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

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

Washington, June 17, 1977

SUBJECT

• Evening Report—17 June 1977 (includes 16 June 1977)

Daily Activities

[Omitted here is material unrelated to public diplomacy.]

BIB, RFE/RL, etc: The FOAA and the McGovern-Pell amendment came up on 16 June, sooner than we expected and Humphrey was ready for a good fight.² I talked with his assistant, Dick McCall, who called to ask whether we had any last minute ideas the Senator could use if necessary. I gave him a couple. As you know, Humphrey succeeded in getting this amendment defeated at the end of the day by a vote of 77 to 13. This victory will be an enormous morale boost for the radios and puts Gronouski in a very strong position as he takes over chairmanship of BIB after confirmation, we expect, before end of the month.

I had a long phone conversation with Gronouski this morning. He was elated at Humphrey’s success in getting McG-Pell Amendment defeated and feels confident that this puts him in very strong position for confirmation. His confirmation hearing is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. Tuesday, 21 June and, presumably, confirmation will follow soon after. He is giving a good deal of constructive thought to how he is going to handle the Board, the Staff and the Radios. He is eager to have Griffith and Hauser processed as soon as possible—but he understands this will inevitably still take a while. —In the longer run, Gronouski said to me today, he considers the main problem of the radios the fact that they are on much too tight a budgetary leash. He is eager to get everything tidied up and then wants to go to bat to get them an extra $20–$25 million per year. This is entirely justified and, in view of the basic strength they have in Congress, is probably do-able.

(In talking to McCall this morning about yesterday’s developments he said that Humphrey was itching for a fight and decided not to try for a compromise amendment—which Percy was trying to push—but simply to get the McGovern-Pell one thoroughly defeated. Hubert was elated at the vote which confirmed his own judgment of the strength of sentiment on this subject when presented in the right way to the Senate. We had a number of other people working for us on this yesterday: John Hayes lined up Birch Bayh and Bruce van Viorst persuaded Senator Clark to change from his previous pro-McGovern-Pell position; Leonard Marks helped and RFE/RL Board members called other senators. But the key factor remains the fact that Humphrey’s instincts were right all along—and it demonstrates a lesson we might keep in mind for the future—it may be better to fight certain issues head-on than to water down our position by compromising too much. . .)

Lunched with John Hayes to review radio matters. He is looking forward to close working relationship with Gronouski and is quite prepared to cooperate in strengthening administration of the radios in several areas where he feels that improvements (though not radical surgery or purge treatments) are justified. He also wants to sort out and strengthen the radios’ corporate board and hopes to have this accomplished by next winter. Then, with everything in good shape, he would like to step out of Chairmanship and be appointed to some other part-time governmental activity to which he could devote a fair share of his energies for the next 3–4 years. I told him we felt he had served well during a very difficult time for the radios and you were extremely appreciative of his service. We will want to keep him in mind for possible future appointments. Media/intelligence/foreign affairs in general are his main areas of interest.

USIA Reorganization: Conferred with various interested parties about Vance’s memo to President on reorganization of USIA, amalgamation of CU with it, etc.³ Have worked out procedures this morning for consolidating various inputs, including excellent memo from Barry Jagoda⁴ and Lance position (which we have not yet received), which Greg Treverton will do.⁵ David Aaron’s strong dissent from everyone else’s views (which you should read carefully) would necessitate stopping the whole reorganization process in its tracks and get us involved in a hassle in the information field akin to what we are going through in the intelligence field.⁶ I do not feel we need a PRM on the information/broadcasting/cultural exchange area to come up with sensible plans for improving performance. USIA has not been doing badly, but it can do much better and the way to get it to perform better is to give it a consolidated mission and a real sense of status, reporting directly to the White House. Acting soon on Vance’s proposal is the best way to go. USIA (along with CU) will attract better people for all their activities if they know their mission is regarded as important by the White House.

1. Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Staff Material, Horn/Special (Henze), Box 5, Evening Reports File: 2–6/77. Secret. Sent for information.
2. The full Senate approved the Foreign Relations Authorization bill on June 16. The President signed into law the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY 1978 (P.L. 95–105) on August 17.
3. See Document 64.
4. Reference is to a June 16 memorandum from Jagoda to the President, sent through Brzezinski. (Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Agency File, Box 17, State, 6/77)
5. See footnote 3, Document 70.
6. See Document 66.