[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS:
AN AGENCY ``DEFUNCT''
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 26, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-36
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-693 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Massachusetts
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas AMI BERA, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
TREY RADEL, Florida GRACE MENG, New York
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
TED S. YOHO, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
LUKE MESSER, Indiana
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable James K. Glassman, founding executive director,
George W. Bush Institute (former Chairman of the Broadcasting
Board of Governors, and former Under Secretary of State for
Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs)........................... 4
The Honorable S. Enders Wimbush, executive director for strategy
& development, National Bureau of Asian Research (former
Governor of the Broadcasting Board of Governors)............... 15
The Honorable D. Jeff Hirschberg, chairman, The Northeast Maglev,
LLC (former Governor of the Broadcasting Board of Governors)... 23
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable James K. Glassman: Prepared statement.............. 6
The Honorable S. Enders Wimbush: Prepared statement.............. 17
The Honorable D. Jeff Hirschberg: Prepared statement............. 25
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 52
Hearing minutes.................................................. 53
The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs:
Letter from Dana Perino and Company dated June 21, 2013........ 55
Broadcasting Board of Governors: Absense of a Board Quorum..... 57
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Statement................... 61
BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS: AN AGENCY ``DEFUNCT''
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2013
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock
a.m., in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward
Royce (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Royce. The committee will come to order. The
committee is pleased to see that we have representatives of the
BBG, including seated governors, like Victor Ashe, with us
today. And we look forward to working together and continuing
our dialogue as we move forward with legislative reforms.
The title of this hearing is ``Broadcasting Board of
Governors: An Agency `Defunct.' '' And today we meet to discuss
how best to reform the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the
agency which oversees U.S. international broadcasters such as
the Voice of America and such as Radio Free Asia.
Our international broadcasting has very rich history. East
Europeans have told us how critical Radio Free Asia was, Radio
Free Europe was at the time in clipping away at the Iron
Curtain, in the ability, as Vaclav Havel says, to get
information out, to operate as a free surrogate radio, to give
the people the facts about what was actually happening on the
ground in Eastern Europe that otherwise they would not have
been able to obtain.
And what is interesting in listening to the dialogue, the
conversations about those at the time who were privy to
listening to those broadcasts is to hear their explanations
about their own thought process as they begin to question the
totalitarian regimes that were controlling information. It
indeed had a profound impact on the course of human events. It
was quite an achievement with the end of the Cold War.
And while the Voice of America aims to provide listeners
with objective news and information about United States foreign
policy, the purpose of the surrogate broadcasts, such as Radio
Free Europe/Radio Free Asia, is very different. And that is to
beam this information into closed societies, giving those
citizens the information that otherwise they would never be
able to access. Each broadcasting service is full of
enterprising reporters who literally risk their lives for what
they do. They risk life and limb. And I think all of us have
followed stories about individual reporters who were killed in
the line of getting the story in totalitarian regimes or
reporting on human rights abuses. Reporters from these services
really deserve to work under an organization that makes the
most out of their talents. Unfortunately, more and more, it
seems that the structure of international broadcasting clips
their wings.
Legislation in the 1990s established the Broadcasting Board
of Governors as an independent Federal agency responsible for
all U.S. non-military international broadcasting. Today, the
BBG exercises authority over five distinct broadcasting
services. Managed by a bipartisan and a part-time
presidentially appointed board of nine individuals, the board
is supposed to set the priorities and overall strategic
direction of the U.S. international broadcasting. It is
supposed to do it to allocate the resources and safeguard
journalistic integrity. But plagued by vacancies and
infighting, the BBG has trouble accomplishing any of that.
In January, the State Department Inspector General depicted
an agency with a dedicated staff attempting to serve, in their
words, a dysfunctional structure. The BBG's ``dysfunction stems
from a flawed legislative structure and'' stems from ``acute
internal dissension,'' the report concludes, noting that a
part-time board ``cannot, cannot, effectively supervise''
operations.
Indeed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified before
the committee. And we recall her words, that the BBG ``is
practically defunct agency in terms of its capacity to be able
to tell a message around the world.'' She went on to regret
that, in her words, ``We are abdicating the ideological
arena.'' I agree with her assessment. The stakes are very high.
As we speak, governments around the world have stepped up
efforts to influence opinion abroad and to stifle dissent back
at home. In Pakistan, small local radio stations broadcast
messages that promote extremism and incite violence against
every other minority group in Pakistan.
The fight against terrorism and other threats to our
national security must include a fight against bad ideas. If
done well, the payoff of broadcasting is tremendous. With an
information war underway, U.S. international broadcasting must
be as sharp as ever. We must relearn some of the techniques.
And this includes the broadcast entities themselves. The former
head of Radio Free Europe once summed up their mission this
way, ``Irritate authoritarian regimes, inspire democrats, and
create greater space for civil society.'' Our goal here is to
figure out how to do more of just that.
And I will now turn to Ranking Member Engel for his opening
remarks.
Mr. Engel. Chairman Royce, thank you for calling this very
timely hearing on an issue that impacts millions of people
around the world, which is U.S. international broadcasting.
Last month, I had the opportunity to speak at the 70th
anniversary of the Voice of America's Albanian service. That
event was a reminder that providing unbiased views and news to
those who are denied access to information in their own
countries remains as relevant today as it was when VOA began
broadcasting during World War II.
U.S. international broadcasting endures because it has
maintained a commitment to journalistic integrity. The first
principle of our broadcasting is to provide news that is
``consistently reliable and authoritative, accurate, objective,
and comprehensive.''
In the years since the dawn of U.S. international
broadcasting, the structures and technologies to deliver the
news have changed dramatically. What began as VOA radio has
evolved into five distinct organizations housed within the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, or BBG. Today, these entities
reach over 200 million people per week in 61 languages, radio,
TV, the internet, and even mobile phones.
While the BBG and its various sub-entities continue to play
an important role in U.S. foreign policy, some questions have
been raised about the management of the agency. An Inspector
General report issued earlier this year found that the BBG was
``failing in its mandated duties,'' and it attributed that
failure to a flawed structure and strong internal dissension.
One problem highlighted by the report is that the BBG
board, originally intended to operate on a part-time basis, has
in practice assumed full-time responsibilities of supervising a
massive media organization with broadcasts to more than 100
countries.
This problem has been compounded by the large number of
board vacancies, which has left the BBG without a quorum
necessary to make official decisions. Currently, only four of
the nine board slots are filled. These vacancies increase the
pressure and responsibilities of the sitting governors to
supervise the BBG. I hope the Senate will soon take action on
the three nominees now being considered and that the President
will nominate additional board members.
In addition, questions have been raised about the lines of
authority at the BBG. Voice of America, which is a Federal
entity, reports to the head of the International Broadcasting
Bureau while Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a private
grantee, reports directly to the board of governors. This can
create confusion about who is in charge, resulting in
unnecessary duplication and undermining accountability.
Finally, many of us are concerned about the consistently
low morale among employees at the BBG. Year after year, Federal
surveys show that the BBG ranks among the bottom of all Federal
agencies in terms of job satisfaction.
In response to these and other issues, the administration
has proposed the creation of a chief executive officer. The CEO
would be selected by the board and be delegated some of the
board's responsibilities, including the day-to-day management
of the agency. This approach is supported by the Inspector
General.
As we examine ways to improve the governance of
international broadcasting, it is vital that any reforms
maintain the journalistic integrity that has been built over
the last 70 years. This means maintaining a strong firewall
between journalism and politics.
I look forward to hearing a frank assessment from our
witnesses on the challenges facing the BBG and on the board's
proposal to create a CEO as well as other recommendations they
might have for improving U.S. international broadcasting.
I am a big supporter of VOA. I am a big supporter of U.S.
broadcasting. Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen and I many years ago
had to fight for Radio Marti. I really think this makes a
change.
I have done a lot of work in Albania. The interesting thing
for me is when Albania first opened up when I was here in the
early 1990s and I went there, I asked them, what happened
during the Cold War when you had the most repressive
dictatorship? How did you know what was going on? And they said
that the Voice of America was important, they all listened to
it, they listened to television from Italy, but Voice of
America was instrumental. I believe it was instrumental then.
It was instrumental during the Cold War. And it is instrumental
now.
So, as the VOA adage goes, ``Tell the truth and let the
world decide.'' I believe that.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Engel.
We are going to go now to our witnesses. We have been
joined by three, who all previously served on the Broadcasting
Board of Governors. The Honorable James Glassman served as
Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public
Affairs before he became chairman of the Broadcasting Board of
Governors from 2007 to 2008.
