Senator ZORINSKY. Incidentally, a month ago I was in Moscow and had a little portable radio. I turned it on and the Voice of America was coming in rather weakly. Not once every 7 days, I do not mean that, but was coming in as a weak signal. That is one of the reasons that in the compromise reached on Radio Marti some money is included to update some of your equipment.

Mr. WICK. We thank you for your vote for restoring the $54.8 million.

Senator ZORINSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The following letters were subsequently received for the record:] WASHINGTON, D.C., December 20, 1983.

Hon. EDWARD ZORINSKY,
U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR ZORINSKY: I am glad that we met. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present my account of events which have been of concern to you.

As you know, at a hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee on September 22, and in letters to Charles Wick, Director of the US Information Agency, you asked questions about me which called into question my integrity. Mr. Charles Wick, having looked over his communications with you and the Foreign Relations Committee in matters concerning me, has chosen to remove any doubt concerning my integrity. I am enclosing his latest letter to me, and I respectfully request that you include his letter, as well as this letter, in the record of the hearing of September 22, 1983.

During the hearing I was identified as "the Director" of the National Strategy Information Center, (NSIC). I am not. Rather, on a part-time basis, I run the small Washington, D.C. office of NSIC, which is headquartered in New York City. I am not an officer, or member of the Board of Directors of NSIC. I am a tenured member of the faculty at Georgetown University, where, for nearly fifteen years, I have taught courses on the role of non-governmental organizations, especially labor and youth, in international relations. That is my principal job. I have also worked with major U.S. youth groups from across the political spectrum since 1972. Both the Department of State and USIA have sought my advice on these matters for many years, under administrations of both parties.

My involvement with the U.N. International Youth Year 1985 (IYY), results from a direct request, in March 1981, by the then responsible official at USIA, a senior career FSO, who was familiar with my work. This request was to formulate a strategy for public and private American participation in the IYY. The request was reconfirmed by the current responsible officials at USIA, all of whom realized that it was necessary to have a research and planning group to engage in exchanges and prepare relevant educational backup for IYY observance. They also agreed that the NSIC, which had assisted with the educational efforts of major U.S. youth groups for many years, was uniquely well qualified for this purpose.

In late 1981, I was asked also to serve as a personal consultant to USIA. At that time, I brought to USIA's attention the potential for a conflict of interest, a matter which I subsequently raised orally and in writing with its various officials on a number of occasions. At all times I kept the appropriate officials fully informed of my activities. Although some both in and out of government have evidently disagreed with the substantive strategy which the U.S. Government has pursued towards the IYY, there should be no doubt that it was the USG strategy and I was only a proper and closely supervised participant in its formulation and implementation.

It has been suggested that I may have sought a personal benefit or applied improper pressure on two Associate Directors at USIA, W. Scott Thompson and Ronald Trowbridge, to renew the grant to NSIC. This suggestion is false. As to personal benefit. I would have received no money or compensation at all from its renewal. However, when the idea of NSIC renewing its efforts in the IYY field was first raised in the spring of 1983. I again offered to resign in writing from my USIA consultancy to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. It was the USIA Director and staff who requested me to stay on.

To overcome any question on this matter, the USIA Director signed a waiver of any possible conflict as authorized by statute. Mr. Wick reaffirms in his latest letter to me his belief that I was never seeking a personal benefit.

As to the allegation that I exerted any unwarranted pressure on any officials to award this grant to NSIC in early August, it makes no sense. In my limited role as a consultant, I could hardly bring pressure on two of the most senior managers in the Agency. I reject totally Thompson's allegation that I threatened him with "the Director". Even his own staff, who unbeknownst to me he had asked to listen in on our telephone conversation, do not support this claim in the statements they submitted as part of the record in this matter Neither Thompson nor Trowbridge suggested to me during these conversations that I was improperly pressuring them. Nor did they promptly so inform the Director or General Counsel.

