approach. Will you explain that? At the present time I guess it is "we talk, you listen," and I understand now there is going to be a different approach. What is the new approach?

Mr. WELLFORD. What we are talking about here is a transition from a cold war period where there was more of an emphasis on one-way communication, on trying to speak with more concern for putting the very best face on every aspect of American life and less concern about trying to learn from what is happening overseas and form our policy accordingly. Times have changed. We are now in a much more complex world where mutual understanding, which is the way I define mutuality, is important.

It is obvious when you think about international economics. It is obvious when you think about all of the new complex relationships we have with developing nations in the world.

What we are trying to do here is to emphasize that this Agency will have a twofold mandate. It will tell the world about our society and policies and emphasize our cultural diversity and the individual freedom that we think characterizes our society. At the same time, it will emphasize that we have a great deal to learn from and about other societies. This information should enable our policymaking process to be better informed and make us more effective overseas. Mr. HORTON. On that point, I understand that there is going to be a heavy emphasis on "we listen to others." How are you going to effectuate that in this program?

Mr. WELLFORD. The cultural affairs, educational exchange activities, and informational services will be closely linked in this new Agency. We anticipate that the people who are concerned about communicating U.S. life, policies, and points of view overseas will be more effective in doing that if they understand the kind of questions and perceptions the people overseas have about this country.

So we hope there will be a strong interchange of these perspectives within the new Agency that we are creating. That is the rationale. Mr. HORTON. I still do not understand how it is going to actually be done but perhaps you could give us something for the record later to expand on that aspect of the organization.

In other words, how are you going to accomplish that "we listen" attitude?

Mr. WELLFORD. We could certainly do that. Obviously the most precise answer to your question would be to describe how the Associate Directors within the Agency are going to work together, how one element of the Agency is relating to another, and so forth.

Mr. HORTON. I think that would be important.

Mr. FASCELL. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HORTON. Yes.

Mr. FASCELL. I do not think you ought to expect too much on that. They are just going to turn the radio set around so you can hear it. The other thing is they are going to expand their exchange programs. That is the only way you can listen. They might take a few polls.

Mr. HORTON. I am not sure that the material which we have here indicates how that is going to be done. I thought that we should have it. Mr. FASCELL. I think you are right.

Mr. HORTON. As you know, when we went through Reorganization Plan No. 1 there were a lot of questions that could only be answered with backup material. I found myself in a very embarrassing position in trying to explain these questions to my colleagues on the full committee. I do not want to be in that position again. Therefore, I would like to have the type of background information required so when questions are asked then I can answer them.

For example, I did refer in my opening remarks to the fact that you do identify the roles of two of the new Associate Directors but there are two others where the roles are not defined. Can you spell those out? Mr. WELLFORD. I think that the gentlemen who follow me are going to be more involved than I in the administrative details of the new Agency. Perhaps they can answer the question better than I can.

Eric has been working specifically on those administrative details. Mr. HIRSCHHORN. Two of the four Associate Directors, will have responsibility respectively for the broadcasting service, the VOA, and for the cultural and educational programs.

The exact responsibilities of the other two have not yet been formulated.

Mr. HORTON. Then why do you need them?

Mr. HIRSCHHORN. We know that there are certainly other important jobs that have to be done. There are policy and planning jobs. There is administrative management, which includes budget and personnel. Those are the kinds of jobs that have to be done at the top levels of an agency.

Mr. HORTON. I think it is helpful for us when we have these reorganization plans to have a chart. That chart does not necessarily go into the law but it does help us to understand what is the role and the responsibility of those positions.

We had a lot of questions about positions when we were setting up the Department of Energy. We had a lot of debate here in the full committee and then on the floor and in the conference about the roles of those particular positions. We did not write those assignments into the law but it was important to have a history. In some instances, we did specify what those missions were to be.

I remember that the gentleman from Florida and I worked on spelling out the roles of some of the Assistant Directors of the Department of Energy.

Here you want to have four Associate Directors. Two of them you spell out, but the other two you do not indicate what their roles are going to be. I do not think we ought to have legislation and reorganization plans without spelling out generally what those Associate Directors are going to be doing and the need for those Associate Directors. Maybe you do not need them. Maybe you only need one. Maybe you need three. I don't know. I do not think you have given us enough information.

Mr. WELLFORD. Mr. Horton, we would be glad to supply additional data.

Mr. HORTON. I am getting a little bit concerned about this because Mr. Lance sat right there where you are on Reorganization Plan No. 1 and said, "We are going to supply you with information," and we

didn't get that type of background information that we needed. I would like to get that type of information.

You have sent up this plan, Reorganization Plan No. 2. There are four Associate Directors. What are the other two supposed to do? What is the chart? Where is the chart? What is going to happen to all these other people who are going to be transferred over? Who is going to be responsible for them? Where do they fit into the picture? Can you answer those questions now?

Mr. WELLFORD. We can answer them in general, but you are really asking for the specifics of the relationships among these four Associate Directors. Basically what we have done is to ask the people who are actually going to be in charge of administering this Agency to sit down with us and work out the details.

Mr. HORTON. Let's do it before you bring these plans in here next time. This is the last one that I am going to go along with without having more specific information; I can assure you of that. If this continues, you are not going to get these plans through here.

I think that you are going to have to give us more backup material with regard to the role of these Associate Directors and other personnel who make up these various organizations. I think you ought to have that when you send this message up here. You ought not just come up with the bare bones.

Let me go to another subject, although I do not feel that that subject is concluded, but I do not want to take up the whole morning. I am sure other members want to ask questions, too, and I have a lot of other questions. However, I do want to emphasize that we need that type of information. I want that type of information before I am going to OK this matter going out of the subcommittee.

