1) enrolled full-time in a baccalaureate degree program at an institu- tion of higher education; and (2) entering the third year of study at an institution of higher educa- tion which nominates such student for participation in the junior year abroad program. (c) SPECIAL RULE.—An institution of higher education desiring to send a student on the junior year abroad program shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Institute under which such institution of higher education agrees to— (1) provide the requisite academic preparation for students participat- ing in the junior year abroad or internship programs; (2) pay one-half the cost of each student it nominates for participation in the junior year abroad program; and (3) meet such other requirements as the Secretary may from time to time, by regulation, reasonably require. SEC. 623. MASTERS DEGREE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. The Institute shall provide, in cooperation with the other members partici- pating in the eligible recipient consortium, a program of study leading to a masters degree in international relations. The masters degree program designed by the consortia shall be reviewed and approved by the Secretary. The Institute may grant fellowships in an amount not to exceed the level of support comparable to that provided by the National Science Foundation graduate fellowships, except such amount shall be adjusted as necessary so as not to exceed the fellow’s demonstrated level of need according to measurement of need approved by the Secretary. A fellowship recipient shall agree to undertake full-time study and to enter the international service (in- cluding work with private international voluntary organizations) or foreign service of the United States. SEC. 624. INTERNSHIPS The Institute shall enter into agreements with historically Black colleges and universities as defined in section 322 of this Act, tribally controlled Indian community colleges as defined in the Tribally Controlled Community Col- lege Assistance Act of 1978, other institutions of higher education with signiticant numbers of minority students, and institutions of higher educa- tion with programs in training foreign service professionals, to provide

OCR for page 267
0 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES academic year internships during the junior and senior year and summer internships following the sophomore and junior academic years, by work placements with an international voluntary or government organizations or agencies, including the Agency for International Development, the United States Information Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the National Security Council, the Organization of American States, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Department of State, Office of the United States Trade Representative, the World Bank, and the United Nations. SEC. 625. REPORT. The Institute shall annually prepare a report on the activities of the Institute and shall submit such report to the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of State. SEC. 626. GIFTS AND DONATIONS. The Institute is authorized to receive money and other property donated, bequeathed, or devised to the Institute with or without a condition of re- striction, for the purpose of providing financial support for the fellowshi s or underwriting the cost of the Junior Year Abroad Program. All funds or property given, devised, or bequeathed shall be retained in a separate account, and an accounting of those funds and property shall be included in the annual report described in section 625. SEC. 627. AUTHORIZATION. There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for fiscal year 1993 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years to carry out this part. PART D—GENERAL PROVISIONS SEC. 631. DEFINITIONS. (a) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this title— (1) the term ‘area studies’ means a program for comprehensive study of the aspects of a society or societies, including study of its history, culture, economy, politics, international relations and languages;

OCR for page 267
0 APPENDIX A (2) the term ‘international business’ means profit-oriented business relationships conducted across national boundaries and includes activi- ties such as the buying and selling of goods, investments in industries, the licensing of processes, patents and trademarks, and the supply of services; (3) the term ‘export education’ means educating, teaching and training to provide general knowledge and specific skills pertinent to the sell- ing of goods and services to other countries, including knowledge of market conditions, financial arrangements, laws, and procedures; (4) the term ‘internationalization of curricula’ means the incorpora- tion of international or comparative perspectives in existing courses of study or the addition of new components to the curricula to provide an international context for American business education; (5) the term ‘comprehensive language and area center’ means an ad- ministrative unit of a university that contributes significantly to the national interest in advance research and scholarship, employs a criti- cal mass of scholars in diverse disciplines related to a geographic con- centration, offers intensive language training in languages of its area specialization, maintains important library collections related to the area, and makes training available in language and area studies to a graduate, postgraduate, and undergraduate clientele; and (6) the term ‘undergraduate language and area center’ means an admin- istrative unit of an institution of higher education, including but not limited to 4-year colleges, that contributes significantly to the national interest through the education and training of students who matriculate into advanced language and area studies programs, professional school programs, or incorporate substantial international and foreign lan- guage content into baccalaureate degree programs, engages in research, curriculum development and community outreach activities designed to broaden international and foreign language knowledge, employs fac- ulty with strong language, area, and international studies credentials, maintains library holdings, including basic reference works, journals, and works in translation, and makes training available predominantly to undergraduate students; (7) the term ‘critical languages’ means each of the languages contained in the list of critical languages designated by the Secretary pursuant to section 212(d) of the Education for Economic Security Act (50 Fed. Reg.149, 31413), except that, in the implementation of this definition, the Secretary may set priorities according to the purposes of this title; and

OCR for page 267
0 INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES (8) the term ‘institution of higher education’ means, in addition to institutions which meet the definition of section 1201(a) of this Act, institutions which meet the requirements of section 1201(a) of this Act except that (1) they are not located in the United States, and (2) they apply for assistance under this title in consortia with institutions which meet the definition of 1201(a) of this Act. (b) SPECIAL CONDITIONS.—All references to individuals or organiza- tions, unless the context otherwise requires, mean individuals who are citizens or permanent residents of the United States or organizations which are organized or incorporated in the United States. SEC. 632. PRESERVATION OF PRE-1992 PROGRAMS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, amendments to this title establishing new programs or expanding existing programs enacted pursu- ant to the Higher Education Amendments of 1992 shall not be funded in fiscal year 1993, or the 4 succeeding fiscal years, unless and until Congress enacts appropriations for programs under this title enacted prior to such Amendments at a level no less than the level of funding in effect for such preexisting programs for fiscal year 1992.