I am very pleased that you are here. My first question has to do with the relationship that is going to take place between the new Agency for International Communication and the Department of State.

One of the major problems I think we have is trying to understand just what that relationship is going to be. I am afraid that your statement does not clarify the matter. You state: "In the first instance, coordination with other foreign policy goals is assured by the fact that the new Agency will operate under the direction of the Secretary of State."

But then you say:

At the same time, the new Agency will not be a part of the Department of State and will therefore not be too closely tied to the day-to-day concerns of foreign policy.

Now, just what is the relationship? Is it a so-called solid line relationship, or a broken line, as we had with the Arms Control and Disarmament Administration?

Mr. READ. The model that we are following is the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Mr. Corcoran. I do not know whether that shows as solid or broken. I think it shows as broken on the chart.

Mr. CORCORAN. That would be the pattern; yes.

Mr. READ. It takes understanding of the necessity for the close working relations that do exist, will continue to exist, which are mutually desired by both organizations. And, yet, there is full recognition on both sides that this is an independent agency, that we will not be looking over its shoulder on a day-to-day basis and should not. I think there is mutual desire that the policy goals and objectives be clearly united ones. This is one government, and it is viewed as such, particularly in its foreign operations. The close day-to-day relationships that occur at working levels in the intermediate levels and high levels, I am sure, will continue.

Mr. CORCORAN. I understand your objective and I understand what you would like to see happen in the ongoing, day-to-day as well as longterm relationships between the new Agency which would be created and the Department of State. But I am somewhat reminded of the kinds of beliefs that existed with respect to the Panama Canal Treaty and what we found as we got into it. Later there has had to be some joint clarification on the part of the two governments as to what is really contained in the treaty.

My point is that I think we want specific guarantees and specific delineation of authority in this reorganization plan. It seems to me that, when you consider the language of the reorganization plan, it may be that it contains the hope that you express; but I do not think it has the specific guarantee at all.

For instance, the new Agency, according to the letter of transmittal by the President, is going to be the coordinator of the international information, cultural, educational, and exchange programs conducted by the U.S. Government and as a governmental focal point for private U.S. international exchange programs.

However, we do not find in the reorganization plan itself any change in present USIA authority or State authority with regard to these programs.

When are we going to get the specific delineation of change and the specific authorization of change in program responsibility? Are we going to get it at some later date? Is there going to be an addendum to this reorganization plan?

Mr. BRAY. You have raised two questions, Mr. Corcoran.

On the latter, as I recall the colloquy on Tuesday morning, it was suggested on this question of coordination that it could prove profitable for the President to issue an implementing Executive order on that and other subjects related to the plan. It is my understanding that that is under consideration within the Office of Management and Budget.

It was not felt appropriate, I believe, to include that in the plan itself since it was an implementing detail.

On the prior question, the relationship to the Department of State, it may be possible to add a few details in response to your question. As I understand the President's intent, it was to create an agency which, like the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, is outside the Department of State with budgetary, personnel and administrative autonomy, and a large degree of program autonomy. That is my understanding of the President's intent. I would state it for the record.

Within that context, however, and given the fact that the Agency will be working abroad in the field of foreign policy, it was felt necessary to assure that the Director of the Agency and the Agency itself receive policy guidance from the Secretary of State as, for example, the United States Information Agency has during its existence. Ĉertainly, if the new Agency is to be conducting negotiations in behalf of this Government in the field of foreign policy and in behalf of the programs for which it is responsible, it does need to take direction with respect to those negotiations from the Secretary of State, the President's chief Cabinet officer.

Mr. CORCORAN. Mr. Bray, let me follow that up if I can.

With respect to the coordination versus independence of the new Agency, when you get to specifics such as films and news coverage, printed material, who will make the decision as to the dissemination of films?

Mr. BRAY. I think it is possible to break that question into two parts, sir.

I would assume that in the future, as in the past, the Agency will take policy direction from the Department of State. If it desires to produce a film on a certain subject or a pamphlet or a magazine, I assume that the decision on how to translate an idea into practical fact, a videotape or a magazine, will be within the purview of the Agency in the future as it has been in the past; likewise, decisions regarding distribution will be the Agency's.

Mr. CORCORAN. Will they make the decision as to the content of the film? Or will that be subject to veto by the Department of State? Mr. BRAY. As a practical matter, it has not been subject to veto in the past. I would assume that there would be a certain amount of trust involved that, having given policy guidance, to the creative agency, that that would be the end of it.

I can also envisage situations in which the Agency itself would, in the future as in the past, wish to check the finished product with the Department of State to assure its consistency with policy.

Would you add to that, Mr. Read?