Mr. Wimbush, the Honorable Enders Wimbush, is the Executive
Director for Strategy and Development of the National Bureau of
Asian Research. He was a member of the board from 2010 to 2012,
but he was also Director of Radio Free Liberty from 1987 to
1993 as the Iron Curtain fell.
The Honorable D. Jeff Hirschberg, his 8-year tenure on the
Broadcasting Board of Governors began in 2002. Before that, he
worked at the Department of Justice, where he was special
attorney to the deputy attorney general.
So we welcome all three of you. And I am going to ask you
to summarize your opening statements. And, without objection,
the witnesses will have their full prepared statements made a
part of the record. Members have 5 days to submit your
statements or additional questions.
And, Mr. Glassman, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES K. GLASSMAN, FOUNDING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GEORGE W. BUSH INSTITUTE (FORMER CHAIRMAN
OF THE BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS, AND FORMER UNDER
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS)
Mr. Glassman. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Engel, members of the committee,
congratulations on this hearing. Now is the time to think big
about reforming not just the BBG but the entire public
diplomacy effort of the U.S. Government.
Today I want to make four points. First, this hearing's
title refers to former Secretary Clinton's statement that the
BBG is defunct. It is not. The BBG is one of the largest news-
gathering operations in the world. Last week, it announced a
total audience of more than 203 million, a new record.
The Inspector General said in January, U.S. Government
broadcasting is characterized by ``journalism of the highest
caliber.'' Second, while the BBG is alive and well, its mission
is contradictory and confused. The law asks it both to be a
tool of U.S. foreign policy and an independent, unbiased
journalistic organization protected from government
interference. In fact, the BBG's mission should be the same as
that of the State Department itself: To achieve the specific
strategic goals of U.S. national security and foreign policy.
Good journalism is not the end but the means. This is my
most important message to you. You need to resolve the
contradiction by law and clarify the mission. It is simply
unfair to call the BBG defunct or even dysfunctional when
Congress and the Executive Branch have not provided the BBG
with a clear sense of what they want it to be and what they
want it to do.
Third, structure. The BBG must be fully integrated into the
foreign policy apparatus of the U.S. Government. The modern BBG
was created in 1999 after the functions of the U.S. Information
Agency were mostly folded into the State Department and
international broadcasting was consolidated as a separate body:
The BBG.
The best way to remove any confusion about the BBG's
mission is to put it back into the State Department under an
Assistant Secretary playing close to the CEO role that the
current board and the administration envision or as part of a
resurrected USIA. You would have an advisory board composed of
members with expertise in media technology and in disseminating
ideas in general.
High journalistic standards must be maintained for this new
BBG. Propaganda simply does not work. All current broadcasting
functions should be subsumed within the State Department,
including those of the so-called grantees, such as Radio Free
Europe. The distinction and functions among BBG entities has
largely evaporated.
At any rate, as a 2012 Hudson Institute report says, it
should be made ``clear to the various broadcasting services
that they are in the public sector and are part of the U.S.
foreign policy team.'' This does not simply mean performing in
a manner ``consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives
of the United States,'' as the law states, but, instead,
following actual strategic directives, for example, to convince
the Pakistanis that they face an existential threat from al-
Qaeda.
Fourth, in examining the BBG, this committee should broaden
its sights and encompass the government's soft power function
as a whole. In her statement to this committee in January,
Secretary Clinton focused on the BBG in describing her
frustration, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, with America's
``failure to tell a message around the world.'' She said, ``We
are letting the jihadist narrative fill a void. We need to get
in there and compete.''
That is true, but it is wrong to single out the BBG, which
is only ambiguously part of the public diplomacy apparatus, for
this failure. It is also disingenuous to point outward in
assigning the blame when the responsibility ``to get in there
and compete'' should lie within the State Department and the
White House.
When I was a State, we had a clear mandate from the White
House, backed by support from the National Security Council, to
wage a war of ideas and information and ideological struggle
against the ``jihadist narrative'' to which Secretary Clinton
refers. Now the term ``war of ideas'' has become anathema. The
fact is we will never thwart our enemies and win the world's
respect if we don't stand up for our values and oppose the
ideology of violent extremism, just as we addressed communism
during the Cold War.
What we need is what I call a strategic public diplomacy;
that is, soft power directed to achieve specific national
security aims with the full commitment of a President and
Congress that understand that these nonviolent efforts are as
important as warfare.
My own interest in this area began in 2003, when I was
appointed to the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the
Arab and Muslim World. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glassman follows:]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Glassman.
Mr. Wimbush?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE S. ENDERS WIMBUSH, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR FOR STRATEGY & DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL BUREAU OF ASIAN
RESEARCH (FORMER GOVERNOR OF THE BROADCASTING BOARD OF
GOVERNORS)
Mr. Wimbush. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Engel, thank you for this opportunity. I also want to
applaud the effort of this committee to take a good look at the
BBG and its relationship to international broadcasting.
I have spent a long time on both the front lines and the
back lines of international broadcasting. So let me give you my
assessment clearly and succinctly. The BBG was a bad idea when
it was created. And it is dysfunctional today.
With five of its eight governors, including three of its
four Republican members and both its chairman and his
replacement as well as the alternate presiding governor, having
resigned in frustration or disgust. The BBG cannot now function
legally as intended because it now lacks an operating quorum.
The BBG in my estimate has failed to provide U.S.
international broadcasting with effective strategic guidance,
with good governance, with economic efficiency, or any credible
link, as Governor Glassman has just said, to U.S. foreign
policy goals and strategies. And these are built into the BBG
system.
The BBG is dysfunctional in three but overlapping and
interrelated ways. First, it is, as Mr. Engel pointed out, a
melange of different kinds of organizations: Three Federal
agencies and three 501(c)(3)'s. They operate on totally
different sets of laws, conventions, and practices. They cannot
be made to work. The only thing they have in common is that
they do media.
Second, the BBG's governance model could hardly be worse or
more debilitating. It has no real leadership. The chairman's
role is more honorary than functional, and his powers are
nowhere spelled out. Congress originally intended the board of
governors to oversee it but not to manage. But this has morphed
into the BBG becoming a collective CEO, which has resulted in
confused lines of responsibility and authority, oversight, and
management. And the BBG is dysfunctional strategically. And
this is the most important point. Our competitors have
multiplied while their allies have retreated. One would think
that American strategists would begin to sharpen their spears
to compete in this world. Yet, the opposite seems to be
happening, again due in large part to the incoherence of the
BBG. Let me illustrate with an example.
Nearly every year, the BBG receives requests from concerned
Ibo-speaking Nigerians to inaugurate a broadcast service in
their language. Ibo is spoken by 18-20 percent of the Nigerian
population of 175 million, which means a media audience of
somewhere between 30-35 million in an energy-rich,
demographically young, geographically salient country. This
would seem to be a no-brainer, but every year, it is refused.
And why is this? Because rampant duplication of effort across
the five networks vastly reduces the funding opportunities for
new ventures, however strategic.
I am confident that members of this board know that the
Voice of America has a Russian broadcasting service. And you
probably even know that Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty
also have a Russian broadcasting service. But the voice also
has a Burmese broadcasting service, as does Radio Free Asia.
Now, if this were the end of the list, we might find a
reasonable explanation, but it is just the beginning. U.S.
international broadcasting now operates two language services
on different networks in each of the following languages:
Albanian, Bosnian, Macedonian, Serbian, Armenian, Azerbaijani,
Georgian, Russian, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Arabic, Dari, Pashto,
Persian, Burmese, Cantonese, Khmer, Korean, Lao, Mandarin,
Tibetan, and Vietnamese. And the VOA and the Office of Cuba
Broadcasting both broadcast in Spanish, too. If you are
counting, that is 23 duplications.
Now, advocates of duplication say it is necessary because
they do different things. I have been hearing this canard since
I ran Radio Liberty. There is no location for surrogate or non-
surrogate broadcasting these days.
Think about the new technologies. Think about crowd
sourcing, crowd sourcing, which is the gathering of information
through mobile devices. It is the classic surrogate instrument.
Are we going to tell the Voice of America that it can't be
doing this? It uses it everywhere. We need to get rid of this
distinction between surrogate and non-surrogate.
My four conclusions. One, get rid of the BBG as the
organizing organization for U.S. international broadcasting.
Two, separate oversight from management. Three, put one unified
full-time professional management in place with jurisdiction
over all U.S. international broadcasting. Four, create
conditions for strategic decision-making. And, five, abandon
the simplistic distinction between telling America's story and
surrogate broadcasting. There are ways to get there. I would be
happy to expand on those if asked.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wimbush follows:]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Wimbush.
We go now to Mr. Hirschberg.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE D. JEFF HIRSCHBERG, CHAIRMAN, THE
NORTHEAST MAGLEV, LLC (FORMER GOVERNOR OF THE BROADCASTING
BOARD OF GOVERNORS)
Mr. Hirschberg. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Engel, members of the
committee, thank you for holding the hearing.
