U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–693PDF 2013

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/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

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

(1)

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 reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:56 Aug 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\062613\81693 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

porting 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 

3

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. 

4

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 polVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:56 Aug 20, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\062613\81693 HFA PsN: SHIRL
5

icy 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 

6

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:]


81693a-1.eps
7


81693a-2.eps

At the time, a decade ago, my eyes were fresh, T knew little about public diplomacy, but from my experience 

both as a media entrepreneur and a think tank fellow, I knew something about mission, strategy, organization, 

and evaluation. I was shocked - there is no better word for it - to find that international broadcasting, so 

important to American foreign policy, operated outside the government's foreign policy apparatus. As the report 

stated 

Broadcasting represents nearly half the spending on public diplomacy, and 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. Congress needs to reexamine the legislation that created 

the BRG to ensure that broadcast operations support the strategic mission of U.S. public 

diplomacy ... IBlroadcasting must fit into the overall public diplomacy strategy of the United 

States. 

With this in mind, here is a summary of my testimony to you today 

The BBG is far from "defunct" It is performing an important function, but its mission is contradictory 

and confused 

2 Clarify the mission, and the structure becomes evident. 

The mission should be to achieve the specific strategic goals of U.S. national security and foreign 

policy. For that reason, the BBG should be part of the State Department or of a reconstituted USIA 

controlled by that department 

4 Journalistic standards of truth-telling are essential to effective achievement of the mission, but, 

primarily, the BBG should not be in the journalism business but in the foreign-policy business 

BBG reform must fit within reform of the nation's overall public diplomacy and strategic 

communications effort - which is urgent. 

The BBG's Problem Is a Confusion in Mission 

The BBG's primary mission today is not to achieve the specific goals of U.S. foreign policy. For example, one 

cannot imagine the Secretary of State instructing the BBG's governors that the broadcasts of Radio Farda and 

Persian News Network must be geared toward persuading their Iranian audience to pressure the regime to drop 

efforts to build nuclear weapons. Or, if the Secretary did give such instructions, it is unlikely the governors 

would feel constrained to follow them 

The confusion is this: Is the BBG a journalistic organization, like CNN or PBS, or is it a foreign policy agency, 

like, for example, the US. embassy in Ankara orthe former U.S Infonnation Agency? The law is confusing 

and contradictory 1 On the one hand, it says that "international broadcasting is, and should remain, an essential 

instrument of United States foreign policy,,,4 but on the other it establishes an organization steeped in the values 

of independent journalism. It states: "The Secretary of State and the Board, in carrying out their functions, shall 

respect the professional independence and integrity of the Tnternational Broadcasting Bureau, its broadcasting 

services, and the grantees of the Board." 5 

The fact is that the BBG has done an admirable job of trying to reconcile the contradiction It does take foreign 

policy goals into consideration in allocating resources. It is represented on interagency groups involved in 

public diplomacy. Its strategic plan, one of the best in the federal government, is built on national security 

3 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkgjUSCODE-2010-title22/htmIjUSCODE-2010-title22-chap74-subchaplll-partB.htm 

4 http://www.law.comell.edu/uscode/text/22/6541 

5 http://uscodebeta.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title22-section6204&num=O&edition=prelim 

2 
8


81693a-3.eps

priorities. It has, for example, recently been increasing its broadcasting in the Sahel in response to requests from 

the U.S. Africa Command. It has been part of planning for major - and secret - contingencies'" But it is not, 

with the exception of emergencies, part of the chain of command. No one in the State Department, Defense 

Department, or White House, for instance, orders the chainnan of the BBG to increase broadcasting about the 

fate of Afghan women to influence talks with the Taliban or to produce documentaries about Chinese cyberattacks. The BBG's role in U.S. foreign policy is constructive but independent and almost voluntary, like the 

role, say, of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 

The reason for the reticence toward giving the BBG a clear and direct part to play in strategic foreign policy 

stems from fastidiousness about its journalistic function. That's understandable. From the nation's founding, 

