🚀 go-pugleaf

Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 20:58:25 -0400
From: MEQ@aol.com
Subject: HELP! 

Hey everyone, 

I'm soliciting your help. As I'm sure you all know, Congress is trying to
balance the budget by cutting several foreign affairs programs. The Peace
Corps budget may be cut as much as 20%.  If anyone else receives the
newsletter Constituent for Sustainable Development, you will have seen on the
back page article a suggestion for calling Senator Helms'  bill either
"Development Aid Elimination Act" or "Pro-Military Aid Act" instead of "The
Foreign Aid Reduction Act of 1995". I thought that was pretty clever.

Anyway, bottom line is that they want to cut development assistance and any
non-military activities abroad.  Included in all these proposals, there is a
movement to merge USIA (United States Information Agency), USAID (United
States Aid for International Development), and the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency with the State Department (or eliminate them all
together).  (There was talk of merging PC also! Go figure.) Which brings me
to my point - finally.  I have a vested interest in USIA because my husband,
Mike, works with them.  Our first assignment is scheduled for a year in
Senegal and then onto Cameroon for 2 years where Mike will be the Cultural
Affairs Officer. But really, I have an unbiased opinion! Seriously, USIA is a
good organization that really deals with the host country culture and aims
their projects at the village-level. They are the ones who administer
Fulbrights, run the American Culture Centers, and learn the local languages
so they can communicate with REAL people of the country. If USIA and USAID
get merged into the State Dept. I am fearing that US-host country relations
will only happen within the embassy walls themselves. Anyway, if anyone else
feels strongly about this (or even if you just feel a little about it!) I'm
asking you all to write or call your Senators and Representatives ASAP (it is
expected  the House Foreign Operations Subcommitte will vote on the intl
affairs appropriations bill by June 8) and let them know the cuts in Foreign
Aid and the State Department merger are not good ideas. I've attached a
sample letter that can be altered at your own discretion to aid in this
process (if you need the snail mail address of your Senator or
Representative, please e-mail us, we will look it up.) Think of it as a
HARAMBEE of sorts. Except I can't offer you any warm soda or Tusker. Pole,
pole, pole. If anyone has any questions, wants more info, or would like to
discuss this further, let me know.

Thank you for reading this far (if you did)  and for taking the time to help
out.

Amani,
Rachel (Tomlinson) Quigley


****************Attached file:

<Return Address>

June 3, 1995

<Address of Member of Congress>

Dear <Representative/Senator Name>:

 I am writing as one of your concerned constituents to express my position on
the key issue of foreign affairs restructuring now before Congress. I am
absolutely opposed to efforts currently underway in Congress to reduce and
reorganize the foreign affairs agencies of the United States. The pending
bills will not result in more efficient or more cost-conscious government,
nor will they significantly lower the federal deficit. 

 The budget bills and the foreign affairs authorizations bills currently
before Congress include provisions for dramatic reductions in the money
allocated for the conduct of United States foreign policy. The argument has
been put forth that foreign affairs must be cut to balance the budget and
that the American people do not support the current level of funding. I am
sure you are aware that at approximately 1% of the federal budget, foreign
affairs is not among the major drains on the U.S. Treasury. I am sure that,
by now, you are also aware of a recent poll which indicated that a majority
of Americans believe foreign affairs spending should be approximately 5% of
the federal budget-an increase of almost 4% over current levels. 

 The United States will always be involved in world affairs-whether our role
is that of leader, partner, follower, target, or victim will be decided by
how we portray ourselves and our policies in the next few years. That
portrayal starts with Congress. Investing in and fully supporting foreign
affairs agencies such as the State Department, USAID, USIA and the Peace
Corps is the best, most cost-effective means of maintaining the required
level of American participation. Now is the time to increase funding and
expand our foreign affairs efforts abroad-not the time to shirk both our
international responsibilities and opportunities.

 With regard to the proposed elimination of USAID and USIA, this is a poorly
considered idea. Though the goals of USAID, USIA and the State Department, by
definition, overlap, the means by which these agencies accomplish these goals
vary greatly. The tools of USAID, USIA and the State Department are
dramatically different and equally important. Some redistribution of
responsibilities between the foreign affairs agencies may truly be in order,
but the plans currently before Congress are myopic and, if passed in their
present forms, will severely damage the international influence of the United
States and compromise our ability to compete and thrive in an increasingly
global marketplace.

 I urge you to oppose-actively-the foreign affairs bills currently before
Congress and to vote against them should they reach the floor in their
present form. I urge you to work towards a solution which keeps our nation's
foreign affairs agency's identities and spending at or above current levels.
I ask you to work towards a solution to this crisis which will benefit
America and Americans long after the heated rhetoric of today has cooled.

 I will be watching the development of these issues and would appreciate a
note from you detailing your position and thoughts on them.

          Sincerely,



          <Name>


cc: <Rep. Gingrich/Sen. Dole--depending upon adressee>

**************************end attached file************