The USIA has been prohibited from disseminating information domestically. Now the CU's task, as I understand it, is to disseminate its information domestically. How will domestic dissemination of the new Agency's materials be addressed in this legislation?

Mr. WELLFORD. The reorganization plan does not alter the existing restrictions, which apply only to USIA-produced media materials. Mr. HORTON. How are you going to delineate that?

Mr. WELLFORD. We have had a working delineation up to now within the foreign affairs community.

Mr. HORTON. Yes, but you have two agencies now. You have two operations. Now you are going to put them together under one head. How are you going to distinguish material? I assume you are going to have personnel who are going to be interchangeable. How are you going to delineate this? How are you going to keep those policies delineated? That is going to be a pretty difficult line to walk down.

Mr. WELLFORD. The information that comes to us from overseas through the exchange programs-for example, the educational programs obviously is and should be used to enrich our culture by understanding of foreign cultures.

The restrictions on USIA-produced material refer to specific programs, various media presentations, that are developed for foreign audiences. I think we can still maintain that distinction. I don't see that as a significant operational problem.

Mr. HORTON. I think it is a major problem, and I do not think that you have answered it sufficiently.

My time has expired. I have other questions, Mr. Chairman, but I know the other members also have questions.

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Horton.

Congressman Moss?

Mr. Moss. I do have a few questions, Mr. Chairman.

Before asking them, I would like to say that I sincerely hope that each of the reorganization plans not only promises but hopes to achieve greater efficiency and economy of operations. That is really the only reason for having reorganization authority.

I have not studied this one as carefully as I normally would. However, from reviewing it here today in context with studies that I made a number of years ago, I do have very serious questions that that economy of operations will be achieved or that there will be any significant enhancement of the ability of the agencies being changed to perform the functions assigned to them by law.

I would be interested in the kinds of studies, current studies, made in OMB of the agency operations that led rationally to the proposal we have before us today. I know the ones that are cited in the appendix which are themselves contradictory of each other in part or in whole.

Are those the most current studies? I am talking about those cited in the appendix.

Mr. WELLFORD. The major studies, the ones that received the most public attention, were reported in 1975-the Stanton Panel, for example.

We have of course been deeply involved in discussing the implications and recommendations of those previous studies with the agencies involved in trying to assess the significance of various recommendations and alternatives.

Peter Szanton, who is the director of this project generally, can comment more specifically on the options that we have considered. That is a brief answer to your question.

Mr. Moss. Do you have papers that set forth the options that you then had before you in making a selection of the ones that would be forwarded to us? I prefer having the paper in order to give it a little bit of study rather than just a superficial recital of it here today.

Mr. SZANTON. Mr. Moss, let me respond to both elements of your question.

There are issues which are novel and difficult and as to which the facts are unknown. This one may be difficult but it is not novel and it is not, as you well know, one as to which the basic facts are unknown.

In addition to the two studies which were completed in 1975 to which Mr. Wellford has referred, there has been a continuing series of studies, including the GAO study which was completed in the spring of this year and the hearings of the Fascell subcommittee, which brought the matter entirely up to date.

Although there is considerable difference among the various recent studies as to recommendations, there is very little difference as to the underlying facts. Indeed, there is considerable agreement even as to that part of the recommendations which goes to consolidating in Wash

ington the functions which are consolidated in the field. There has been general unanimity on that.

Mr. Moss. In other words, there really is no current study by OMB upon which to base the recommendations before us today.

Mr. SZANTON. I do not think that is a fair statement. What OMB did was to review a voluminous record developed in the executive departments, developed by the Congress, and developed by the General Accounting Office, and in discussions among all of the interested agencies to assess independently the factual findings and recommendationsMr. Moss. Who in the agencies would be assessing? You have a new administration, a substantial turnover in agency personnel. Who did the assessing?

Mr. SZANTON. We can supply you with a list of names if you wish. Mr. Moss. That would be very worthwhile. Include how long they have been in the agency and where they came from, so that I have some understanding of the expertise possessed by each of them. Mr. SZANTON. I would be happy to supply that, sir.

Mr. Moss. Was there any evaluation of the relative merits of the functions now being performed in an effort to determine whether or not they should be continued? What studies were made of that type of evaluation?

Mr. SZANTON. There are two. We have independent recent assessments by OMB and within the agencies as well as the finding of the various recent commissions and task forces to which we have referred. Mr. Moss. Would you give us a listing of those? Mr. SZANTON. We would be happy to do that, sir.

Mr. Moss. What attention was paid to activities which significantly impinge upon USIA policies in some countries around the world where the Armed Forces radio and television networks operate?

Mr. SZANTON. I think we can do better than to supply later material. I think if that question is addressed to Mr. Bray, who will testify this morning, he can provide an answer to you quite promptly.

Mr. Moss. I see nothing in the reorganization that proposes to deal with a problem perceived by the members of my subcommittee about a decade ago as being one of the more significant problems facing the State Department and the various U.S. diplomatic missions around the globe.

Any material that you have on that, anything that sheds light on why there was not a move toward more effective coordination in that area, would be of interest to us.

Mr. SZANTON. I would be happy to cover that.

Mr. Moss. Those are all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much, Mr. Moss.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fuqua. Mr. FUQUA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have several brief questions.

How long have you been working on this specific reorganization plan?

Mr. WELLFORD. We began our work in late spring of this year.

Mr. FUQUA. Did you coordinate any of this with the people affected? Mr. WELLFORD. Yes, sir, we did. We worked very closely with the State Department, USIA, the National Security Council and the Domestic Policy Staff people. There were a number of proposals drafted