Mr. READ. I think it is particularly true, of course, when the film or other media work deals with policy. Frequently it does not. It is simply an attempt to represent life in the United States, where there is very, very little, if any, oversight that has been exercised or would be exercised. But, if it is an articulation of policy, obviously there would be closer working coordination.

Mr. CORCORAN. I have one other aspect of the issue before us that I would like to dwell on for a moment. That is the way in which this reorganization plan was developed.

In previous testimony before this subcommittee, it was indicated that there was a great deal of coordination and consultation involving the Office of Management and Budget and all of the affected agencies in the development of this plan. Later on this morning, based on the submitted testimony, I think we are going to be told by another witness that in fact the development of the plan was a very secretive process which, as somebody who followed the election campaign of a year ago very closely, I must say I find surprising.

Let me ask you specifically, were you consulted on this plan? When were you consulted? How many people within the Department of State, especially in the cultural unit, saw this in the planning stages? Mr. READ. I arrived back in Government in midsummer, Mr. Čorcoran. Prior to that, I understand that there had been substantial discussions involving the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, and the then Assistant Secretary for the Bureau, Joe Duffey. As the process accelerated toward the time in which the President made decisions and afterward, we were shown drafts of early decision papers and had an opportunity to comment on them. The process accelerated, obviously, as the message and plan came closer to their final form.

The Bureau leadership and the principals in the Department were fully apprised of this process which was one that culminated, of course, in the actual submission to Congress. Perhaps Mr. Hitchcock could add to that point.

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Mr. Corcoran, I think it is important, in the light of the questions that were raised at the hearings last week, to highlight that this has been a process that has been going on for the last several years. Reference was made to the fact that other studies have been made of the education, cultural, and informational program relationship. They were identified as the Stanton panel and the GAO report and other specialized attempts that have been made to analyze it. These were studies in which all of us, both in USIA and in the education and culture side of State, participated.

So, what was happening in this instant case was that we were able to take advantage of that rather substantial amount of plowing of ground that had occurred before and to build upon it, reaching decisions you see before you.

Mr. CORCORAN. I just might follow that up, Mr. Hitchcock. Inasmuch as you testify there has been, over the past several years, a review of these agencies with the Government to see whether or not we might

make them more effective, one of the ideas which has been under consideration, particularly with reference to the United States Information Agency, was to upgrade it to the Under Secretary level.

From my own standpoint, I think that, as a matter of consolidation, that might have been better.

Do you have any comments on that proposal? Was that something that was a working idea at the time that the Department of State was involved in the discussions as to what would go-that the USIA or something like it would be elevated to an Under Secretary level?

Mr. HITCHCOCK. You are talking of an Under Secretary position within the Department of State because, as you know, the current USIA Director does have that level in bureaucratic terms. You really raise the question about where you put the new Agency and, in turn, what its relationship should be to the State Department if it is not in the State Department to begin with. I refer mostly to Mr. Read's reaction to earlier questions in this connection.

The location of the Agency is in effect a judgment call. The idea is to get these programs in a position where they can most adequately fulfill the two essential missions that have been identified for them; do it in close proximity to the State Department because it is, frankly, the only single source of broad foreign policy guidance that they can have; and, yet, away from the administrative restraints of the State Department. It has independence in that sense, but it has also policy relevance. So, I think that, to the extent that the relationship builds up-and I am afraid it will have to occur over a period of time; you can't just legislate it into a full-grown form at the outset that it will be able to realize the very important purposes of these programs more effectively than has been the case in the past and will be able to do it with a great deal of sensitive relevance to foreign policy goals of the United States. Third, to avoid the politicization that is the source of some criticism of people who are a little apprehensive about the way these programs are carried out.

Mr. CORCORAN. I have no further questions.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Erlenborn?

Mr. ERLENBORN. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. I want to thank you very much, Mr. Read, for your comments. We appreciate your being here.

Do you have another appointment over in the Senate?
Mr. READ. No; that has been postponed until Tuesday.
Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much.

[Mr. Read's prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEN H. READ, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to appear before you and this distinguished Committee in support of the President's Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977 to consolidate certain international communication, educational and cultural, and broadcasting activities of the U.S. Government into a new agency to be called the Agency for International Communication. I am accompanied by

Mr. William K. Hitchcock, Acting Assistant Secretary of
State for Educational and Cultural Affairs.

Since the end of World War II, the U.S. Government has conducted international communication programs with a large number of the nations of the world. These programs have become more and more important to American national interests as world interdependence has increased. This is true because interdependence necessitates increased international cooperative behavior which in turn is dependent upon mutual understanding between us and the other peoples of the world. The encouragement of this kind of understanding is the central purpose of the new agency.