Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XXX, Public Diplomacy

100. Memorandum From the Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget (McIntyre) to President Carter¹

Washington, October 31, 1977

SUBJECT

• Proposed Amendments to Reorganization Plan No. 2—Public Diplomacy

Proposed amendments to Reorganization Plan No. 2 (Public Diplomacy) are attached, together with a transmittal message.² We had expected to have until November 11 to submit amendments, but because Congress is about to cease its regular sessions and go into pro forma meetings pending submission of the energy conference report, Chairman Brooks has decided to act on the plan this Wednesday, November 2. For this reason, any amendments must be transmitted to the Congress no later than Tuesday, November 1.

The House and Senate hearings, as well as discussions with congressional staff, brought forth a number of congressional concerns with the plan as originally submitted. We have received a list of five proposed amendments (the “Joint Recommendations”) recommended by the Senate Government Affairs Committee, the Senate International Operations Subcommittee (McGovern), and the House International Operations Subcommittee (Fascell), and two amendments recommended by Senator Ribicoff alone. We also received one recommendation from Congressman Horton. We recommend the acceptance of four minor amendments that will in no way impair the effectiveness of the new agency:

1. Designate one of the four Associate Directors as the “Associate Director for Broadcasting” and one as the “Associate Director for Educational and Cultural Affairs”. This is one of the Joint Recommendations and Brooks apparently has no strong objections to it. Although the amendment would determine the titles of the two officials, it would not limit the functions that the Director could assign to them; at the same time, it would assuage congressional and public concerns about the status of the Voice of America and the educational and cultural activities in the new agency.

2. Change the name of the agency from the “Agency for International Communication” to the “Agency for International Understanding”. This is another of the Joint Recommendations, concurred in by Chairman Brooks. There has been general concern over the fact that the initials of the originally proposed name (AIC) spell “CIA” backwards and several Members of Congress and other interested parties have suggested “Agency for International Understanding” as a replacement. The NSC staff appears to be the lone objector to this name.³

3. Provide that no more than four of the seven members of the advisory commission may be of the same political party. Brooks concurs in this Joint Recommendation, which also represents the only amendment requested by Congressman Horton. One of the existing commissions being consolidated uses this formula, while the other uses the “nonpartisan” formula that appears in the original version of the plan.

4. Add “labor” to the list of fields from which members of the advisory commission should be drawn. This is a Joint Recommendation, concurred in by Brooks. This will result in a total of eight occupational areas from which the seven commission members should come, but it was requested by the employee unions who testified and seems harmless.

One technical amendment relating to the Director’s membership on the board of the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities is also included among the attached amendments.

We advise that one Joint Recommendation not be agreed to: the proposal is to move the new agency farther from the control of the State Department by changing the present language (providing that the Director acts “under the direction of the Secretary of State”) to something limiting the Secretary’s involvement to guidance or direction as to the foreign policy of the United States. We oppose this recommendation for three reasons:

first this issue was the principal point in dispute in the preparation of the Presidential decision memo on public diplomacy, and you expressly decided on the “under the direction” formula;

second, accepting this recommendation would arouse the academic community (who feel that some closeness to State helps protect the integrity of the cultural exchange programs); and

third, Chairman Brooks opposes the recommendation.

It should be noted that the testimony of Administration witnesses before Congress has tended to tilt slightly in the direction of greater independence from State anyway, so that accepting the congressional recommendation would have little real effect operationally while causing us needless trouble with Brooks and the academic community.

Senator Ribicoff’s two personal recommendations were that the Fulbright program and the funding of the East-West Center not be transferred to the new agency, but remain in State. Chairman Brooks and all the other congressional participants oppose these recommendations, as do we. These programs are an integral part of the activities being moved from State into the new agency, and excluding them would continue in existence the fragmentation of related activities that is the principal reason for this reorganization. We think that Ribicoff is merely trying to respond to the individual concerns of former Senator Fulbright and Senator Inouye, and that there is no political support in the Senate as a whole for these two suggestions.

1. Source: Carter Library, White House Central Files, Subject File, Federal Government, Agency for International Communications (Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, 10/11/77), Box FG–236, FG 999–7 1/20/77–1/20/81. No classification marking. McIntyre sent the memorandum to the President under an October 31 covering memorandum on the President’s Reorganization Project letterhead, commenting that both Vance and Brzezinski had suggested alternative names for the new agency. McIntyre, noting that any proposed amendments had to be transmitted to the House by November 1, stated that “we must act quickly if you decide against our proposal of ‛Agency for International Understanding.’ (Ibid.) Hutcheson sent copies of both memoranda to Eizenstat, Brzezinski, and Pettigrew under an October 31 memorandum, requesting comments on McIntyre’s memoranda by 9 a.m. on November 1. (Ibid)
2. Attached but not printed.
3. In his October 28 Evening Report, Henze reported on a conversation with Hirschhorn regarding the reorganization plan. Henze noted that the Office of Management and Budget had reservations concerning the proposed name of the new agency: “OMB feels President must request that this be changed and is going to recommend ‛Agency for International Understanding.’ I said we all thought this rather affected and could not honestly recommend it to President. Why not leave things as they are?” (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Horn/Special (Henze), Box 5, Evening Reports File: 7–10/77) In a November 1 memorandum to Brzezinski, Henze stated that McIntyre’s memorandum to the President on the reorganization plan “presents no problems for us” with the exception of the proposed agency name change. Henze commented, “I continue to regard ‛Agency for International Understanding’ as pompous, smacking of Newspeak, as I gather do you. I recommend we not endorse it to the President but instead propose we consider using the name already suggested (‛Agency for International Communication’) but with the words changed in order so that they do not spell CIA backward: i.e. International Communication Agency. This has the virtue of being simple and follows the analogy of the present name: U.S. Information Agency. It would abbreviate ICA, or USICA—a sensible acronym.” Dodson concurred, adding: “P.S. ‛Information’ translated into many languages has no meaning of ‛intelligence’ I still prefer above all ‛Information Agency.’” (Carter Library, White House Central Files, Subject File, Federal Government, Agency for International Communications, (Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1977, 10/11/77), Box FG 236, FG 999–7 1/20/77–1/20/81)