I share some of the things that my colleagues have said up
here. And a lot of it I just flat don't. My experience on the
broadcasting board I think is a little bit different. I served
there for roughly 8\1/2\ years. And during that period of time,
we served for 2 years without a chairman because we were
basically down to the final four, as we called ourselves.
And, before that, the board actually did work collegially
to really address major strategic issues and initiate certain
services, such as Alhurra Television, which were much needed.
There were no votes on that sort of thing. It was done by
consensus. Democrats and Republicans agreed that it was needed,
created a promotional video, took it in to the White House. The
President of the United States bought it. And we were up and
running within 5 months of funding through the appropriations
process. And we went on the air February 14th, Valentine's
present, 2004.
So the board actually can work if you have a first-rate
chairman and seven other people of good will who are willing to
work together to accomplish the strategic goals of the BBG.
Now, having said that, I understand that it looks like to
me, at least, things have changed over the course of time. And
now there is a push for reform.
The current board and my successor board put out a
strategic plan. And the President has accepted part of that
strategic plan. OMB has supported it. And they have offered up
a CEO of U.S. international broadcasting. While I may not
believe it is necessary, I can support it. And I can support it
as long as the CEO of U.S. international broadcasting is beyond
and behind the firewall with the rest of the BBG board, must
remain behind the firewall.
The most important thing that U.S. international
broadcasting has in its favor around the world is its
credibility. So my suggestion to you--and I urge you that when
you are considering making certain changes, keep in mind that
the most thing that we have going for us is our credibility. I
don't think you get that by destroying the broadcast entities
in any way, shape, or form. I don't believe you get that by
putting VOA and the rest of the entities into the State
Department. I am not in favor of that.
While there is so much to talk about, it is hard to know
where to stop. I want to leave you with just one more thing
before we answer questions. Assuming you get this 100 percent
right and the structure is 100 percent correct and everybody is
satisfied with whatever structure you come up with, it still
only addresses half of the problem. The other half of the
problem after structure and whatever reforms you want to put
into place is that U.S. international broadcasting is
substantially under-funded to do what it needs to do.
Just one example, if you look at Al Jazeera in the United
States today, they are welcome here because we have a First
Amendment. They are spending roughly $750 million or $800
million to stand up and network in the United States alone.
That is over 100 percent of U.S. international broadcasting's
worldwide budget.
So my last thing that I want to share with you is that
while there may be some need for reform in the Broadcasting
Board of Governors itself, which I can support, the broadcast
entities themselves are performing their jobs as well or better
than they ever have. And, quite frankly, Voice of America MBN
on one side, the surrogates on the other are just two sides of
the same coin. And what you are talking about in mission
statements is merely matters of degree.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hirschberg follows:]
----------
Chairman Royce. Thank you, Mr. Hirschberg.
I do think, as we look at this issue, there isn't any
question but that during the Cold War, we were particularly
effective during a period of time. I remember I was in East
Germany for a while and saw the impact of these broadcasts and
saw how you did them wrong and how you did them right. The old
bombastic West Germany broadcasts, people weren't interested in
that. But when we recruited East German stringers and began to
put those young reporters on the line, people were fixated on
what they had to hear.
Over the years, we I think learned certain lessons. The
State Department wanted us out of Yugoslavia on the
broadcasting. I remember a young Croatian with tears in his
eyes telling me that the hate radio dominated all over the
former Yugoslavia. And it was one of the reasons, the fact that
we had never really had effective broadcasting in there. I had
legislation to try to do that. And I believe we finally got
that through. And it got it up and running the day before we
started bombing.
I think it is very clear over the years that also the
concept of a mission of trying to offset the totalitarian and
especially the hate broadcasts that are done in these
societies, we tried to prior, far prior, to 9/11. We tried to
get broadcasting up and running, the right type of
broadcasting, in Afghanistan. I remember that struggle. I
carried that legislation. Again, we didn't get that through
until after the attack and after the death of the leader of the
Northern Alliance.
And I think that, as we go forward, clearly we have to
learn from what we did right. And that is why Mr. Wimbush's
testimony is of tremendous interest to me because during his
tenure, we did something right. And it wasn't partisan. It was
a nonpartisan effort to try to disseminate the facts about what
was actually happening in that part of the world.
Mr. Wimbush, would you like to extrapolate a little more?
Because when you finished your testimony, you said if we wanted
to hear more from you about specifics, you would be happy to
give us those specifics.
Mr. Wimbush. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like Jeff
Hirschberg, I am not a big fan of putting it all within the
State Department. It is one model. And I think you need to look
at a number of different models.
But I really think that this committee needs to hit for the
fence. I think it needs to entertain a number of pathways to
the goal you want, but for me, the one that stands out as far
and away the most logical and coincidentally the one that will
lead inevitably to the fewest instances of backsliding into the
current BBG dilemma is to create one stand-alone media
organization incorporating all of these existing media
enterprises.
Now, it puts a big load on your plate because that means
defederalizing the Voice of America and the Office of Cuba
Broadcasting. Frankly, this to me is, far and away, the best
outcome that you could come up with.
There are other models that you could look at that might
put the Voice of America off by itself and maybe it goes into
State or stands alone and the radio frees, the grantees, go in
something else. What I would not do is organize in a way that
enhances this distinction between telling America's story and
doing surrogate broadcasting.
When I was the director of Radio Liberty, one of the most
important programs we put on the air--and I resisted it because
a member of the BIB at that time told me he wanted something
that told America's story.
We put on a program from our New York office called
Broadway 1776. It followed new emigres from Russia around the
streets of New York into the PTA, into the stores, into the
intellectual institutions, into the museums. It was the most
fantastic piece of surrogate broadcasting because it was about
them and it was one of the finest and most wonderful examples
of telling America's story because it told how the whole thing
worked.
But look in contrast. Here is an announcement from the
Voice of America, which is not supposed to be a surrogate
station, although it has been practicing surrogacy for a long
time.
This is how they describe their new offering to South Sudan
just 3 or 4 weeks ago, and I quote, ``With South Sudan in focus
as its flagship program, the English language service will
offer news for South Sudan, about South Sudan, and by South
Sudan reporters.'' That is for the country, about the country,
by the country people. It is simply impossible to get more
surrogate than that.
So the objective, your objective, I think, should be to
create as many possible synergies as you can without creating
these firewalls, these barriers, for the sharing of
information, the creating of new images and messages, and the
healthy function of the whole media organization as a single
entity.
Chairman Royce. Any further suggestions as long as you are
here as a witness?
Mr. Wimbush. In my written testimony, you will see that I
make a number of suggestions, but I would defer to my
colleagues at this point.
Chairman Royce. Mr. Hirschberg?
Mr. Hirschberg. I believe in taking on fights that you can
have a chance of winning. For the 8\1/2\ years when I was on
the board, we sort of took on fights that we thought we could
win. Defederalizing VOA and OCB had been considered by the
previous board for a number of years. And at that point in
time, we decided we could not do it. And so, therefore, we
chose to do other things in out discretion.
I am not necessarily for a single broadcast entity. I think
that the surrogates and VOA and MBN, on the other hand, do a
very good job the way they are.
I think there are a lot of things that can be done with
respect to synergizing what they do. I think there are a lot of
things that can be done vis-a-vis a management structure. And
you could actually consolidate back office operations,
consolidate IT, consolidate other things. That certainly can be
done.
Now, if you want to do that and create an entire broadcast
or a single broadcast entity, that is your privilege. You can
change the legislation to do that if that is what you want to
do. I just don't see a need for it.
Chairman Royce. Well, you did speak about resources.
Mr. Hirschberg. I certainly----
Chairman Royce. And our resources aren't infinite.
Mr. Hirschberg. Correct.
Chairman Royce. So the concept of merging the two, as Mr.
Wimbush articulates, might not only lead to the added
efficiencies but might lead to the ability to do more
programming effectively as he ticks off the different dialects
and languages that we do the broadcasting in. And there are
probably 170, I would guess, or so, at least, around the world.
The reality is that there is certain duplication there.
So clearly if you can consolidate that, you might,
especially given the fact that you do have a lot of information
around the world in terms of straight news. This is a little
different mission. And consolidating that with the personnel
that have those abilities and that niche to speak to those
audiences and having them in the same operation might be
tremendously more efficient. I don't know.
Mr. Hirschberg. It may be more efficient, Mr. Chairman, but
in the meantime, the GAO report on this did not go far enough
to analyze duplicated versus unduplicated audiences, who
listens to which of those services, what the effect of those
services is, what their audience reach is, what their
credibility is. If you want to go that step and then make the
judgment as to whether or not the language services ought to be
eliminated one way or another, that is just fine.