Americans have been averse to government meddling in the journalistic process. Unlike most countries, we 

don't have a Ministry ofTnformation. Still, a major responsibility of public diplomacy is informing and 

int1uencing the world with the written, spoken, and visualized word, and the BBG is a unique and valuable 

asset With the BBG, however, we want to have our cake and eat it too; that is, we want to persuade foreign 

publics to support our policies, but we want the organization that does that work to have the independence, 

balance, and lack of bias of an idealized media organization 

The founding statute, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, creates a lirewall that restricts 

State Department personnel from directly contacting or int1uencing BBG journalists. But, more important, the 

law and the culture at the BBG stress the same kinds of principles that journalists in the commercial sphere 

adhere to (or are supposed to). For instance, the BBG's activities must "be conducted in accordance with the 

highest professional standards of broadcast journalism" and present a "clear and effective presentation of the 

policies of the United States Government and responsible discussion and opinion on those policies" and "a 

balanced and comprehensive projection of United States thought and institutions" and "news which is 

consistently reliable and authoritative, accurate, objective, and comprehensive.,,7 

As BBG chairman, I was often asked by members of Congress why we were broadcasting opinions that 

opposed US policy in, say. Iran, China. or Israel. The lirst answer is that the law tells us to do that. The second 

is that broadcasts that might seem negative or in opposition to U.S. policy help enhance long-tenn credibility. 

John Houseman, the first director of Voice of America, R explained 

Inevitably, the news that the Voice of America would be carrying to the world in the first half of 

1942 was almost a1l bad news. We would have to report our reverses without weaseling. Only 

thus could we establish our reputation for honesty, which we hoped would payoff on that 

distant-but-inevitable day when we would be boasting of our own invasions and victories. 9 

It is completely understandable, however, that members of the Congress and the public have a diflicult time 

comprehending why taxpayer resources are expended on airtime for opponents of drone flights over Pakistan or 

our embargo against Cuba. As this committee addresses questions of structure. it needs, first and foremost, to 

make a clear decision about mission 

G The law does refer to the BBG being responsible for "the capability to provide a surge capacity to support United States foreign 

policy objectives during crises abroad." 

7 http://uscode. house.gov/download/ pls/22C71. txt 

~ This is the same John Houseman who, 31 years after launching VOA, won an Academy Award for portraying the grumpy but lovable 

Professor Kingsley in the movie "The Paper Chase." Houseman was a movie producer, born in Romania 

9 http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-a-2002-0S-08-48-actor-66282682/540764.html 

3 
9


81693a-4.eps

The BBG is Far From Defunct 

This hearing takes its title, "The Broadcasting Board of Governors An Agency 'Defunct,'" from a statement by 

the former Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton. The relevant text, from a hearing before this committee on Jan. 23 

mainly concerned with the Benghazi attacks 

Our Broadcasting Board of Governors is practically defunct in terms of its capacity to tell a 

message around the world. So we're abdicating the ideological arena, and we need to get back 

into it. We have the best values. We have the best narrative .... And we're letting the jihadist 

narrative fill a void. We need to get in there and compete, and we can do it successfully.10 

Let's be clear. By no stretch of the imagination is the BBG defunct, if the meaning of that tenn is "dead," "no 

longer existing," or even "moribund" The Secretary's statement was made shortly after the release of a report 

on an inspection of the BBG by the Office ofInspector General. That report notes, "The BBG is one of the 

world's largest newsgathering and reporting operations, with 50 news bureaus and offices worldwide. The five 

broadcast entities it supervises employ more than 3,500 journalists, producers, technicians, and support 

personnel full time in Washington, Miami, and Prague. It employs approximately 1,500 freelancers around the 

world."" 

