Page images

Mr. LEVITAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to participate in this hearing today. I am very interested in the entire reorganization process. I want to avail myself of this opportunity.

Mr. Wellford, at the present time, taking into account the Bureau within the Department of State and the USIA, how many persons are there who hold a position at level IV?

Mr. WELLFORD. There are two at level IV and one at level II.
Mr. LEVITAS. There are two at level IV at the present time?
Mr. WELLFORD. That is correct. That is my understanding.

Mr. LEVITAS. Under the proposed reorganization you are recommending that there be four persons designated at level IV.

Mr. WELLFORD. Associate Directors, that is correct.

Mr. LEVITAS. At the present time, taking into account the Bureau within the Department of State

Mr. FASCELL. Would the gentleman from Georgia yield?


Mr. FASCELL. I do not understand about that count.

Mr. HIRSCHHORN. The count includes the Director of the USIA who is a level II, the Deputy Director of the USIA who is a level IV, and the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs who is also a IV.

Mr. FASCELL. Thank you.

Mr. LEVITAS. How many persons in these two agencies, the Bureau and USIA, presently hold the position of level III?



Mr. LEVITAS. You are proposing the establishment of a new person with a level III designation?

Mr. WELLFORD. That is correct.

Mr. LEVITAS. I think you have already testified there is one person presently holding a position of level II and there will now be one person under the reorganization at level II.

Mr. WELLFORD. That is right.

Mr. HORTON. Would the gentleman yield?


Mr. HORTON. Do we have this information?

Mr. FASCELL. It is in the plan.

Mr. WELLFORD. It is in the plan.

Mr. LEVITAS. What is proposed is in the plan but what is existing at the present time I do not find in the plan.

Mr. HORTON. What was your last question?

Mr. LEVITAS. The number of persons who are presently designated at level II in these two agencies and how many are proposed under the reorganization. The answer was one existing and one proposed.

As I understand it, there are a total of three persons presently who hold positions of level IV, level III, or level II and under the proposed reorganization there will be a total of six. That is exactly doubled at that level.

What anticipated economies or efficiencies do you see as resulting from increasing from three to six the number of persons at this level?

Mr. HIRSCHHORN. I think there are two points to be made in response to that. It is an increase only from 3 to 5 because we are abolishing 1 of the 13 positions of Assistant Secretary of State. The second point is that it has been felt that under the existing organization

Mr. LEVITAS. Wait. I do not follow you. Would you run that past me again, please?


Mr. LEVITAS. There are three people now in the two agencies.
Mr. HIRSCHHORN. That is right.

Mr. LEVITAS. They are two level IVs and one level II.

Mr. HIRSCHHORN. That is correct.

Mr. LEVITAS. There are proposed to be four level IV persons, one level III person, and one level II person. Therefore, I get six, which is a doubling of people at level IV upward. Is my arithmetic off on that? Mr. HIRSCHHORN. Your arithmetic is correct, but we are also abolishing one level IV position at State.

The second point of the answer is really not so much one of dollars as one of efficiency.

Mr. LEVITAS. Before you go on, which position are you abolishing at State?

Mr. HIRSCHHORN. The duties of the 13 Assistant Secretaries are not specified by the enabling statute. We are simply saying that 1 of the 13 is abolished. That would reduce the number to 12.

Mr. LEVITAS. The Assistant Secretary of the Bureau for Educational and Cultural Affairs will become one of these level IV persons designated in section 4 of the plan?


Mr. LEVITAS. There is another Assistant Secretary some place over there whose position will be abolished.

Mr. HIRSCHHORN. No; the abolition is really in the nature of a transfer of that level IV from State into the new Agency.

Mr. LEVITAS. That is what I was getting at. So it is really not an abolition. We are going from three to six.

Mr. HIRSCHHORN. That is correct.

Mr. LEVITAS. What efficiency or economy do you expect to result from this increase?