I telephoned these government officials only to request that they brief their staffs on what current U.S. strategy on IYY was and how this specific grant to NSIC fit into a much larger officially approved plan. During these conversations that is all I am certain I advocated and urged them to do. (Thompson told me during our phore conversation that he had been travelling, and that he was unfamiliar with the grant in question and how it fit into the overall U.S. plan for IYY.) I am equally certain that I did not exert improper pressure, not only because I would not do so but also because I was not capable of doing so. Significantly, the allegations of improper pressure made by Thompson and Trowbridge do not appear until six weeks later, and then only in reply to your letter of September 15. 1983.

At all times, I believe that I was acting in the best interests of USIA and the United States. Based on my experiences as a consultant at USIA. I knew that only a few senior officials there understood the complex nature of the overall U.S. strategy. Consequently, I attempted to ensure that Thompson and Trowbridge were aware of the current complete picture so that they could explain it to their subordinates.

Now, however, the transcript of the September 22 hearing contains statements that I transcended the line of propriety. Wherever that line may be, I did not cross it here. I do not know what else I could have done to avoid a conflict. I repeatedly brought this potential for conflict to the attention of senior USIA officials. They all were aware of the breadth of my associations. No one ever cautioned me not to discuss or explain the reasons for the proposed NSIC grant. Indeed, this was one of the major reasons why the Director of USIA granted the waiver on my behalf in June 1983. and encouraged me to continue with my work. Unfortunately, the allegation of impropriety, even as vague and unjustified, is harmful. For over a decade I have worked hard to help the U.S. in the areas of youth and labor. Like others in the public policy arena, I have become accustomed to personal attacks by factions who feel disadvantaged by decisions, and especially recently in the case of IYY. However, the questions raised about my integrity are manifestly unfair.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to discuss these matters with you in person. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely,

Dr. ROY GODSON,
Washington, D.C.

ROY GODSON.

U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY, Washington, D.C., November 3, 1983.

DEAR ROY: As you know from my letter to Senator Zorinsky and my September 22, 1983 testimony before the Serate Foreign Relations Committee. I have high regard for you and the work you have done to support the mission of USIA. I have noted in my letter to Senator Zorinsky that it was you who, on at least two occasions, raised the potential conflict of interest function and offered to resign as a consultant to the United States Information Agency because you did not want to make even the appearance of a conflict of interest an issue. Nevertheless, both the USIA staff and I wanted you to stay on to provide your expert guidance to the Agency. Indeed, I determined that your expertise and lack of substantial financial interest justified the waiver of the conflict of interest law I signed in June 1983. I believed then, as I believe now, that all your actions were motivated by what you perceived to be the best interest of this Agency and

the United States, and I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that I remain convinced that you were in no way seeking a personal benefit from your work at USIA.

It is unfortunate that you were travelling at the end of September and did not have the opportunity to contribute more substantially to the events that took place at that time. You, of course, may write directly to Senator Zorinsky to provide further information or, in the alternative, to me and I will forward your letter to him.

I continue to have high regard for your integrity, competence and patriotism and I hope that your resignation will in no way diminish your enthusiasm or the effectiveness of the good work that you do.

Sincerely,

CHARLES Z. WICK.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Zorinsky. Senator Helms will not be able to get here because he is still presiding at his own hearing, so we will adjourn our hearing today.

We will keep the record open for any questions that he or other members of the committee may wish to put to you. I thank you very much and apologize for our late start today and also for the necessity of deferring this hearing several times.

I know it has been an inconvenience to you, but I do appreciate very much your thoughtfulness and the completion of this hearing today which I think even with a delay was made somewhat more dramatic and interesting by the visuals that you have presented. Again, we commend you on the work that is being done which today is more important than I think it has ever been before.

Thank you very much.

Mr. WICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing is adjourned. [Additional questions and answers follow:]

USIA'S RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ZORINSKY Question 1. Do you consider traditional exchange programs-and, in particular the Fulbright program, the Humphrey program and the International Visitor program-effective tools for promoting democracy and U.S. interests?