The BBG broadcasts in 591anguages - more than twice as many as any other democratic-nation broadcaster12--

in more than 100 countries. 13 On June 20, the BBG announced its total audience was more than 203 million, a 

new record and a 23 percent gain from 201014 The agency's fiscal 2013 budget is $720 million15 

The Jan. 23 OIG report began with a "Key Judgments," and the first item was this 

U.S. Government broadcasting is characterized by journalism of the highest caliber and a 

widespread devotion to supporting democracy and freedom. This ongoing achievement is due to 

the commitment of the broadcast entities and professional staff.lb 

Hardly the sort of judgment that would be rendered about a "defunct" organization 

In addition, the BBG is using advanced technology to thwart censorship and deploy the best broadcasting 

signals in its history into such countries as Iran, North Korea, China, Afghanistan, and Libya. Voice of 

America's Persian TV, radio, and Internet programs reach an estimated 22 percent of Iran's adults, and Radio 

Free Europe/Radio Liberty reaches 5 percent of adults weekly on radio and Internet. Programming that has 

recently won awards includes a Radio Free Asia documentary on human trafficking titled "An Invisible World 

The Lives of Slaves in Modern Asia," with focus on China, and an 18-part senes on RFE/RL's Radio Farda 

titled "Solitary Confinement" that recounts the depredations faced in Iranian prisons by dissidents. "'Defunct,'" 

10 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/02/26/hillary-clintons-unfinished-business-at-the-broadcastingboard-of-governors 

11 "Inspection of the Broadcasting Board of Governors," Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of State and 

Broadcasting Board of Governors, January 2013, at http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/203193.pdf 

12 The BBC, for example, broadcasts in 28 languages. 

13 "Broadcasting Board of Governors: Additional Steps Needed to Address Overlap in International Broadcasting," U.s. Government 

Accountability Office, Jan. 2013, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651621.pdf 

14 htm:! J.!II'Nw.bbg.gcv/blogI?013/OG/20/bbg broadcasters· carr recoro· bre<Jking-audiencc topping·200 million ·a-weEk·worldwide!. 

The independent survey firms that the BBG engages use the international broadcasting standard for audience measurement, 

counting those who respond to surveys of whether they have listened or viewed in the past week. 

15 http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/203193.pdf 

IG Ibid 

4 
10


81693a-5.eps

as the blogger Kim Andrew Elliott has written, "is a wildly inaccurate description ofU,S, international 

broadcasting." 17 

Structural Changes Would Improve [ffectiveness 

There are, however, serious problems that must be addressed. No organization can function without an 

accountable chief executive officer, but the BBG has none. Instead, the head of the agency is the nine-member 

board collectively. That can be a recipe for disaster, with individual governors, who work part-time, creating 

their own fiefdoms and acting without oversight 

During my own tenure as chairman, T had a committed, responsible, and cooperative board, but that is not 

always the case. The recent OIG report concluded in its inspection ofthe current board 

Board dynamics are characterized by a degree of hostility that renders its deliberative process 

ineffectual. Board meetings are dominated by one member whose tactics and personal attacks 

on colleagues and staff have created an unprofessional and unproductive atmosphere.18 

The current BBG also suffers from the absence of a chairman since the resignation of Walter Isaacson a year 

and a half ago. There are three other vacancies due to resignations, and the OIG report comments on high 

absentee rates 

To its credit, the board developed a reform plan under Chainnan Isaacson and included in its fiscal 2014 budget 

request a legislative proposal to establish a CEO. The governors would then serve as a traditional board of 

directors, providing advice and oversight and making a limited number of high-level decisions, with executive 

authority residing in a full-time leader. All this is not new. Proposals to restructure the BBG date back at least to 

2006, when Booz Allen was engaged to examine Voice of America and the International Broadcasting Bureau 

(the BEG's support-services and management ann).19 

Elsewhere, I have called the BBG "structurally a mess,,,20 but, while I support a rationalization of the BBG 

structure under a CEO,2! this reform should not occur in a vacuum. It is a basic management principle that 

structure follow mission, and when the mission of the BBG is resolved, the structure will be evident 

The BBG Must Be Part of the Foreign Policy Apparatus 

I discussed the conllict that is at the heart of the current mission in a previous section. It is the obligation of 

Congress, not the current BBG board or management, to resolve that conllict. It is simply unfair to call the BBG 

"defunct" or even "dysfunctional" when Congress and the executive branch themselves have not provided the 

