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

51. Memorandum From Paul Henze of the National Security Council Staff to the President’s Assistant for National Security Affairs (Brzezinski)¹

Washington, undated

SUBJECT

• Summary of Developments in Your Absence

Activities

BIB, VOA, Congress: A large proportion of my time was taken up working against the Pell amendment on BIB and the Percy amendment on VOA. Bob Thompson of Frank Moore’s staff was assigned to work with me on this and has put in a great deal of energy on it. The radios, Leonard Marks, John Hays and others have mounted a major effort to persuade key Senators to oppose these amendments. John Reinhardt of USIA has mounted a major effort re VOA and State has helped him on it. For the most part on BIB, however, State has not helped or has actually encouraged the people pushing the Pell (& McGovern) amendment. The Pell/McGovern² initiative abolishes the RFE/RL Board and expands the BIB to become the operating and controling element for the radios. (I have it on very good authority that the Pell/McGovern amendment was actually written by BIB staff members Walter Roberts and Tony Shub with the help of McGovern Subcommittee staff chief, John Ritch.) The Washington Post had an excellent editorial on this subject Monday morning,³ pointing out that while the Percy amendment aims to take VOA out of government control, the Pell amendment aims to put RFE/RL under tighter control—an anomaly which fails to recognize the particular role each radio has to play. Frank Stanton has been in town, lobbying in Congress for the Percy amendment.

Our tactic has been to argue that neither amendment is fair to the new people who have just been appointed to head these radios; that there was no consultation with the Administration, and that the sensible thing for Congress to do would be to give the Administration a reasonable period of time to look over all these radio operations and decide rationally where changes, if any, are needed.⁴

One or both of the amendments may pass the SFRC this afternoon.⁵ Then they go to the full Senate. It will still be possible to mount an effort against them there (Humphrey has been eloquent in opposing them; others who have opposed them are Case, Stone, Javits, Baker, Griffin and Pearson; those on the side of Pell/Percy and McGovern are: Clark, Glenn, Sarbanes, Biden, Church. Sparkman was absent today, so is playing no role.) Finally the Senate version of the FOAA must be reconciled with the House version; Fascell is against these amendments, so they might be dropped in Conference. Rather than waiting for this, however, it might be advisable for the Administration to weigh in with Senator Byrd and ask him to help get them dropped in the full Senate . . .

USIA Reorganization: USIA and State are working together on a USIA reorganization plan. John Reinhardt had promised to send me a copy of what they have produced but has not done so; says he wants to meet with you again.⁶ Believe we should assert ourselves or we will find USIA getting itself more locked into State than is desirable. It is very much in interest of President to keep USIA in autonomous position under the White House.⁷

[Omitted here is material unrelated to public diplomacy.]

Leonard Marks and USAC/IECA: Leonard is very interested in getting issue of his continuation in this job settled and is eager to organize a new commission. At the rate White House appointments process moves insofar as these part-time boards are concerned, it will be next Christmas before we get this reorganized if we don’t make a real push. State told us last Friday⁸ they couldn’t answer your request for advice re Marks reappointment sent to Vance nearly a month ago because there is disagreement in the department about it.⁹ It seems to me that the potential of this job is too great to leave it untended for long and to let it be used to pay off some political debt. I recommend we have President announce interim (without term specified) reappointment of Leonard Marks and then proceed to get other members appointed to the commission. Reappointment of Marks should enable us to avoid the hassle we have been involved in in getting Gronouski cleared.¹⁰

[Omitted here is material unrelated to public diplomacy.]

1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Name File, Box 2, Henze, Paul B., 2/77–2/79. Secret.
2. Brzezinski underlined “Pell/McGovern.”
3. May 9. “International Broadcasting,” The Washington Post, May 9, 1977, p. A22.
4. Brzezinski placed a vertical line in the left-hand margin next to this paragraph and the one below it. He also wrote, “speak to me about this” in the margin.
5. On May 10, the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee rejected Percy’s proposal and substituted a proposal that would require the administration to take into account information on recent studies, including the Stanton Report. The Committee, however, approved the Pell–McGovern Amendment concerning RFE/RL. (Lee Lescaze, “Senate Panel Votes to Relax Embargo Against Cuba,” The Washington Post, May 11, 1977, p. A1)
6. See footnote 2, Document 35.
7. Brzezinski placed a vertical line in the left-hand margin next to this paragraph and wrote “speak to Frank Moore.”
8. May 6.
9. See Document 36.
10. Brzezinski placed a vertical line in the left-hand margin next to the first three sentences of the paragraph and wrote “didn’t he [Marks] support Nixon?” Below this, Henze wrote “no PH” and drew a line from it to Brzezinski’s question.