Answer. Absolutely. The Agency has often taken the position, before the Committee and in other public settings, that exchange-of-persons programs are among our most effective means of building understanding and promoting the U.S. national interest over the long term. The most recent example is Director Wick's opening statement before the Committee on September 22, in which 4 of the 13 initiatives he commented on involved these important programs.

Question 2. Congress has supported the private sector program on the understanding that its purpose was to assist private groups engaged in exchange-ofpersons programs. Grant recipients had been non-political civic, educational and cultural organizations such as Sister Cities, Eugene O'Neill Theatre, etc.

Do you agree that this is the appropriate mission for the private sector program? What steps will you take to insure that this mission is carried out?

Answer. Among the "traditional" recipients of grants awarded by the Office of Private Sector Programs, in addition to cultural and civic organizations, are private institutions supporting the exchange of foreign and American current and potential political leaders—e.g., the American Council of Young Political Leaders and the U.S. Youth Council. Exchanges in such fields, as well as in such fields as the media, culture, and education, are valid and important.

In all of these fields, balance and consistency with the mission of the program are ensured by guidelines developed by the Agency in consultation with the Congress.

Question 3. An internal inspection team suggested that "the number of noncareer appointees in the office of private Sector Programs may be excessive and deserves top management review." How many employees work in the Office of Private Sector Programs? How many of these are non-career appointees? Why does this Office have so many political appointees?

Answer. There are currently 23 employees assigned to the Office of Private Sector Programs. Seven of these employees are non-career, as follows: the Office Director; the staff assistant to the Office Director; the Coordinator for the Agency's Private Sector Liaison Committees (whom we plan to transfer to another Agency element); a program officer and staff assistant for the "Artistic Ambassadors" program; and two program officers for the Private Sector grants program.

These non-career employees have been assigned to the various functions of the office in order to provide particular talents not normally developed in the career service, new perspectives and directions, and new leadership to this important activity. Senior Agency management continues to review the personnel needs of the Office.

Question. I understand that the United Nations has declared 1985 to be both International Year of Youth and the end of the U.N. Decade for Women. What are the plans for your Agency for observing the International Year of Youth? How much money have you allocated or do you plan to allocate toward International Year of Youth? For what purposes would such funds be used, particularly since, so far as I know, there is no world conference for International Year of Youth?

Answer. USIA began providing grant support to the officially-designated U.S. International Youth Year Commission in fiscal year 1983. Through the Commission, the Agency intends to plan educational exchange activities in connection with International Youth Year. The Agency has included a request for funds to support a variety of related exchange activities in its fiscal year 1984 budget request. Depending on the outcome of congressional deliberations of that request, as much as $1.7 million may be spent for activities supporting effective American participation in IYY events.

Although no firm plans have yet been announced, a major conference marking the International Year of Youth is anticipated in 1985. The purpose of the Agency's activity is to ensure that America's own young people are prepared to participate effectively in such a conference by supporting preliminary exchanges designed to facilitate communication on current world issues of concern to American and foreign youth.

Although not specifically designed as an International Youth Year activity, the President's International Youth Exchange Initiative, administered by USIA, also provides timely support to this country's objective of encouraging meaningful and open communication among the young people of the world.

Question 5. Do you have any cables evaluating or reporting on NSIC-funded activities? If so, please provide for the record.

Answer. We have no evaluative cables concerning projects administered by the National Strategy Information Center.

Question 6. The report also decries "A serious lack of continuity among personnel assigned to E/P (private sector). Of the staff in place in 1980 only one officer remains. . . . There has been no employee with long experience and a corporate memory to assist the newly assigned to develop the skills needed in grant consideration. negotiation, review and oversight. What steps is USIA taking to correct this problem?

Answer. The Agency has been working since the Inspection Report was issued to redefine the position descriptions of the program officers in such a way that they will be responsible solely for the development of institutional relations through grant support and other forms of facilitative assistance. The objective is to emphasize the substance and creativity of the positions with the expectation of attracting more able officers to the Office and encouraging them to stay longer. Although the Inspectors' point is a valid one, one must also recognize that frequent staff turnover is a fact of life in the Government-particularly in an Agency such as ours where many important positions are staffed by Foreign Service Officers subject to periodic rotation.

