a strong message and accurate information out to those peoples. If you could respond?

Dr. DUFFEY. Mr. Smith, this is a point I referred to in my presentation about the reasons why I believe a separate agency has been effective and will continue to be effective. It is not even a case, I think, that we have broadcasters who have high integrity and professional standards, but the perception, if they are directly related to the authority of the State Department, I think, would damage their credibility. That is why no government in the world-in fact, I think no major advanced government has even looked at the kind of consolidation we are talking about here. They have independent-they have agencies that work side-by-side and together, but the area of broadcasting is one that I think would be greatly diminished in its credibility.

On the other hand, that is recognized by Mr. Helms when he points to the new board that we are creating, which will give some insulation to broadcasting. I just think that that board will have a much more difficult time functioning in an atmosphere as you suggest of day to day demarches from various other governments. I can imagine what it would be like for the Secretary, and I say this sympathetically, or the Deputy Secretary in the morning to receive a visit from an ambassador of a country, objecting to a radio broadcast the day before. It is far better to be able to say that it is administered in a separate place, and overseen by a bipartisan board to maintain standards of journalism.

Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I just have

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Roth.

Mr. ROTH [continuing]. A couple of short questions. At USIA, how many people do we have employed there, and what is the budget?

Dr. DUFFEY. The number now has dropped each of the last 2 years, Mr. Roth. Let me give you the precise number at the moment. The number is 8,202 positions.

Mr. ROTH. The budget is?

Dr. DUFFEY. The budget is about $1.4 billion, with a request next year for less spending than this year. We are taking major savings. I think we are the only agency that is coming before the Congress actually asking for a budget which is less than it was last year, and yet puts more into programming, because we are taking more administrative cuts that we have achieved through a number of reforms.

Mr. ROTH. How about at USAID? Could I ask how many employees we have, and what is the operating budget?

Mr. ATWOOD. We have 3,134 U.S. direct hires. We have 639 foreign service nationals, direct hires, and 5,476 foreign service nationals who are personal service contractors, for a total of 9,400.

Mr. ROTH. What is the operating budget at USAID?

Mr. ATWOOD. It is $570 million, I believe is the request this year, which is approximately $25 million less than last year.

Mr. ROTH. How about at ACDA? How many people do we have employed there?

Mr. HOLUM. We have 250, total.

Mr. ROTH. 250. The budget.

Mr. HOLUM. The submission for 1996 is $76,300,000. The base line operating budget is $44,339,000 roughly. We have substantial additions this year to operate the Cobra Dane radar, which is a START verification asset, and the chemical weapons convention, once it goes into force.

Mr. ROTH. OK, thank you.

Chairman GILMAN. I want to thank our panelists for their time, their patience and for their excellent review of the problems confronting your agencies.

The committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

AMERICAN OVERSEAS INTEREST ACT-H.R.

1561

TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1995

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 2712, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Chairman GILMAN. The committee will come to order.

The Committee on International Relations meets today in open session to receive testimony from administration witnesses on the American Overseas Interests Act, H.R. 1561, which will be considered by the committee starting tomorrow.

When the committee last heard from witnesses from the four agencies now before us just before the April recess, there was a request that an additional hearing be scheduled prior to full committee action on the bill. Our ranking Democratic member, Representative Hamilton, has made a similar request.

Although we have had only a few days in session since our last hearing, there have been significant developments.

The American Overseas Interests Act, H.R. 1561, was introduced last Wednesday, May 3. It will bring about a great change in the way America pursues and protects its interest abroad.

The purpose of this change is to concentrate authority and responsibility in the Secretary of State-so that our policies with regard to development, political matters, information, and disarmament all work in harmony. The bill will also eliminate the need for high-ranking legislative, legal, and other administrative personnel in a plethora of agencies.

We mandate an outcome-the folding of the three cold-war era agencies into the Department of State-while giving as much leeway as possible to the administration to bring that about. In other words, we have taken pains to try to assure this change occurs in as smooth a manner as possible.

Yesterday, the administration unveiled its own "strategic management" plan. And although our staff has heard little from the State Department about their efforts in recent weeks, I take it that you described your plan in considerable detail to the New York Times for this past Sunday's edition. I hope you will be able to tell us a little more about it today.