Chairman Royce. I am out of time. I will go to Mr. Engel.
Thank you.
Mr. Hirschberg. Okay.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask all three of you broad-based questions
based on your written testimony, which I have read and what you
have said. All three of you have had different views on what
the fundamental mission on U.S. international broadcasting
should or should not be.
And correct me if I am wrong. Mr. Hirschberg, you said that
our broadcasters don't do advocacy work.
Mr. Wimbush, you believe the differentiation in missions
between surrogates and telling America's story is no longer
relevant.
Mr. Glassman, you testified that the entity should be
brought in line with U.S. strategic objectives.
So these all seem to be quite different opinions. So let me
just throw it out and say, amongst the three of you, is there
any common ground on the over-arching mission of U.S.
international broadcasting? Is it possible for broadcasters to
provide authoritative, accurate, and objective news while at
the same time advancing U.S. interests? Any one of you care to?
Mr. Wimbush. Well, I would be happy to take the first crack
at that. The mission, Mr. Engel, the mission of international
broadcasting is to support U.S. foreign policy. I mean, I don't
think anybody disagrees with that.
Today, the connective tissue between what the BBG does and
the programs that its networks create and the overall aims of
the U.S. foreign policy is almost nonexistent. I think Jim
Glassman mentioned that in his testimony. Somehow that to be
revivified. It has to be made a clearer, more concise
connection.
And Jeff Hirschberg is also right that this has to be done
within the context of good journalism. I think of it as
journalism with an edge, but it is journalism.
We have a reason for doing it. It is to support U.S.
foreign policy and U.S. foreign policy objectives to support
human rights, to advance freedom and enterprise, all of those
things. But it has to be done within the context of good
journalism. Without that--and we learned at Radio Liberty
during the Cold War without the credibility that comes with
good journalistic practice, you are blown out of the water
almost immediately.
Everyone can smell a bad story. And today if you drive
through any village in the Middle East or Turkey or Asia and
you look up at an apartment building and you see the satellite
dishes, sometimes two or three, to a balcony, you understand
that these people are not suffering from the regime's monopoly
on information. They are receiving 200 to 400 channels of
something. So credibility and context for U.S. international
broadcasting is utterly critical in this explosion of media.
People are asking more and more and more, ``All right. We
have got the facts or what we think are the facts, but what
does it mean?'' That is U.S. broadcasting's niche.
Mr. Glassman. Mr. Engel, as I said in my testimony, the
mission of the BBG should be to help achieve the specific
strategic goals of U.S. foreign policy. That is not true today.
It is true that the BBG in many instances, most recently, for
example, in the Sahel, where they are working with DoD and
State to increase broadcasting or in Somalia. In many cases,
they are working toward the strategic goals. But that is not
the main function or the main mission of the BBG today.
And that is why I worry when Mr. Wimbush, with whom I agree
in a lot of the things he said, talks about the BBG standing
alone. It shouldn't stand alone. It should be part of the
foreign policy apparatus.
The reason that things worked during the Cold War was the
entire U.S. Government was mobilized in its soft power elements
to fight Communism. And we did a great job. That is not true
with our soft power today at a time when I believe the problem
is as urgent as it was then.
Mr. Hirschberg. Mr. Engel, let me answer it this way. It is
not that the BBG is devoid of conversations with the State
Department. That is not true. The BBG constantly sets its
broadcast priorities in conjunction, the formal consultation,
with the State Department once a year during the BBG language
service process. And, indeed, it is more iterative than that
over the course of years.
So yes, we have talked to the State Department. Yes, we
have a mandate to coordinate how and where we broadcast with
U.S. strategic goals. And the BBG actually does just that.
Mr. Glassman. Could I just add, Jeff?
Mr. Hirschberg. Yes.
Mr. Glassman. I will never forget when I joined the BBG as
chairman, our first consultation with the State Department. We
go to the State Department, and there is the deputy. And we sit
down with him. And he talks to us for a half an hour. And he
said, ``Well, okay. Iran is a priority this year. Turkey is not
a priority,'' just kind of listed things. That was the level of
consultation we had with the State Department.
I am proud to say that because I later became
Undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs, we had
more of a tie, but, really, these conversations are not a kind
of serious strategic coordination with the State Department or
the Defense Department or otherwise, although more of it is now
going on.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
We will go to Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for holding this hearing. I remember quite well when
you came to--I will make sure the chairman hears this. Mr.
Chairman, I remember quite well when you came to Congress. Let
me get the chairman's attention here.
Chairman Royce. Yes, Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. I am just reminding the witnesses that
when you came to Congress, Radio Free Asia was your baby. And
the chairman put an enormous amount of work in for a new Member
of Congress to actually get a whole new system set up pass
through Congress and in place was quite an achievement.
And what we are saying today is that we can't just start
things, let them go. And a good idea can sort of go astray
unless we keep a good grip on the direction and have good
oversight. What we are hearing today is that there has been a
breakdown in accountability across the board in America's
broadcasting capabilities and in terms of our governance
operations anyway.
And I think it is--look, I have had some experience on this
as well. I mean, I was very concerned last year when the
president of Radio Free Asia, for example, fired the head of
the Tibetan Service. And here I am a senior member, Foreign
Affairs Committee. And I tried to find out information about
this. I was told by the RFA that they didn't have any
responsibility toward Congress, that they were independent.
Well, let's see. The Federal Government is paying for it.
And the elected representatives of the people who are trying to
oversee how money is being spent don't have any rights to
information about decisions made within the organization.
Something is wrong there.
And what you are telling me today is that that type of
oversight is broken down for the entire in terms of the
broadcasting board is not functioning, much less functioning in
our behalf.
So we have got some work to do, Mr. Chairman, to follow up
on the work you started a number of years ago. We heard a
suggestion today that we might be folding all of these
surrogate efforts, stopping the duplication by folding in all
of the surrogate units into the Voice of America. Is that
something they could work? And if so, how do we start that
process? Mr. Wimbush, you may go forward on that.
Mr. Wimbush. Yes. Thank you, Congressman.
I am not advocating folding everything into the Voice of
America. What I am advocating is creating a new organization
that contains all of the language services that currently exist
minus their duplicates. We simply can't do broadcasting in Ibo
or a dozen other strategic languages for us today that were not
strategic a decade ago because we have two language services
that broadcast to Armenia, population minus----
Mr. Rohrabacher. So you are not advocating that we fold it
back into the Voice of America. But we have one system. So you
are advocating we eliminate the Voice of America?
Mr. Wimbush. No, no. I am not advocating that either. I am
advocating creating an organization where you have enough
flexibility--you can keep the brands within the organization
because the brands have value. Those of you who want to think
about it, think of the NPR model, ``The following program is
brought to you by Radio International. The following program is
brought to you by American Abroad Media.'' There is absolutely
no reason we can't operate that way.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Mr. Wimbush. But we need within the organization the
flexibility to direct resources where it is strategically
valuable at any given time and over the long period to
eliminate duplication and to make sure that we get the balance
between surrogate and non-surrogate right.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Also, I would add to that that we do need
to eliminate the duplication. And we also need to make sure
that whatever we set up has accountability and that we have a
breakdown of accountability in this system right now. Let me
just note we are compared to Al Jazeera. Look, Al Jazeera is
financed by massive oil or massive gas assets of the State of
Qatar, and we can't even build a pipeline here, much less
finance new things based on energy.
How much do we spend totally on broadcasting? Do we know
that anywhere?
Mr. Wimbush. The total budget?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Total budget for broadcasting with all of
the surrogates, et cetera.
Mr. Wimbush. When I joined the board in 2010, it was about
$765 million. Today, with all of the various cuts and things, I
think we are down to around 730, but they are----
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is all of them? That is with the
duplicates?
Mr. Wimbush. That is everybody. That is the voice and the
surrogates.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Thank you very much.
Chairman Royce. Thank you.
I think in terms of languages, there are probably about 43
over at VOA. And we are probably duplicating most of that. So,
you know, 80-some if you look at it from the standpoint of the
duplication.
Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. We don't broadcast in Japanese or German
because those are countries of the free press. And they get
plenty of good information at their own cost. What strategic
interest are we achieving by broadcasting both television and
radio in Greek? Anybody have any insight? Mr. Glassman?
Mr. Glassman. None.
Mr. Wimbush. None.
Mr. Hirschberg. None.
Mr. Sherman. Good. There is this idea of putting the
broadcasters in State. There was a big political wrangle over
the Benghazi talking points, but it illustrated one thing that
I have come to have known all too well. And that is it takes 20
drafts to get a few paragraphs out of the State Department. And
by the time the process is done, most of the content has been
leeched out. Imagine trying to run a radio service in which
every broadcast has to be cleared by several different bureaus.