Question 7. In 1982 USIA awarded a grant to the National Strategy Information Center. (NSIC) which actually served only as a front for the intended recipient, the Rockford Institute. The Rockford Institute, which initiated the proposal to finance among other things travel by Rockford executives to a conference in Europe, was ineligible to receive USIA money because of its refusal to sign the Agency's standard affirmative action agreement. Nonetheless, Mr. Peilly told Rockford to find a co-sponsor to carry out the same project. This NSIC did.

Would you comment on the propriety of this grant?

Answer. The Agency has concluded that the action constituted poor judgment and has accepted the Inspectors' position that, when a prospective grantee refuses to agree to any standard Agency provision, further involvement with that organization should be terminated, regardless of the cause asserted by the grantee.

Question 8. Is USIA committed to affirmative action?

Answer. Yes.

Question 9. Should USIA award money even indirectly to recipients who are not otherwise eligible?

Answer. Funds for grant activities should not be awarded indirectly to recipients in cases such as the National Strategy Information Center Rockford grant. Question 10. Should USIA make further grants to the National Strategy Information Center in spite of its willingness to participate in the circumvention of affirmative action requirements?

Answer. USIA's Inspection Report regarding the NSIC/Rockford Institute arrangement questioned only the activities of Rockford, not NSIC. There was no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of NSIC in this matter. Moreover, USIA's General Counsel ruled the NSIC/Rockford grant legal.

Any future grant requests from the National Strategy Information Center would be considered for the Agency on their merits and on a case-by-case basis. Question 11. In your response to the committee report on S. 1342, you agreed that conferences and seminars should be a lower priority than long-term exchange-of-persons programs for the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. I concur heartily with your point. What steps are you taking to shift resources from seminars and conferences to long-term exchanges?

Answer. Conferences and seminars have historically been a relatively low priority for the Agency's exchange-of-persons programs. In the case of academic exchange programs, the long-standing policy guidelines of the Board of Foreign Scholarships give preference to long-term exchange opportunities in contrast to one-time conference activities. In the case of Private Sector Programs, we are currently developing grant criteria for the fiscal year 1984 program year that we expect to make more explicit the relatively higher priority attached to long-term exchange efforts.

Question 12. Does the administration support the earmarks in S. 1342, the Foreign Relations Authorization, to increase Exchange-of-Persons programs in fiscal year 1984 and fiscal year 1985?

Answer. The Agency supports the earmarks contained in S. 1342 provided that they are made within the context of the Administration's original fiscal year 1984 budget request of $701 million for the Agency as a whole. Earmarking of such large sums within a lower total would place an undue strain on the Agency's overall operations and would result in a reduction in other essential programs.

Question 13. 1985 also marks the end of the U.N. Decade for Women. Senator Percy was a delegate to the first conference held in Mexico City and produced a committee print on the proceedings at that conference. Highly divisive political questions were introduced into the proceedings of the conference in Mexico, but thanks to the wisdom and preparation of the members of the U.S. delegation working behind the scenes with delegates from other countries, the U.S. delegation was able to group all the highly political questions (such as racism, apartheid, PLO) into a Declaration of Mexico from which the U.S. delegation was able to abstain. The U.S. delegation joined in the unanimous vote which adopted the world plan of action. The Mid-Decade Conference in Copenhagen, on the other hand, equally, if not more politicized on the same issues, resulted in the United States having to vote against the wishes of all the other governments represented, with but one or two exceptions. My question is this:

What long-range planning is your agency doing with regard to the 1985 U.S. Women's Conference in Nairobi?

Answer. USIA is actively involved and intends to become more active as the event draws nearer. The Agency has a representative to the inter-agency Committee on the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women, and Agency staff has met with the U.S. Representative for the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women and representatives from the Department of State involved in planning for the event.

The Agency's contribution will be largely directed toward the following areas: (1) Policy advice based on international public attitudes as "position papers" are planned and written for the official U.S. delegation.