E 976 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks May 9, 1995

I respectfully request that my colleagues join

me in saluting Albert R. Gunther and recognizing his contributions to generations of young

people, and toward the betterment of our community.

DEDICATION OF TEMPLE ISRAEL

fHON. TONY P. HALL OF OHIO

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, May 9, 1995

Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call

attention to the dedication of a new synagogue building for Temple Israel of Dayton,

OH, within my district. The building is an important milestone for the Dayton Jewish community.

Temple Israel traces its roots to 1850, when

12 Jews in Dayton formed a Hebrew Society.

The congregation, which was incorporated as

Kehillah Kodesh B’nai Yeshurun, bought a

building in 1863. In 1893, the congregation

had grown enough to construct a new synagogue at the corner of First and Jefferson

Streets in downtown.

Downtown was severely damaged by the

great Dayton flood of 1913. By 1925, the congregation began construction of a new building

at the corner of Salem and Emerson Avenues,

in the neighborhood of Dayton View. This

building was expanded in 1953 with the addition of a new sanctuary.

In November 1994, the congregation moved

into its new home at One Riverbend, on the

west bank of the Great Miami River, just north

of downtown. On Friday, May 5, the building

was formerly dedicated at a service. The following Sunday, Temple Israel opened its

building and grounds to the Dayton community

at an open house.

I offer my congratulations to Temple Israel’s

Rabbi P. Irving Bloom, whose vision and leadership have led to this moment. I further extend my best wishes to the entire congregation to find fulfillment in using the building for

generations to come.

THREATS TO CUT USIA THREATEN

AMERICAN SECURITY

f

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 reprioritization 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.