« PreviousContinue »
their next scheduled assignment. So they will continue to be employees of State operating on reimbursable detail.
Mr. HORTON. What happens to them when this period arrives when they are to be transferred?
Mr. HIRSCHHORN. The expectation is that since they continue on the rolls of State, they will be reassigned elsewhere in the Department of State.
Mr. HORTON. So they will stay at the State Department then.
Mr. HORTON. They will not ultimately go to this Agency?
Mr. HIRSCHHORN. There may be some arrangements for them to transfer. I am not sufficiently well versed on the two systems. Perhaps the following witnesses can explain that a little further.
Mr. HORTON. I think OMB ought to give us that information.
In addition, what happens to the current bargaining units? As I understand it, there are two different bargaining units. What is going to happen there?
Mr. HIRSCHHORN. I think that is a situation that is not yet fully clear but is under discussion between the agencies and bargaining representatives.
Mr. HORTON. Are we going to get some information on that?
Mr. BROOKS. They are going to testify.
Mr. HORTON. I have one other question, and this is a very important question.
The law now for the advisory committee and there are two of them to be replaced, as I understand it-specifies not more than three from one party. You changed that and you have "a nonpartisan board."
I have great confidence in Mr. Carter's appointing and the Senate confirming, nonpartisan people. However, I feel very strongly that that is an impractical situation. I think there ought to be written into this advisory committee the same safeguard that was written into the previous law. If you are not changing anything else, I do not see any reason to make a change in this law. I think that the law ought to read as it does in the other. Not more than four should be from one political party, and then they have to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Mr. HIRSCHHORN. The point of this, if I may, Congressmen, was that the existing Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs is appointed on a nonpartisan basis while the existing Advisory Commission on Information has been appointed on the basis which you just mentioned; namely, no more than three of the five would be of the same political party.
The feeling among those who participated in developing this plan was that the nonpartisan aspect of the Advisory Commission on Êducational and Cultural Affairs had worked very well; there had not been partisan division; and, indeed, there was some concern that making expressly partisan appointments might increase the likelihood of partisan divisions. There was a very strong feeling on the part of everybody who has been involved with this that the nonpartisan nature of the existing Educational and Cultural Advisory Commission
Mr. HORTON. That is a good argument but I do not think it stands. I think we ought to look very carefully at that. I would hope that we can make a change in that provision. I guess what you would have to do is send up an amendment on it. I feel very strongly about that, and I will be glad to take a look at some of the information that you might have on it, but I feel strongly that this matter of having representatives from the two parties has worked before. It doesn't have to be a partisan "partisan," so to speak, but it does offer some safeguards. I think it would be more helpful to have that safeguard in there than to leave it out.
Mr. HIRSCHHORN. We will be glad to consider that.
Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, gentlemen, very much.
There is a quorum calling in progress on the floor at this time. I regret that we have not been able to hear Mr. Read from the Department of State, Mr. Bray from the USIA, Mr. Hydle from the American Foreign Service, or Mr. Kenneth Blaylock from the American Federation of Government Employees.
I would suggest that the subcommittee could meet again on Friday morning at 10 a.m. to hear those four witnesses.
Mr. HIRSCHHORN. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee is having its hearing on Friday morning on this plan.
Mr. BROOKS. If they handle you the same way, we will be through with these people in time for them to walk over to the Senate before they are up for testimony.
We are going to have a session at 10 o'clock on Friday morning, so I anticipate that the committee could meet at 10 a.m. The committee has a meeting on Wednesday morning, and the House comes in at 10 o'clock on Thursday morning, so Friday is the earliest time we can
We appreciate very much the information that we received today on plan No. 2. It will be helpful to us.
I want to thank the representatives of the OMB for being here. We trust you will get the material we requested together so we can complete that part of the record.
[Mr. Wellford's prepared statement follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF W. HARRISON WELLFORD, EXECUTIve Associate DIRECTOR FOR REORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT, OFFICE OF MANAGement and BUDGET
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee
I am pleased to appear before you today in support of President Carter's Plan to consolidate the public diplomacy activities of the Government. You will also hear testimony today from representatives of the State Department and the U. S. Information Agency, the two entities affected by the Plan, who are particularly well suited to respond to questions about the specifics of the programs being consolidated.
This proposal, the second of a series of reorganization plans for the Executive branch, was transmitted to Congress on October 12 and reflects the President's strong commitment to making the Government more efficient and more effective in carrying out the programs enacted by the Congress. It also reflects his commitment to a vital public diplomacy program.
Under this Plan, there will be created a new agency
and I stress the word "new"
the Agency for International
Communication, which will take over the international communications programs of the U. S. Information Agency and the international educational and cultural exchange activities now
conducted by the State Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. The Director of the new agency, like the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, will act under the general direction of the Secretary of State, but will report directly to the President as well as to the Secretary. The Director will act as the principal advisor to the President, the National Security Council and the Secretary of State on international information and cultural exchange activities.
The principal programs that will be conducted by the Agency for International Communication include educational and cultural exchanges and the dissemination of information. Specific activities (described in more detail in the Appendix to this statement) are to include the following:
Exchange of persons program, providing academic
exchanges, international visitors, American special
ists, cooperation with private institutions and
Voice of America, radio broadcasting worldwide in a
total of 37 languages.
99-651 - 78-4
Overseas missions operating libraries and cultural
This reorganization will increase the efficiency of the programs involved by unifying here in Washington the management of activities that already are administered together in the field. We do not, however, view this proposal merely as a more efficient amalgamation of unaltered programs. The combination of these programs reflects and is part of an ongoing change in the tone of our public diplomacy programs, an increasing concern for the mutuality of these activities.
A brief historical sketch may help to explain what we mean by mutuality and why we think it leads naturally to this proposal. Prior to 1953, the functions that are now carried
on by USIA were conducted by the Department of State. At that time, the Administration decided to move "operational" functions, including both the educational and cultural exchange programs and the information programs, out of State. In 1953, though, the Cold War was at its height, and some members of Congress objected to including the exchange of persons programs in what they perceived as a "propaganda" agency. Accordingly, the information functions were transferred to the new U. S. Information Agency, but the educational and cultural exchange programs remained in State.