Regrettably, the plan apparently does not fully meet the criteria we have established of abolishing unneeded agencies and their as

(37)

sociated administrative structures and concentrating responsibility in the hands of the Secretary of State.

Let me just add a few words about the foreign affairs budget. Our legislation does make major changes in budget levels so as to direct very scarce resources toward the highest priorities.

I have been a staunch supporter of the programs that we are authorizing in H.R. 1561. Continuing to provide humanitarian and development assistance is certainly in our national interest. The cold War may be over, but the world is still a dangerous place, and our friends around the globe need material support.

I wish we could do more. We will do what we can.

But the American people have told us that the Federal budget needs to move toward balance, and we agree with them. In that context, there is no way that the international affairs budget can be fully spared.

There should be little question that our budget deficit is weakening us economically, and that a weak America is not an America that can lead.

That brings me back, again, to the issue of reorganizing our foreign affairs apparatus. When we are facing today's resource constraints, we simply cannot afford a multitude of agencies, each with its own agenda.

We recognize that the administration does not see it that way, and I am pleased to give their spokesmen an opportunity today to make their case. So we welcome today's witnesses:

The Honorable Richard Moose, Under Secretary of State of Management;

The Honorable Brian Atwood, Administrator of the Agency for International Development;

The Honorable Joseph Duffey, Director of the U.S. Information Agency and;

The Honorable Ralph Earle, Deputy Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

Gentlemen, the committee is happy to extend this opportunity to hear your views on H.R. 1561. I am most interested in any technical comments you may have which should be incorporated into

our measure.

If you are unable to touch on such technical issues during your testimony today, we would like to urge your staffs to contact our committee staff as quickly as possible along with your suggestions so that they can be included in the mark-up, which will start midweek this week.

Without objection, your prepared statements will be entered in the record in their entirety and you may proceed orally as you wish, once we have heard from our ranking member, Mr. Hamilton, and any other members who may wish to make opening state

ments.

Mr. Hamilton.

Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to welcome the witnesses to the committee this morning and express appreciation to you for having the hearing. I think it is a very important one as we begin consideration of this major piece of legislation.

I have no further comments at this time. I suspect I will later. But I look forward to hearing the witnesses and appreciate the chairman's accommodating our request to have the hearing.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman, do you have any opening remarks?

Mr. BERMAN. I will wait until the questions.

Chairman GILMAN. Judge Hastings.

Mr. HASTINGS. I will wait as well, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman GILMAN. All right.

Before we do begin, I would like to straighten out the record on an issue that has just been brought to my attention.

Mr. Atwood, yesterday, before the National Press Club, you repeated a charge that had previously been made anonymously that this committee suppressed a GAO report. According to a transcript, you stated that:

They asked the GAO to do a study of whether or not it would be cost-effective when they tried to submarine a study because GAO concluded there would be no cost savings in this merger.

Could you tell the committee where that information came from so that we could look into this?

Mr. ATWOOD. Mr. Chairman, we were asked a number of questions by GAO. We were told that the committee had asked the GAO to look into the cost-effectiveness of the proposed merger.

I have heard from a number of sources, both within the GAO and the Congress, that the study was never brought to fruition at the request of the committee.

If that is incorrect, Mr. Chairman, I do not know why the study has not seen the light of day. All I know is that we were told the study was going to take 3 weeks. It has been probably 3 months since that study was launched, and we have not seen any results. Chairman GILMAN. I am going to ask a committee staff member to respond to that.

Mr. KIRK. This is Mark Kirk. This is a memo from Lawrence Suda to the committee. Mr. Suda is with the GAO.

He says:

Enclosed are the materials we provided to the committee on March 31st in response to your informal request for information that would help the committee prepare for its April 4th hearings on the proposals to consolidate the foreign affairs agencies. We based our work on our discussion on March 10th, at which we agreed, due to the short timeframes, we would not be able to arrive at any conclusions or recommendations about specific cost savings that might be achieved through consoli

dation.

Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Moran, any opening remarks?

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, it is becoming an observation that we have heard many times now and so it loses its resonance; but when we ask the American people, they have no idea how little of America's resources are put into foreign aid. They think it is about 15 percent. And we asked them how much do you think it should be, and they figure, well, maybe 5 percent. But even most isolationists do not think that less than 1 percent is too much to play a constructive role in establishing democracy and the free enterprise system and the protection of human rights throughout the world.