We need to maintain enough distinction between the State
Department and the broadcasters so that every news report isn't
considered an official statement of the U.S. Government subject
to 17 reviews. I think we need one agency overseeing this to
avoid the duplication. We can't afford to have six different
duplicative approaches, although if we had unlimited money, I
would be for it.
We need somebody, a chief executive, running this. I don't
care whether he or she reports to a board or an Under
Secretary. We have had some--Mr. Rohrabacher, he has just
left--pointed out how there is a lack of accountability to
Congress, which is quite distinct. I have spent the last 2
years trying to get broadcasts in the Sindh language.
Are any of you aware of a country more important than the
world's only somewhat unstable nuclear power?
[No response.]
I don't see anybody responding because there is no
response. You have got a large percentage of Pakistan that
speaks in the Sindhi language. We are not broadcasting even in
radio, but we are doing both Greek television and radio.
You gentlemen have been on the inside. What is the attitude
of the bureaucracy and the boards to ideas from Congress? Is it
actual not-invented-here hostility or just total disinterest?
Mr. Hirschberg?
Mr. Hirschberg. Neither one of those. Neither one of those.
Mr. Sherman. I have been here 17 years. I haven't seen any
suggestion taken by the broadcasters unless it was passed by
both houses of Congress and binding on them in law. But, Mr.
Glassman, do you have a different view?
Mr. Glassman. Well, I think you brought up Greek. I think
one of the reasons that Greek continues to be broadcast is
because there are Members of Congress who insist upon it. I can
only speak for my tenure as chairman and when I was--when Jeff
Hirschberg was on the board and we had a terrific board and a
really committed board.
I think we paid a lot of attention to Congress. I know I
did. And I think certainly Mr. Hirschberg did. That is where
our money comes from. That is where there is a lot of brain
power that is helpful to us. So I really think there is----
Mr. Sherman. I am more familiar with Mr. Rohrabacher's
experience where you ask for information and you are just told,
``Well, if you can get an act of Congress passed through both
houses compelling us to give you the information, then we will
give it to you.''
Mr. Hirschberg, do you have a different view?
Mr. Hirschberg. That just wasn't our attitude when I was on
the board. It was just not--it just did not work that way.
Congress talked to us about and different Members about what
their desires were.
Mr. Sherman. This committee----
Mr. Hirschberg. And when we sent up a reprogramming notice,
which was $750,000 or more, Congress got to say yes or no, in
whole or in part to anything we wanted----
Mr. Sherman. If I can reclaim my time? This committee 2
years ago passed an amendment to broadcast in the Sindh
language. No steps had been taken to do that, even to do it on
the internet, by any of the broadcasters. I am sure that if we
had enacted a State Department authorization bill through the
entire process and it made it almost a criminal offense not to
follow the law, then they would have followed it. But a mere
vote of this committee got no response.
Do any of you have any ideas on how I can get broadcasting
in the Sindhi language?
Mr. Wimbush. Yes. You can cut some of the duplicate
broadcasts that currently go out so that there is money to do
it. I mean, we are talking about finite dollars here.
Mr. Sherman. Amen. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Wimbush. Very easy to do.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen [presiding]. Thank you very much.
The Chair will now recognize herself for 5 minutes. The
mission of the board of broadcasting, Broadcasting Board of
Governors, is to inform, to engage, to connect people around
the world in support of freedom and democracy. And when
analyzing the effectiveness of BBG programs, we must do so
through the prism of those founding principles that are
essential to fulfilling the mission of the Broadcasting Board
of Governors. However, we must also be aware that BBG is
created and operated in many closed societies, where they have
dictatorial rule with marginal resources. So I understand that
it is not a perfect system.
But I do believe strongly that the mission of the BBG is
vital to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives, to promote
democratic principles, and be a resource to those living under
these repressive authoritarian regimes. And I have seen the
success of BBG programs firsthand with Radio and TV Marti.
In '83, as we know, President Reagan signed the Radio
Broadcast to Cuba Act. And when commemorating this event,
President Reagan commented that ``This action will finally let
the Cuban people hear the truth from the outside world.''
Through Radio and TV Marti, we have been able to publicize and
showcase to the world the atrocities that occur in Cuba and the
people know their voices are being heard and that they are not
alone because the United States will stand by them in their
struggle for freedom. However, serious problems continue to
occur in Radio and TV Marti.
Programming needs to improve. The transmission interference
remains a major obstacle to getting the signal into all parts
of the island. It is good in some area, not good in others.
Radio is good overall, but TV continues to get jammed because
we have not modernized the way that they we transmit that
signal and have not been operating in the way that we should so
that we can expand access of this broadcast throughout the
island.
So one of my first questions when I finish is, what are we
doing to improve the transmission into Cuba of the TV Marti
signal so that everyone can receive it, understanding that
Castro will, of course, do everything within its power to jam
it and to block it.
And, staying in the Western Hemisphere, I am concerned that
countries such as Venezuela and Ecuador continue to crack down
and suppress independent journalists. I believe this gives BBG
an excellent opportunity to strongly support a civil society
and journalists who are trying to use the media to get the word
out. In Venezuela, that is practically unheard of and Ecuador
with the new media law that they have adopted, ironically
enough, in the same week that Snowden writes a letter to
Correa, the President of Ecuador, seeking asylum. And he is
seeking asylum in the very country that does everything to
suppress press freedom. But that is a fight for another day.
So do you think that VOA Latin America can fill the vacuum
in these countries that have shut down independent media and
that VOA can be a resource there? And we have seen instances
that BBG has been unable to live up to its objectives and has
greatly under-performed in its role to promote democratic
reforms. In the hearing that I held just last week in Middle
East and North Africa about the election results in Iran, one
of our witnesses talked about the inadequacies of VOA's Persian
News Network.
So if we could start with--I think we will just have time
for Radio and TV Marti.
Mr. Wimbush. I would be delighted, Madam Chairman. I happen
to be one of the big fans of Radio Marti for the very simple
reason that Cuba is in a major transition. And sometime in the
near future, it is going to pop back into its hemisphere. And
it is going to be a major player.
It is very much in America's strategic interest to shape
that transition and to aid it any way we possibly can.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. How can we fix the transmission problem
so that the signal gets to the people?
Mr. Wimbush. This is something I can't answer. This is an
engineering question. But if resources are available, I am sure
that a way to do it can be found.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Gentlemen?
Mr. Glassman. Madam Chair, I would just add that I
understand, just from a press release, that the BBG is using
other means to get into Cuba; for example, I have never heard
of this before, but paper thumb drives that have recordings
from Radio and TV Marti transmissions. I think this is a great
idea. And, actually, it is a good example of how the BBG should
work more broadly----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. And Yoani Sanchez, the blogger, has been
very active in trying to get more people to come in with those.
Mr. Glassman. Absolutely.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much. My time is up.
Mr. Connolly. Madam Chairman?
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Yes?
Mr. Connolly. I would ask unanimous consent that the panel
be able to respond to the chairwoman's thoughtful questions----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. In such time as may be required.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Well, thank you very much.
So, then, I had asked about Venezuela and Ecuador just as
examples of countries that have clamped down severely on press
freedoms. Do you see an expanding role of VOA there?
Mr. Wimbush. Yes. And the current board, in fact, has made
a real effort to expand its role into Latin America. I am a
year away from the board. So I am not exactly sure where they
are going, but the board's strategy director, Bruce Sherman,
who came from Radio Marti and speaks fluent Spanish, identified
almost immediately a 24/7 satellite that could be used.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. That is great.
Mr. Wimbush. The concept we have tried to put in place,
which comes right to your point about how do we influence Latin
America would be to use this wonderful facility in Miami, which
is also the home of Latin American banking, Latin American
media, use that as the hub for Latin America work and put Marti
at the center of it, rather than on the periphery, and use
that.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
And then the last question was on the inadequacies of our
VOA Persian News Network so that even when the President was
addressing the Iranian people, he opted to use BBC Persian
because the VOA Persian News Network was not transmitting in
the way that it should. What can we do for that?
Mr. Wimbush. Well, again, I am happy to address that one.
When I joined the board in 2010, the very first effort I made
was to analyze the Persian News Network. And I produced a
fairly extensive report on it.
The Persian News Network can produce some startlingly good
programming and some startlingly bad programming. The problem
is it is going to be extremely difficult to fix within the VOA
structure because of the employment laws and all of the
conventions that go along with being part of a Federal agency.
It was not put together correctly in the beginning. And now
they are paying the price because it is going to be very hard
to change.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, gentlemen.