Mr. HIRSCHHORN. The feeling on the part of those who have been heading USIA-and I think perhaps Mr. Bray can speak to this better than I when he appears-is that there are far too many people reporting directly to the Director and the Deputy Director. In addition, there is the fact that the large number of Assistant Directors does not give proper recognition to the importance of the Voice of America, both in terms of program and budget. Further, there is the need to afford a proper level of importance to the functions that will come into the new Agency from the Department of State. For that reason it was felt appropriate to have four people at a level between the existing Assistant Director level of USIA and the Director and Deputy Director of the Agency, particularly taking into account the fact that a substantial budget and program is coming from State into the new Agency.

Mr. LEVITAS. I understand the purpose in upgrading the level of the Director of the Voice of America, but I am somewhat troubled

just on the raw figures. I was one of those who hoped that as a result of reorganization we might have the potential of a reduction of high level positions in the bureaucracy when agencies were put together and reorganized. This seems to be a trend in the opposite direction.

Let me ask you this. Overall conceptually, Mr. Wellford, are we doing anything or is plan No. 2 doing anything more than putting these two agencies together and adding more high level personnel?

Mr. WELLFORD. Yes, sir. As I pointed out in my statement and in answer to the question by the chairman, we are developing a new mission for this Agency that emphasizes mutual understanding. To be sure, we are transferring a series of functions that have existed elsewhere. The role of the new administrator is going to be to redirect these functions to serve this goal of mutuality. It is not simply a consolidation. It is an effort to change over a period of time the whole emphasis of the programs involved.

Mr. LEVITAS. By the appointment of a level II executive, I take it that one of the purposes to be accomplished is an overall upgrading within the administration of this function from the present to point of level

Mr. WELLFORD. The present Director of USIA is level II. The top man at the new Agency will have the same level.

Mr. LEVITAS. Is this the only proposed reorganization in the area of international affairs that is being considered?

Mr. WELLFORD. It is the only one that is directly concerned with the public diplomacy function, but we do have a number of reorganization studies underway in the foreign policy and national security area. One deals with the relationships among State, Defense, ACDA, and the. National Security Council in the development of defense policy. That will have only a peripheral impact on this particular reorganization. Mr. LEVITAS. Nothing is being considered in the area of international financial assistance and related matters concerning the Department of Agriculture, financial institutions, and the like?

Mr. WELLFORD. Yes, sir. We have two studies underway in that area that are very comprehensive in scope. We have an economic policy study which is considering the whole array of economic policy analysis going on in the Federal Government-the way it reaches the President and whether its quality is adequate.

We also have a study of food policy underway which will look into the international question which you mentioned.

We are concerned about the relationships between domestic economic considerations and the increasing complexity of international economic questions. We are concerned about whether the structures that we have had, which have been built up over a period of time, often in response to historical demands, are adequate to meet these new challenges.

Mr. LEVITAS. Who is responsible for the development of this concept? Is it Mr. Szanton?

Mr. WELLFORD. Mr. Szanton was the basic study coordinator; that is correct.

Mr. LEVITAS. He was the person who developed basically the concept, obviously with a lot of refinement and input from others, which is now embodied in plan No. 2?

Mr. SZANTON. It seems to me fair to characterize this as an interagency study process led by OMB with Mr. Hirschhorn at the working level and myself providing some supervision. It is not simply an OMB solo effort.

Mr. LEVITAS. Mr. Szanton, the use by you in the development of this plan of the studies which are referred to at the end of Mr. Wellford's statement, these studies were used by OMB so that you would not have to go out and reinvent the wheel. You had the benefit of the input that had been focused upon these problems in the past, both by those referenced here as well as by the work done by Mr. Fascell's subcommittee; is that correct?

Mr. SZANTON. That is correct. That is an area which has been regarded as a problem for some time and has consequently drawn a great deal of systematic attention of a very high and sustained quality. It would have been foolish to try to start from scratch.

