```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             THREATS TO CUT USIA THREATEN AMERICAN SECURITY

                                 ______

                         HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, May 9, 1995
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, next week the International Relations 
Committee will mark up legislation that threatens major changes in 
America's foreign policy institutions. This legislation--that appears 
to be largely driven by pledges from Senator Helms to consolidate 
America's foreign policy instruments--was just received this morning by 
Congressman Hamilton and has not yet been reviewed by most Democrats, 
nor, I venture to say, by many Republicans. Yet, the committee appears 
to be determined to move its legislation forward.
  Through press statements, we have learned that Senator Helms' agenda 
is to eliminate the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency [ACDA], the 
Agency for International Development [AID], and the U.S. Information 
Agency [USIA]. The functions of these agencies are to be combined into 
a mega-bureaucracy in the Department of State. Senator Helms claims 
major savings in this reform although he acknowledges that few actual 
savings will be realized in the first 2 years of his proposed 
consolidation.
  I believe that there is even a greater cost to this proposal. It is 
in the cost to our national security. In this day of increasing threats 
from terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, 
now is not the time to dismantle the first line of America's defense: 
our foreign policy institutions which served this country so well in 
the cold war.
  We all believe that in this post-cold-war era, when threats to 
American citizens and our nation can come equally from the actions of a 
lone terrorist or another country, when threats can be economic as well 
as military, we do need to reexamine our Nation's foreign policy 
bureaucracy in order to make it more efficient. But this effort is 
already underway through Vice President Gore's National Policy Review 
and Secretary of State Christopher's internal strategic management 
initiative.
  We need a reasoned, rational approach to reform that matches 
objective with means in a manner that protects and advances American 
national security. Legislation designed by political impulse and 
railroaded through the political process without time for full regard 
to cost or benefit is dangerous tinkering with America's security.
  I am not alone in my desire for hesitation or in my concern for the 
result. A bipartisan group from Freedom House recently released a 
statement opposing the elimination of USIA. This group, which includes 
among others former U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Edward Fuelner, 
Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation, former Senator Malcolm 
Wallop, and Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., editor of the American Spectator, 
cogently and persuasively argues that ``this proposed consolidation and 
centralization would weaken American public diplomacy.''
  The arguments that they make on behalf of preserving one agency, 
USIA, I believe can be made, and will be made next week, on behalf of 
the other agencies now threatened by the proposed legislation. 
Weakening the independent voices and undermining the effectiveness of 
ACDA and USAID will not strengthen American foreign policy. I encourage 
my colleagues to read closely the statement issued by Freedom House and 
review carefully the legislation once it is introduced by the 
Republicans.
  I ask that the Freedom House report be printed in the Record at this 
point.
                  The Future of U.S. Public Diplomacy

       New proposals have been advanced to place the United States 
     Information Agency (USIA)--long the chief instrument of 
     American public diplomacy--under the centralized control of 
     the State Department. We believe this proposed consolidation 
     and centralization would weaken American public diplomacy.
       Why should the USIA remain independent? Through its 
     broadcasting, numerous exchange programs and links with 
     people throughout the world, it already is highly successful 
     in promoting American interests and articulating who we are 
     and how our policies and values are shaped. The State 
     Department has a different though related role. It explains 
     U.S. foreign policy to Americans and presents our 
     government's official positions to foreign governments. The 
     State Department values quiet negotiations, government-to-
     government contacts, protracted discussion, compromise and 
     sometimes secrecy. A credible public diplomacy, by contrast, 
     requires openness, the ability to respond quickly to rapidly 
     changing world events, and independence in reporting, 
     analysis and comment. In short, the culture of the State 
     Department differs substantially from the culture of the 
     USIA.
       There are other important reasons to retain the USIA's 
     present status.
       Public diplomacy and formal diplomacy. While formal 
     diplomatic relations conducted by the State Department are an 
     important aspect of our government's diverse engagement with 
     other societies, public diplomacy--our open efforts to win 
     understanding and support among the peoples of foreign 
     countries on matters that affect U.S. national interests--
     suffers when it is subordinated to the demands of formal 
     diplomacy. We have long-term interests in developing flexible 
     relationships with foreign educators, journalists, cultural 
     leaders, minority and opposition leaders that must not be 
     subjected to the daily pressures of official government-to-
     government affairs. USIA has filled this niche by setting up 
     exchanges that introduce foreign representatives to U.S. 
     governmental, non-governmental, private, business and 
     cultural institutions.
       American values: independent voices, one theme. The 
     promotion of American political and economic values has been 
     an auspicious aspect of our foreign policy in recent times. 
     The spread of democracy and the global communication 
     revolution indicate that this form of engagement in foreign 
     affairs will be of great importance in the future. 
     Diversification and independence--not centralization and 
     uniformity--make the U.S.'s message more meaningful and 
     credible. The USIA's broadcasting and exchange programs 
     should remain free of interference from officials with 
     responsibilities in other areas. Radio Free Europe/Radio 
     Liberty, Voice of America and Radio Marti remain vital 
     sources of information around the world. In East-Central 
     Europe and the former Soviet Union (where independent media 
     continue to face difficulties) RFE/RL is trusted precisely 
     because of its journalistic integrity. This would be 
     seriously compromised if they were perceived as official 
     organs of State Department policy.
       Re-orientation before re-organization. The structure of our 
     foreign affairs agencies needs to be considered in light of 
     America's global strategy in a rapidly changing international 
     environment. Re-organization not rooted in a clear and 
     comprehensive understanding and consensus about goals and 
     missions cannot work or last. The USIA and federally-funded 
     international broadcasting have track records of success and 
     will continue to work. Indeed, with today's menacing 
     phenomena of international criminal activity, terrorism, 
     inter-ethnic hatreds and anti-democratic forces around the 
     world, the work of USIA is more critical than ever.
       We understand that there will have to be some significant 
     re-organization and re-prioritization in foreign policy. 
     Those who have offered proposals for change have done some 
     service. The world has changed, in no small measure because 
     of our multi-layered and multi-faceted foreign policy 
     structures. Our goal should be coordination between agencies, 
     not the kind of consolidated administrative centralism that 
     will not work. The tasks of the State Department and the 
     public diplomacy agencies should nurture one another, but 
     must remain separate to be truly effective.
     

                          ____________________
```