And now I would like to turn to Mr. Connolly--he is such a
charmer--for all the time he wants.
Mr. Connolly. Sorry, there, Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Madam
Chairwoman, who is my friend. And welcome.
Stepping back just a little bit, you all served on the
board. We have an IG report that says that the BBG is failing
in its mandated duties and that that failure came from a flawed
legislative structure and strong internal dissention. Would you
agree with those findings?
Mr. Wimbush. Yes.
Mr. Glassman. I would not agree with those findings if they
were made about the board on which I served. I think the board
on which I served had the mission problem, which I described,
but we had dedicated, committed members, who showed up, who
devoted tremendous amounts of their time. And Jeff Hirschberg
is a good example, traveled a great deal minding the store at
Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. So I don't think that is
true.
Now, part of the problem is that this board has not had a
chair for a year and a half. And whether the chair has
stipulated powers by law or not, you have got to have a leader.
And there are numerous vacancies.
Mr. Wimbush. Fair point.
Mr. Glassman. There are apparently according to the OIG
report----
Mr. Connolly. And I am not sure the OIG report was
necessarily, Mr. Glassman, necessarily laying the blame at the
BBG board. I think it was talking about the whole structure.
And it was also, frankly, holding us accountable for inadequate
or maybe inappropriate legislative structure, which I would
want to come back to.
Mr. Hirschberg?
Mr. Hirschberg. Well, if you want to change the legislative
structure, you are more than welcome to do it. I didn't think
there was anything the matter, really, with the BBG to begin
with and still don't.
Mr. Connolly. Okay.
Mr. Hirschberg. All right? Two, vis-a-vis the IG's report,
I can't speak to that. That is a current board issue. And I am
not going to be critical of my successors in any way. There are
enough people that are doing that now.
Mr. Connolly. Well, okay. Let's step back. Listening to
your testimony, looking at the IG report, looking at a GAO
report, we have a lot of duplication. We have a lot of
redundancy. We are in an era of contracting resources, not
expanding resources, including for diplomacy. Is this not a
time to restructure BBG, streamline it?
I mean, you all concurred with Mr. Sherman's question that
we are still broadcasting in Greek, but we are not broadcasting
in Sindh.
Mr. Hirschberg. Right.
Mr. Connolly. And that seems to be a misplaced priority.
Mr. Glassman?
Mr. Glassman. Yes, sir. And I think that is true.
I wouldn't get carried away with the duplication issue. I
think it is more a strategy issue. Someone needs to make a
decision. If you have got $720 million to spend or whatever the
number is, what are the important places that we should put our
resources?
Mr. Connolly. Well, let me interrupt you. The GAO report
says two-thirds of the BBG's language services overlap with
some other language service.
Mr. Glassman. Right.
Mr. Connolly. That is a big overlap. It identified 23
instances of overlap involving 43 of BBG's 69 services.
Mr. Glassman. Right, Congressman. However, that does not
mean that they are all saying the same words at the same time.
Mr. Connolly. No.
Mr. Glassman. You know, NBC has MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, the Golf
Channel. They are trying to achieve different kinds of things.
I am not saying there is not overlap. What I am saying is that
there is a bigger problem here, which is a strategic problem.
Mr. Connolly. A fair point. And sometimes overlap may
actually be a good thing.
Mr. Glassman. Right. Agree.
Mr. Connolly. Certainly as somebody in the political
profession, I have learned repeat, repeat, and repeat again if
you want to penetrate consciousness, especially in today's
diffuse media market.
Mr. Glassman. Right. I see----
Mr. Connolly. There could be a reason for that.
Mr. Glassman. I see nothing wrong with having--if Iran is
an important target of American strategy----
Mr. Connolly. Fair point.
Mr. Glassman [continuing]. I see nothing wrong with having
Radio Farda, Persian News Network, VOA Radio beamed into Iran.
I wouldn't mind having, actually, several other stations,
including an entertainment station, beamed into Iran----
Mr. Connolly. Right.
Mr. Glassman [continuing]. But not into Greece, not into
Turkey, not into some of the other places.
Mr. Connolly. Right. Fair enough.
Mr. Wimbush. Mr.----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Wimbush?
Mr. Wimbush. Yes. Congressman, I agree entirely with Jim
Glassman on getting strategic. We simply don't have the
flexibility within the board structure as it exists to get the
right program to the right audience on the right platform. We
don't have it. And I will back that up with the proof.
All of the duplication which you see today, virtually all
of it, existed in 1998, when the board was created, 1994-1998.
Not a single board has dealt with this in any systematic, any
reformist fashion. I can't conclude anything but that the
structure of the board has to relate to that failure.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Hirschberg?
Mr. Hirschberg. I always found that in a time of declining
resources, the biggest problem that the broadcasting board and
its entities have is there are too many language services
chasing scarce dollars. So I am for helping the board in
helping the broadcast entities reprioritize some of this
because you can't be all things to all people.
And even when we tried over the course of time, by the way,
to cut some services from our broadcast entities, including
some that were overlapping, you know, Congress said no to us.
And in another case that I can recall very well when we didn't
even ask for a service, Congress mandated it. All right? Now,
that is your perfect right, but, nonetheless, I don't see that
as necessarily a fault of BBG management.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. And I want to repeat. The IG report said
that some of the fault lies here with the legislative
structures we have created, which I think confirms the point
you are making. Now, we have to take responsibility for our own
actions or lack thereof.
But let me end. I don't want to abuse the unlimited time I
have. My colleagues are waiting. But can I just ask your
thoughts about--okay. Let's take that legislative structure
concept. If we were starting over again, if we were to look at
legislative reform, taking cognizance of the changed world and
contracting resources, what would you recommend Congress
consider doing, Mr. Glassman?
Mr. Glassman. Integrating the BBG into the overall foreign
policy structure. You know, 10 years ago, I was on the
Djerejian group, which looked at public diplomacy in the Arab
and Muslim world. And we concluded this: ``Broadcasting
represents nearly half the spending on public diplomacy. It
must be part of the public diplomacy process, not marching to
its own drummer with its own goals and strategy sources of
funding and board.''
And that was true 10 years ago. It is true today. How you
structure it, there are many different ways to do it. You could
put it into the State Department. You could resurrect USIA. You
could have it as a separate entity as Mr. Wimbush wants, as it
is today, but directly reporting to somebody and responsible
for someone who is in the foreign policy apparatus.
Mr. Connolly. I was very struck by your testimony when you
used the phrase ``strategic drift'' and you told that story
about the strategy session with the Undersecretary or Deputy
Secretary. It is an amazing story, actually, when you think
about it.
Mr. Wimbush?
Mr. Wimbush. Mr. Connolly, I don't want to leave the
impression that I think that U.S. international broadcasting
should report to no one. I just don't think it should report to
the State Department.
The challenge for this committee is going to be how to
create the logical foreign policy anchor for international
broadcasting within the foreign policy security community. My
own view is this should be the National Security Council, but
you have to figure out what that connective tissue looks like.
Your question, if you were going to start over, what would
you do, it is a no-brainer. If you were going to start over,
you would create one organization. And I urge you to start
over.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Connolly. Madam Chair, would we allow Mr. Hirschberg to
answer?
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Connolly. And then I am done. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Okay.
Mr. Hirschberg. I don't share Mr. Glassman's view of having
this go to the State Department. I don't share Enders' view of
having it go to the NSC. I do believe that you should have an
independent agency and entity, no matter what you call it. And
if you have to rebrand something, which is clearly needed here,
it ought to be rebranded. The BBG really needs to be rebranded.
I think that there is enough connectivity to our strategic
interests as a country now. If you want to change that
legislatively, you can always do it, but I don't share the view
that somehow this is broken, somehow it is not under foreign
policy community. Its goals are a little different. Its
objectives are a little different. But they are complementary
to everything else. And if someone wanted to move the needle,
all of these other programs in the State Department and all the
rest of them haven't done much. Why add VOA to it?
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. And I owe you more chocolate.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Yoho is recognized. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, guys, for
being here today. And I would like to thank you all for being
here today.
I have a healthy respect for the history of the Voice of
America's related programs from World War II to the fall of
communism. You can't help but feel nostalgic about these
programs. And I commend that whole service.
However, in today's fiscal and technological climate, I
want to make sure that we are maximizing the use of the hard-
working Americans' tax dollars and ensuring that we aren't
subsidizing the broadcasting of policies that are counter to
our goals. And I have a few questions related to that.
And you are talking about we lack funding. And that would
be one of the big things that help you, but, yet, in 2011,
there was a study commissioned by BBG by Deloitte. And they
recommended consolidation of the administrative elements of the
surrogate broadcast services, RFE/RL, RFA, and MBN. And the
proposal noted that that would save anywhere from $9 million to
$14 million a year, but, yet, it hasn't been done the way I
understand it.