Mr. LEVITAS. I imagine if you had started from scratch there would have been some people who would have criticized you for starting from scratch rather than looking at these expert studies.

Mr. SZANTON. I imagine so.

Mr. WELLFORD. Mr. Levitas, I should point out that Peter Szanton was the research director for the Murphy Commission. That was one of the major study task forces in this area. He has also authored a book last year on foreign policy reorganization, so he was particularly well qualified to assess the studies of the past.

Mr. LEVITAS. I am going to be very interested in seeing the information that you supply in response to the request by Congressman Moss. I think it would be helpful if these were identified not only by name and position, but give some indication of their background and qualifications such as you have just done with respect to Mr. Szanton. That will give us some ability to assess their qualifications to make the judg


Mr. WELLFORD. Right.

Mr. LEVITAS. I think it is extremely important, Mr. Wellford, in the future as these plans come before this committee and they become increasingly more complex and controversial that some place in the presentation initially by OMB, who has the primary responsibility for this reorganization effort, that you detail in one place the budget impact and the personnel impact in terms of numbers of people, their grades and responsibilities, and the expected efficiencies or economies to be derived. Then any person can without questioning you and others or pouring through a lot of detail in the report can find in one place what are these very basic questions at the outset.

I would like to add my word of concern to the situation in which there are four level IV Associate Directors designated by this plan and yet there is a very vague concept of what these people are going to do.

I know that you cannot tie the hands of the new Director of this Agency beyond the ability to have the flexibility to do what he needs to do. However, somebody has some idea of why you decided on four and not three or seven.

I think what Mr. Horton, Mr. Fuqua, and some others were concerned about-and what I am concerned about-is what are these

people going to do? What are their jobs? What do you have in mind for them?

Then some assessment can be made as to whether four is too many or perhaps in some instances too few.

I think it is extremely important that a chart with some indication of responsibilities be provided henceforth.

I have one last point. Along those lines, I would like to second Mr. Horton's suggestion that you take a look at the name of the Agency and perhaps consider using the term "United States" in the title because I noticed that you established an advisory commission which bears the name "U.S. Advisory Commission." While that is a domestic operation, I think it is even more important when you are going to be dealing overseas.

In connection with the advisory commission, was an evaluation made in your proposal as to the effectiveness of the existing commission? Will there be a merger of staff of the two commissions or will there be an elimination of one of the staffs?

Mr. WELLFORD. Yes, we did examine the effectiveness of the two commissions. We are merging the commissions into one. We have not considered in detail the staff requirement for the new Commission.

Mr. HIRSCHHORN. No, we have not. There has been some general discussion about where the staffing would come from but not detailed discussion.

Mr. WELLFORD. We are talking about a small group of people.
Mr. LEVITAS. How large is the staff?

Mr. HIRSCHHORN. There is a total of about five people on the two staffs.

Mr. LEVITAS. I have one last comment, Mr. Wellford, on what I feel was just a verbal oversight.

You stated that the gentleman who would be appointed to be Director-I assume you meant lady or gentleman and that no one has been designated as yet.

Mr. WELLFORD. I do. Thank you, Mr. Levitas, for.pointing that out. Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Levitas.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Erlenborn.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wellford, I know this point was brought up before in questioning by Mr. Horton and just a minute ago by Mr. Levitas, but for emphasis let me bring it up again.

I am talking about the estimate of expenditure reductions and economies that are anticipated as a result of this plan.

For background, Mr. Horton and I and others on this committee some years ago, when the President's authority for reorganization was being extended in the basic law, wrote into the law the requirement that Mr. Horton read in his opening statement:

The message shall also estimate any reduction or increase in expenditures (itemized so far as practicable)


That was done specifically because of the habit of the Bureau of the Budget, which was your predecessor agency, of having boilerplate language. It merely said it was not practicable or feasible to identify these reductions and economies. We made quite a point of it and we

« PreviousContinue »