A-17

could work well.

Equally, it added, could independent status for the agency. The choice should be based on a careful study of the pros and cons. But if the agency were assigned to State, GAO said, then some safeguards and vigilance would be advisable to protect the agency's professional integrity and its ability to project objectively not only the views of the State Department but other agencies and branches of government, as well as the private sector.

E. GAO recommended that the Voice of America's present structural relationship to USIA and to the State Department should be continued, but "working relationships" improved. GAO disagreed with the Stanton Panel's proposal to make the Voice an independent agency and said the Panel offered no evidence that the present organization had adversely affected Voice credibility or leadership. In fact, audience research in recent years has suggested otherwise. It also took issue with the Stanton Panel implication that VOA does not satisfy the needs of the State Department. And it noted that implementing

the Stanton Panel recommendations to create an independent Voice would add considerably to costs of operation.

GAO said that for an agency billed as "the" Voice of America, there can be circumstances in which diplomatic needs ought to prevail over journalistic concerns. But circumstances justifying intervention are highly unusual and this prerogative should be exercised with restraint

A-18

and in full awareness of the need to protect the Voice of America's professional integrity.

F. In regard to overseas missions, GAO felt that the Stanton Panel's proposed realignment of functions would fragment field operations, open the way to confusion and controversy over the assignment of responsibilities, and to that extent reduce the effectiveness of present arrangements. Noting the Stanton Panel's admission that in the field the unified organization has worked effectively for over 20 years, GAO recommended encouragement of "closer integration of information and cultural programs."

In summary, GAO said that if the recommendations of the Stanton Panel as a whole were implemented, there would be "a certain tidiness on paper" but at the expense of arrangements "that have essentially met the test of practicality and performance." GAO concluded by suggesting "certain non-organizational approaches to improvement"

of U.S. public diplomacy. Among the suggestions: Establishing government-wide leadership and coordination of

information and cultural programs; improving orientation and training of participants; refining present techniques for program development and evaluation; clarifying mission onjectives, philosophy and operational guidelines; and

promoting wider public understanding,' support and involvement.

4.

United States Advisory Commission on

Information (1977)

A-19

A. This five-member group of private citizens is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In its 28th Report to Congress last April, the Commission recommended that the structure of USIA include all elements of public diplomacy. The Voice of America should also remain a "vital participant" in this organization and its Director should "command an appropriate share of responsibility, resources and authority."

The Commission said that "to dismember and fragment the Agency as it now stands would destroy the effectiveness of the information program." What is rather needed, it added, is an organization that consolidates and integrates related programs in a more cohesive and comprehensive manner.

B. The Advisory Commission also felt the Agency should remain independent if the goal is increased efficiency and effectiveness of operation. However, it added: "there is

merit in the eventual return of USIA to the Department of State" under a structure providing for co-equal branches of political, economic and public diplomacy. The group further advised that USIA be granted more legitimate authority within the foreign affairs community as the paramount agency for international communication. It also felt that there should

A-20

be USIA representation at the highest levels of government including "direct policy access" to the White House.

5. American Foreign Service Association (AFSA)

The Association has recommended two alternative structures for a public affairs agency in Washington:

A. Merging USIA and State Department's CU into one organization within the State Department. All USIA Foreign Service Information Officers would become State Department FSOS but in their own functional speciality and with their career and tenure rights protected.

B. Creating a single, independent Agency (which might continue to be called USIA) with closer policy links to the State Department than currently exist.

C. The Voice of America should remain with the Agency under either (A) or (B), the Association felt, but with "a greater degree of autonomy" than currently exists. 6. American Federation of Government Employees,

A.

Local 1812 (AFGE)

AFGE endorsed the views of George Meany, President

of the AFL-CIO, that "the USIA be given clear authority to maintain its independence so that its credibility and

objectivity cannot be doubted or assailed."

B. AFGE recommended the merger of USIA and CU.

C. The Union recommended creation of a more

autonomous VOA within USIA.

A-21

D. It also felt the present overseas USIA structure is "conceptually sound."

E. AFGE believes USIA's FSIO corps should be continued,

with some interchange with the FSO corps desirable at the

mid-career level.

Mr. BROOKS. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 10 a.m. on Friday morning.

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, October 21, 1977.]