When you commission a study, obviously that costs money.
And then you get the recommendations. And we don't follow
through. And we want more money. It seems like we would follow
through on that. So I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
And then what kind of assessments are made of the
listenerships? Is there an audience for these programs?
Obviously we are broadcasting in Greece but not in the other
areas where we need to be in the Arab world. And I understand
the communication tools, like the internet, et cetera, that
were granted, that we take for granted here, but may not be the
most free and open in these other countries, hence the need for
radio broadcasts. Has there been a recalibration of your
distribution that takes into account newer, cheaper
communication methods? And I would like to hear your thoughts
on that.
Mr. Wimbush. Dr. Yoho, a couple of thoughts. Yes. On the
board that I participated in, a study was done to look at
consolidating the grantees the radio free, so to speak. To me,
it was pretty conclusive. It makes not a whole lot of sense in
my view to have Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, MBN, Radio
Free Asia, all with their own HR departments, their own
communications departments----
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Mr. Wimbush [continuing]. Their own newsrooms. I mean, this
is just rampant duplication that should have been fixed a long
time ago.
Mr. Yoho. Why hasn't that been followed up on?
Mr. Wimbush. It was killed by the board itself.
Mr. Yoho. Okay.
Mr. Wimbush. Within the board, there was a majority in
favor of it. It was killed and delayed by one or two of the
members.
Mr. Glassman. Congressman, could I comment----
Mr. Yoho. Yes, sir.
Mr. Glassman [continuing]. On your question about research?
The BBG does an excellent job of audience research in some
really tough places. However--and this gets to the strategic
question that I have been emphasizing. The real question is,
what are you doing with these audiences? What is the point? Is
it just to gather a big group of people or is it to do
something with them? And it is my belief that it is to do
something with them, which is to say to persuade them.
And there is not a lot of research on that. It is not easy
to do for one thing. But I also don't see it as the major
mission of the BBG. And I think the mission needs to change.
Then the research should follow.
Mr. Yoho. And you say that comes from the State Department
on policy because if we look in the Arab world right now in the
Arab Spring--and we have got a whole different dynamic over
there. You know, in the old days when you had Mubarak, you
could kind of I don't want to say predict, but you could
predict how people were going to respond. But today it is a
whole different message.
You know, your research should be tailored, I would think,
to reaching that younger crowd and getting that message out.
You know, I know it goes back to Mr. Hirschberg saying money,
and I know that is one of the big problems up here is money,
money, money. So we have got to be super efficient at
everything we do.
One of the things that you guys touched about was, why
isn't there more cohesion between the mission and our policy to
help stimulate what you were talking about: The target
population? Where is that being prevented? Is it in the
management of the BBG or is it coming from the State Department
or is it coming from us, the lack of that cohesion?
Mr. Glassman. It is not part of the culture of the BBG
except in certain instances. And I commend the BBG for that. I
mentioned the Sahel, and there are several others where they
are cooperating very well with State and with DoD, but overall
the BBG does not see it as its mission. Let me just use one
example.
It seems to me that it is in the national interest to
persuade Iranians to oppose the development and deployment of
nuclear weapons. We have got a lot of lines into Iran as a
result of our BBG broadcasting. And, yet, no one is directing
the BBG. And I think the BBG under the current system would be
quite reticent to go along with a directive from the State
Department or the NSC or elsewhere to try to persuade Iranians.
But I think that is actually what should be done.
Mr. Yoho. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Hirschberg. Well, if you do that----
Mr. Yoho. Madam Chair, can I have----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Absolutely.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you, ma'am.
Mr. Hirschberg. If you do that, then you had better change
the mission of the BBG and you had better change the----
Mr. Glassman. That is what I have said.
Mr. Hirschberg. Just let me finish, Jim. And you have to
change--I know you did. And let's change the legislative intent
and the legislative scheme because right now the BBG does not
do messaging, does not do advocacy. It is a pure journalistic
mission. Hard truth and information will show people what a
democratic society is all about.
And vis-a-vis the research question, at least for the years
that I was on the board, every service, every language service,
every change in language service, every change in programming
was heavily research-driven, that there is a first-rate
research department within the BBG.
Thank you.
Mr. Yoho. Thank you.
Go ahead.
Mr. Wimbush. Thank you, Doctor.
Two points that you raised. The first is I think one should
be very cautious about using numbers as an indication of the
success of these services. You can get 200 million or 250
million, but if it is the wrong 200 or wrong 250 million, you
haven't really accomplished anything.
One of the things that U.S. international broadcasting must
do is to develop other measures of effectiveness, as they would
say in the military. We have to know how to measure impact----
Mr. Yoho. Right.
Mr. Wimbush [continuing]. Much better. And that gets back
to Jim's point about getting more strategic in how we are
getting there.
As to funding, Jim is absolutely right. It is not in the
culture of the BBG to be strategic, to make these kinds of
decisions, but there is a huge institutional impediment. When
you begin your budget process every year and you have got all
of these duplicate services and you know that if you start
putting them out of business, you are going to have all kinds
of people running to their congressmen claiming that, you know,
``Armenian Service Number 2 has just been put out of business''
or ``This is going to cause human resource problems of massive
proportions.'' You fund them. You continue them. And that has
got to stop.
Mr. Yoho. It has got to stop.
Mr. Wimbush. It has got to stop.
Mr. Yoho. And that comes from a look from the top down----
Mr. Wimbush. Yes.
Mr. Yoho [continuing]. As a strong, clear mission statement
of what we are trying to accomplish.
Mr. Wimbush. It has got to stop.
Mr. Yoho. I appreciate your time.
Madam Chair, thank you.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Dr. Yoho.
And now we will turn to another doctor, Dr. Bera. Doctor,
Doctor, Doctor, Doctor.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. It is a fascinating
hearing here.
Information absolutely is critical to getting our message
out. It is absolutely critical to our diplomatic strategy, to
our security strategy, and so forth.
And I think the BBG's mission is pretty well stated. It is
to promote freedom and democracy. Now, the BBG is not running a
commercial enterprise. It is not about increasing your target
audience. It is about getting a message out. And that is
mission-critical, yes.
I have heard folks talk about effective boards, but I have
not heard anyone say that the BBG is functioning is an
effective manner today. And if we don't get that component
together where we have a streamlined decision-making process
where we are making strategic decisions in conjunction with our
diplomatic corps, in conjunction with our DoD, in conjunction
with our security apparatus, I think we are missing a key
element. You know, let me cite a specific example.
The chairwoman, myself, and a few others were in
Afghanistan recently visiting with our troops. The primary
mechanism of getting information to the population in
Afghanistan is radio. If we are not strategically communicating
a message to these populations, we are going to be in a very
difficult position to hold on to our gains.
I would challenge that it is critical to our mission in a
very strategic way where State, where DoD, where our security
apparatus are all working in conjunction to put a message out
there to the public. It is a very effective way. We have seen
how information has been used against us by jihadists, by al-
Qaeda and others.
My question is, you know, we are all in agreement that it
is not functioning in an effective way today. We need to move
forward in this because if we lose the information battle, it
is going to be very difficult.
Concrete suggestions on what the makeup and mission of the
board should be? Should we keep the board in its current
structure? And, you know, again, concrete recommendations to
this body on what we should do to create a much more effective
organization? Mr. Glassman?
Mr. Glassman. Well, I think, first of all, that a board of
part-time advisers is a good idea anyway with whatever
structure you want to have, but there needs to be somebody who
is a leader, who is a CEO.
Now, the real question I think is, where do you put this
agency? And we were just talking about that.
If you don't mind, I do want to comment on this, the
strategic matter that you had talked about. One of the very
first things that happened to me when I was at the BBG was the
head of counter-terrorism at the State Department took me aside
and said, ``You know, we would really like you to broadcast 2
hours to Somalia, instead of one.''
And I said, ``Well, it sounds like a good idea to me, but I
have got to convince the board. Do you have the money?'' They
did have the money.
The point is I could have said to him, ``No. We are not
going to do that. We are going to spend the money on Greece''
or ``We are going to spend the money'' somewhere else.
It was a purely voluntary participation in U.S. strategy.
That is what needs to end.
Mr. Bera. Therein lies the challenge.
Mr. Wimbush. Mr. Bera, a couple of things. I agree with
Jeff. I am not a fan of messaging per se. I am a fan of
strategic focus, which is where Jim has put the emphasis.
When you run one of these stations, as I have done, you
learn very quickly that there are a lot of ways to get the
right message or messages into a target area.
