REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2 OF 1977 FRIDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1977 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, LEGISLATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jack Brooks (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Jack Brooks, William S. Moorhead, John N. Erlenborn, and Tom Corcoran. Also present: Representative Elliott H. Levitas. Staff present: Elmer W. Henderson, staff director; William M. Jones, general counsel; William H. Copenhaven, associate counsel; Joy S. Chambers, professional staff member; Craig J. Gehring, professional staff member; Guadalupe R. Flores, professional staff member; Susan E. Phillips, secretary; Richard L. Thompson, minority staff director; J. P. Carlson, minority counsel; James L. George, minority profressional staff; and Tom Houston, minority professional staff, Committee on Government Operations. Mr. BROOKS. The committee will come to order. This morning, we continue our hearings on Reorganization Plan No. 2. On Tuesday, the subcommittee heard from Harrison Wellford of the Office of Management and Budget. It was apparent at the hearing on Tuesday that the subcommittee members are concerned about a number of issues relating to this reorganization plan and that a clearer statement as to how this plan will improve existing operations is desired. I urge the proponents, including the witnesses before us today, to provide the committee with full details on this reorganization, particularly addressing the following issues: One, the manner in which the new agency plans to conduct its "new mission" and whether this would include the initiation of any new programs or functions. Two, the economies that will be realized by creating the new Agency including comparable personnel and other administrative costs before and after the reorganization. Three, clarification of the extent to which the new Agency will be subject to the direction of the Secretary of State. Four, the reasons why the information, education and cultural affairs programs can be more effectively administered outside the State Department rather than within. 99-651 - 78-6 Our first witness today is Ben Read, Deputy Under Secretary for Management of the Department of State. He was born in Philadelphia. After service in the Marine Corps during World War II, he received a B.A. degree from Williams College in 1949. Three years later, he received an LL.B. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. From 1952 to 1955 he was associated with the Philadelphia law firm of Duane, Morris and Heckscher. In 1955 and 1956, he was an associate defender with Philadelphia's Volunteer Defender Association. In 1957 and 1958 he was an attorney adviser in the State Department Legal Adviser's Office. From 1958 to 1963, he was legislative assistant to Senator Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania, a fine Member. From 1963 to 1969, he was Special Assistant to the Secretary of State and Executive Secretary of the Department. From 1969 to 1973 he was first Director of the Smithsonian Institution's Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. From 1973, until assuming his present position, he was president of the General Marshall Fund of the United States: a memorial to the Marshall plan. He is married and has four children. Mr. Read, we are delighted and pleased to have you here. Please proceed. STATEMENT OF BEN H. READ, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE; ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM K. HITCHCOCK, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS Mr. READ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I am here to express the full support of the Department of State and Secretary Vance for the pending reorganization plan. Mr. William Hitchcock, who is Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs and has been the senior deputy in the bureau for 5 years, is with me. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record my written statement. Mr. BROOKS. Without objection, it will be inserted into the record. Mr. READ. I would suggest limiting my own remarks to two fundamental aspects of the plan, the relationship of the proposed new agency to the Secretary of State and the integrity of the educational and cultural exchange programs. First, as you know, section 2 of the plan states that the Director shall be the principal advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and the Secretary of State for matters falling within the jurisdiction of the new Agency and shall report to the President and to the Secretary on such matters. It then provides that, under the direction of the Secretary of State, the Director shall have primary responsibility within the Government for the exercise of the functions vested in the Director. We consider that these provisions are satisfactory and essential to assure that the policies of the new Agency are in accord with U.S. foreign policy objectives. Second, the proposed reorganization includes strong guarantees of the integrity of the educational and cultural exchange programs. The first of several principles enunciated by the President in his message asserts that "maintaining the integrity of these programs is imperative." In addition, the President states that he intends to nominate an Associate Director of the new Agency who will be responsible for the administration and supervision of educational and cultural exchange functions consolidated in the new Agency, a position which is subject to the advice and consent of the Senate under section 4 of the plan. Finally, the message notes that the plan retains the Board of Foreign Scholarships whose strong leadership has done so much to insure the high quality and integrity of the educational exchange programs. If I might, I will add a brief personal note from my last 8 years in the private sector. I know of no other Government programs that have had a more profound impact on the lives of large numbers of Americans and foreigners in encouraging international understanding than these. Sometimes we have come to take them for granted, they have been working so well over the years. They have had a cumulative impact on international understanding which I consider to be genuinely profound. In summary, we believe that the new Agency for International Communication, if approved by the Congress, will provide new and strengthened opportunities for more effective international communication and cultural exchange activities of the Government in appropriate relationship with the Secretary of State. Mr. Hitchcock and I will be glad to try to respond to any questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much. I have a couple of questions. The educational and cultural exchange program goes into the information agency, which some have criticized as being a progaganda vehicle. Will this deter distinguished foreign scholars, writers, and artists from participating in our exchange program? Mr. READ. I see no reason why it should, Mr. Chairman. One, of course, we do not consider the USIA in its present role to have such a propaganda function. We consider that it has established its own bona fides as a provider of information about foreign policy and general news events over the years. Its own credibility is high. But, from the point of view of foreign nationals, they will be dealing with exactly the same organizational structure in the field which they have dealt with for the last 25 years. Binational commissions— more than 40 of which exist-will continue. Their functions will be unchanged. They will be dealing with the same personnel in the field as they are presently dealing with. As you know, the consolidation that occurs is within Washington and not in the field. I think that the several guarantees of the integrity of the program which are strong and clear in the message and plan should allay any such fears that may exist. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Bray? Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add a word to Mr. Read's statement. The first is simply to drive home the point he made about the field organization. Over the last 25 years, the information and cultural exchange programs have worked cheek-by-jowl together in the field. Foreign nationals are accustomed to that configuration. It seems to follow, from my perspective, that, since these programs have worked together in the field without any charges of tainting on either side by concerned outsiders in the past, that is likely to continue to be the case in the future. This is particularly so since the Board of Foreign Scholarships, which has been the ultimate guarantor of the integrity of the exchanges programs and indeed selects the grantees for those programs, will continue in effect, as the President's message makes clear. Third, I would add to that that the exchange programs have an active, articulate, persuasive constituency in this country. They, like many Members of Congress, will be watching very carefully to insure that the integrity of those programs is maintained in the future. Mr. BROOKS. If we create the Agency for International Communication independent of the State Department, to what extent will an ambassador be able to coordinate the role and functions of the AIC abroad? Will the ambassador have any influence over this new Agency if they are independent of the State Department when they are operating in Paris or Sofia or Lisbon or what have you? Mr. READ. Sir, as you know, in 1974 the Congress legislated what had been, prior to that, simply a directive from two Presidents: Kennedy and Nixon. Mr. BROOKS. President Kennedy and who? Mr. READ. President Nixon. In 1961 and 1969, they sent letters to their ambassadors which contained the statement that the ambassadors are responsible for the direction, supervision, and coordination of the activities of official Americans in the field. That was reaffirmed in a 1974 statute Public Law 93-475. That remains the law and the practice. Mr. BROOKS. Can you specify the weaknesses in the educational and cultural affairs program and in the USIA which establishment of AIC is intended to overcome? What is wrong with it now? What are you fixing? Are there any weaknesses in the education and cultural affairs program now within the USIA which the establishment of this new Agency you hope will overcome or improve? Mr. READ. What we are hoping will permit opportunities for more effective management of the programs, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that divided Washington authority is being consolidated in the new Agency over the education and cultural affairs programs. As you know, there has been a division of that responsibility in Washington since 1953. The opportunity that the new Agency, if approved, will have will be to effect a consolidated management. Mr. BROOKS. Should there be a personnel system for the proposed agency who perform public diplomacy functions and another for the State Department whose employees perform diplomatic functions? Mr. READ. There will be separate personnel systems as there are at present. Mr. BROOKS. Do you think they should be? Mr. BROOKS. Is it your understanding that the language in section 2 of the plan is intended to give the Secretary of State direction and authority over the new Agency only as it applies to matters involving foreign policy guidance? Mr. READ. Policy guidance is certainly first and foremost. There are, however, transferred to the new Agency proposed negotiations functions, and representational functions that go with the cultural and educational programs. Those sometimes involve a very close mix of the authorities and obligations of the Department of State, particularly in the negotiation sector. The principal intent is policy provision. Yet, frequently, for instance, the cultural exchange agreements that are negotiated are part of much wider agreements that contain many, many other matters beyond the scope of cultural Mr. BROOKS. The thrust of your answer is that the Secretary of State will continue to have foreign policy guidance authority in that area and that it may overlap into other peripheral areas. Mr. READ. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, Mr. BROOKS. What happens to the Foreign Service officers now assigned to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in the Department of State? Are they going to be transferred or will they remain in State? Mr. READ. They will be transferred. At the conclusion of their assignment with the new Agency, they will be reassigned by the Department of State. While with the new Agency, they will be on reimbursable detail. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Corcoran? Mr. CORCORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me say that I am delighted with the opportunity to hear the testimony of the Department of State and the representative of the Secretary. As we evaluate Reorganization Plan No. 2, anybody who has served on this subcommittee and observed what happened with respect to Reorganization Plan No. 1 must remember that we got little more than a promise on details. We gave the President a blank check with respect to the reorganization of his own executive staff. I think we were right in doing that. I supported it at the time. Anybody who has followed the course of that particular reorganization proposal knows that a vast majority of the Members of Congress were willing to give the President a blank check with respect to his own executive staff. But, when we get into some of these other areas such as is involved in Reorganization Plan No. 2, I think what we have been given again is a promise and a press release. We have not been given the specifics. I was delighted to hear in the biographical description of Mr. Read that you had some academic and scholarly background along with your practical experience. I think it is going to take a real analysist to figure out just exactly what the result is going to be in terms of the personnel and in terms of the coordination among the various agencies that will be affected by Reorganization Plan No. 2. |