91. Memorandum From the Associate Press Secretary (Schecter) to the Acting Director for International Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (Hirschhorn)1
SUBJECT
- NSC Comments on USIA/CU Reorganization Plan
The NSC staff has reviewed the OMB-prepared text of the President’s plan to reorganize the international information, educational, cultural and broadcasting activities located within the United States Government.2 As written, the plan presents only two difficulties:3
—The name proposed for the new agency is atrocious. We propose that it be called the United States Information and Cultural Agency or the United States Information and Cultural Exchange Agency. To call the new agency the International Communications and Exchange Agency makes it sound like a stock exchange. We prefer the name United States Information and Cultural Agency because it is more high sounding and less political and ideological in overtone. It is not a communications agency which refers to technical communications but rather it is an information agency to inform the world of U.S. policy [Page 260] and goals. The agency should clearly be identified with the United States, as USIA has been for the past 25 years.
—The phrase in line 41, “Under the direction of the Secretary of State.” is too strong and is contrary to the sense of the President’s reorganization decision, i.e., that the new agency should have a relationship to State analogous to that of ACDA. “Under the direction” implies that the agency is subordinate to State, which the rest of the text does not bear out. For instance, the paragraph which begins at line 186 describes a cooperative relationship between State and the new agency which is not subordinate. A better phrase would be “under the guidance of the Secretary of State” or “in consultation with the Secretary of State.” This would better represent the White House position.
Director, Congressional Relations
National Security Council
- Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Agency File, Box 9, International Communication Agency: 8/77–2/78. No classification marking.↩
- The OMB-prepared text is ibid.↩
- In an October 3 memorandum to Szanton, Jagoda expressed reservations over OMB’s use of the word “direction” to explain the relationship between the new agency head and the Secretary of State, asserting that the agency head would “consult” with the Secretary but would not be directed by him. Jagoda also stated that the proposed agency name “is horrible” and suggested that “culture” be added to the title. He concluded, “I must add that this name question is a matter of significant importance and serious concern to me. It might even be a good idea to meet on this subject.” (Ibid.) Henze, in an October 3 note to Schecter, characterized the OMB-proposed agency name “awkward and stiff” and suggested that the words “guidance” or “consultation” be substituted in the text for the word “direction.” (Ibid.) In his October 5 Evening Report to Brzezinski, Henze recounted his consultations with OMB staff regarding the reorganization plan, highlighting the problems associated with OMB’s name proposal and the subordination of authority: “‛Agency for International Communication’, which seems to be, would be acceptable, if it were prefaced with United States—making acronym ‛USAIC’ (U.S.-Ache). They are dealing with problem of subordination of the agency by language ‛under the direction of the Secretary of State and the President.’ I suggested President be mentioned first.” Henze commented that these changes had yet to be coordinated with the White House Staff due to the fact that both Brzezinski and Schecter were “away” that day and Jagoda had “some further objections.” Inderfurth, noting Jagoda’s reservations, wrote in the right-hand margin: “Barry would like to see USIA renamed ‛US Cultural Communications Agency.’ He wanted me to solicit your [Brzezinski’s] support for this idea. Rick.” (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Horn/Special (Henze), Box 5, Evening Reports File: 7–10/77)↩