During the Cold War, the Radio Liberty Russian service,
which was, arguably, one of the finest services ever created,
had as one of its most potent programs film reviews that made
all of the points that one wanted to get into this audience. So
I think that where you are located is important and how you
connect it to the foreign policy apparatus is important. There
has to be congressional input, a lot of it, but I don't think
it should go much beyond. I think it should be broad
recommendations.
Our general foreign policy goals this year are to look at
the following area. Please put special emphasis on those.
And then you have to do a lot of experimenting. There is no
bureau anyplace in the United States that can write you
messages that will work. It just won't work.
Mr. Hirschberg. Actually, I share a lot of what both of
these gentlemen have said. Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty,
for instance, and Russia after Dave Brubeck went there had a
jazz program that was the most popular program in the Soviet
Union at the time and Russia afterwards.
You can put a CEO of U.S. international broadcasting into
this mix. I mean, that is what the board wants. That is what
the administration has said that they support. And I can
support that as long as there is a BBG still in place of
private citizens with diverse backgrounds that can act as a
firewall and provide some strategic overall help to the board.
And I think with those things on the back office stuff, you can
offer consolidation. All right?
But I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference in
some ways what the structure is, whether or not it is an
independent agency, whether or not it is something else, as
long as it retains its credibility.
Mr. Bera. Would I be accurate if I said there is unanimous
sentiment here that having a strong CEO that is managing the
organization makes sense? Is that correct?
Mr. Wimbush. It makes a great deal of sense. I mean, CEO is
one way to look at it. I would say professional management over
the entire corpus of international broadcasting. There is
nothing wrong with a board of advisers of some kind. I have no
problem with that, but there needs to be a Berlin Wall put
between them and the management of these enterprises.
Mr. Bera. Having a manager that can interact with State,
that can interact with DoD, that can interact with Security,
there is unanimous consent that that with a board whose
function is an oversight role, is that a reasonable structure?
Mr. Hirschberg. It is a reasonable structure, yes.
Mr. Bera. Great. You know what? I think this is an
incredibly important topic for us to continue to discuss to win
the information war, to win the--you know, we know based on our
values as Americans, our values of freedom and democracy. When
we get those values out there, they win. But if we are not
effectively getting that message out there, then we face severe
risks in losing to messages that want to harm us.
So thank you.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Dr. Bera.
Mr. Deutch, my Florida colleague, is recognized.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Madam Chair. To you and the ranking
member, thanks for holding today's hearing. And I understand
that you touched on this issue briefly, but I would like to
just pursue a little further the role that we play in Iran. And
while I believe public broadcasting is vitally important around
the world, it is especially true there. We have got few
opportunities to speak directly to the people to present
accurate information about their government's choices and about
American values.
And our primary tool for reaching out to the Iranian people
is Voice of America Persian News Network. PNN has long been
considered an ineffective diplomatic tool, however, plagued by
poor programming, low-quality production, and mismanagement. It
is tremendously unfortunate in a country where an estimated 90
percent of the populous gets their news from TV. The U.S. via
the Persian News Network is missing an opportunity to have an
influential role in Iran too often by presenting
unprofessional, low-quality newscasts, often with an incoherent
message.
Less than 2 weeks ago, the Iranian people went to the polls
in historic numbers. BBC Persian provided 24/7 coverage of the
elections. Yet, PNN chose to broadcast a music program and a
show about historical maps, instead of continued election news.
Unfortunately, none of these criticisms are new. As Iran
remains a top foreign policy concern, I am seriously concerned
that we are missing a vital opportunity to reach an estimated
25-30 million people in Iran.
So my question is this. Why is the production quality and
editorial content of PNN so lacking? What barriers are there
that are preventing the hiring and training of top journalists?
And then I will just also ask, in a hearing before the
Middle East Subcommittee, Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie
Endowment suggested that PNN become a public-private
partnership. This was alluded to earlier in the hearing. If you
could elaborate about your thoughts on that and help us
understand what can be done to make this a more effective
diplomatic tool?
Mr. Wimbush. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Deutch.
I agree with your assessment. I have not looked closely at
PNN for about 6 months or so, but every characterization that
you just made I would agree with.
PNN is a real tough nut to crack. It wasn't put together
well in the beginning. It was rushed. It went from about an
hour and a half of programming to 6 hours over a year period. I
can't think of any commercial station that could do that.
I did a very thorough, I think a very thorough, study of
PNN when I joined the board in 2010 at the request of Senator
Coburn. I would be happy to share that with you. It addresses
all of the questions you have just raised. But let me address
one of the possible solutions for you.
PNN is unlikely to be fixed because the issues are largely
connected to personnel. It is unlikely to be fixed as long as
it remains within the Voice of America. If you want a solution
to PNN, take it out of the Voice of America, like you did the
Iraq broadcasting when you created the Middle East Broadcast
Network, and attach PNN to Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty,
where it will be with its sister station: Farda.
The entire legal regime that affects the management of
personnel will change. And you will see, my guess is, something
happen fairly quickly.
Mr. Deutch. I would be happy to look at the report, but if
you could just give me the upshot of the conclusion? And I
understand the suggestions to do what you just described, but
what is it when you say that it is mostly personnel? So what
does that mean? What needs to happen for that to change? Who
makes the decisions to put programming on about historic maps
on a day, on an election day, with very significant
implications for the entire country and the world?
Mr. Wimbush. Those decisions are taken by the chief editor
of the Persian News Network. And I don't know who that is these
days. I mean, the stories like that are just legendary. And PNN
doesn't seem to overcome them. I could tell you a bunch of them
myself, but I won't waste your time with them.
Presumably a chief editor, a head of service is making
those decisions.
Mr. Deutch. Do we have these problems anywhere in the world
to this extent?
Mr. Wimbush. I would say from my experience--and, look,
these are media organizations. So, every now and then, there is
going to be a slip-up. And there is in almost every one of the
services at one point or another. The big services, the most
high-profile services, are the ones that get the attention.
And we all wring our hands, and we say, ``My God. Why are
we doing this so badly?'' The reality is, in most cases, we do
it really well. We are really good at this. But there are going
to be slip-ups. I can't think in my experience of any component
of U.S. international broadcasting that has been so
consistently below the curve as PNN.
Mr. Glassman. Mr. Deutch, I think your question reflects
some of what I have been trying to say about mission and
strategy. So imagine if the mission were clarified for the BBG.
And, you know, forget about a restructuring, but if there were
restructuring, it would be even easier.
But there is an election coming up in Iran. The National
Security Adviser or the Secretary of State or both of them
bring the CEO of the BBG into the White House and they say,
``Hey, this is really important. We would like you to direct
these resources at this issue.'' That doesn't happen now, and,
in fact, it can't happen now in any way where the BBG actually
has to take notice of that.
Mr. Deutch. Well, if I can just ask, is the mission so
unclear, is it so muddled that it would be impossible for the
editors, for the people who run the station to know that on an
election day when the entire world is focusing on your country,
that the news network might actually cover the news taking
place in that country? And if so, how do we fix that? How do we
clarify the mission? Who needs to do it? Who needs to be told?
What has to happen so that they actually behave like a news
network so that the Iranian people can get clear, real news
from this outlet?
Mr. Glassman. I think the clarification of mission has to
be done by the U.S. Congress. There is no doubt about that.
There are personnel problems within PNN. I have been out of it
now for 4 years. So I can't really talk to it as well as my
colleague here. But, you know, there is no doubt that that is
part of the problem. I am trying to say that there is a bigger
problem here, which is that there would be a lack of
responsiveness on the part of the BBG and PNN to those
directives because that is not what they do. They don't want to
be told by somebody that ``This is your role in achieving a
national security end. You are supposed to do this, guys. Do
it.'' That is not the way it works now.
Mr. Deutch. Just the last question, Madam Chair. What
percentage of their funding comes from the United States
Government?
Mr. Glassman. PNN?
Mr. Deutch. Yes.
Mr. Glassman. All of it.
Mr. Wimbush. All of it.
Mr. Deutch. Okay. Thanks. I yield back.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much. We thank our witnesses
for this timely hearing. And I again remind our witnesses, our
audience, and members that the mission of the Broadcasting
Board of Governors is ``to inform, engage, and connect people
around the world in support of freedom and democracy.'' This is
broadcast for freedom and democracy. If you think that this is
an impartial broadcasting, then you are not fulfilling your
mission because you are supposed to stand for freedom and
democracy. That is a direction. That is what the BBG is
supposed to do. We don't have to change the mission. We have to
change the folks who are in charge of the programming who don't
have any idea what their mission is. So this is an important
mission. It is of great interest to this committee. Support for
freedom and democracy, amen.
You have given us a lot of information for us to move
forward. And this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
\\ts\
\
\
\
\
\
statt\