BBG with a clear sense of what they want it to do and be 

17 http://www.kimandrewelliatt.cam/?id=14095 

l~ http://oig.state.govjdocumentsforganization/203193.pdf 

l~ "Review of the Voice of America and the International Broadcasting Bureau," Baoz Allen Hamilton far U.S. Broadcasting Board of 

Governors, July 2006. The report was supposed to be confidential, but it is posted publicly at 

http://www.technewslit.com/USIAAA/BAH_ VoU.pdf 

20 http://vvww.examiner.com/article/bbg-that-runs-voice-of-america-is-structural-mess-says-former-chair-glassman 

21 A study by the Heritage Foundation states the case for reorganization well, though I do not agree with all of its judgments. See 

"Time to Rethink the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Web Memo, Helle Dale and Nick Zahn, March 16, 2011, at 

http://thCmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/2011/pdf !wm3192.pdf 

5 
11


81693a-6.eps

The 1994 International Broadcasting Act, which set the stage for the current BBG, called for an organization 

that adhered both to the "broad fore~¥n policy objectives of the United States" and to the "highest professional 

standards of broadcast journalism."" But, as a 2012 Hudson Institute study put it, 

In the absence of strong central leadership, however, the broadcasting services' day-to-day 

operation tilts toward one of these objectives at the expense of the other - that is, toward 

journalism conducted without reference to U.S. foreign policy goals.23 

My own view is that the BBG must be fully integrated into the foreign policy apparatus ofthe United States 

Government. There should be no equivocation or confusion about its role. The 1998 act created the modern 

BBG primar\1Y by eliminating the U:S. Tnformation Agency and folding most of its functions into the State 

Department." The mam VOA functIOn that dId not end up at State was lllternattonal broadcastmg, whIch was 

consolidated into a separate body, the BSG, which in turn was further endowed with protections for its role as 

an independent j ournalistic organization 

The best way to remove any confusion about the BBG's mission is to put it back into the State Departmenteither as its own Office of Tnternational Media Outreach (the term "broadcasting" is hopelessly outdated in an 

Internet age), under an assistant secretary (playing something close to the CEO role that the current board 

envisions), or as part of a reconstituted USIA. In either of these cases, this new SSG agency should have an 

advisory board composed of members with expertise in media technology and in disseminating ideas in general 

There is no doubt that high j oumalistic standards would need to be maintained for this new BBG. Propaganda 

simply does not work in an age of intense media awareness and competing sources of infonnation. The Hudson 

Report, whose lead author was Douglas Feith, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, says it well, "We 

recognize that without credibility as a source of reliable infonnation, US broadcasting can achieve none of its 

stated objectives.,,25 

In fact, I would go one step further. During my tenure at the State Department, I started an approach called 

Public Diplomacy 2.0, which held that the best way to communicate with foreign audiences (and thus persuade 

them) was not through traditional means of broadcasting U.S. policy positions - a technique I called 

"preaching" - but rather through using our convening power to develop a broad and deep international 

conversation, thus creating an amenable environment for our messages. Social media is the perfect vehicle for 

such an approach, which was pioneered by my predecessor Karen Hughes, when she set up the Digital Outreach 

Team at the State Department, whose members go into online chat rooms and similar venues, identify 

themselves as U.S, government employees, and engage in conversations, often pushing back against inaccurate 

information about American policy." 

Activities of what we now called US. international broadcasting will almost certainly become more 

controversial in the future for not strictly adhering to the "telling America's story" or "explaining America's 

policy" model - which is all the more reason for the BBG to be directly part of the foreign policy apparatus. 

n http://www.bbg.gov/wp-content/med ia/20l2/0l/Broadcasti ngAct.pdf 

23 "Organizing far a Strategic Ideas Campaign to Counter Ideological Challenges to U.S. National Security," Douglas Feith, William 

Galston and Abram Shulsky, Hudson Institute, April 2012, at 

http://www.dougfeith.com/d ocs/2012_04_Feith_ Ga Iston_Shulsky _Pa per. pdf 

24 http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/203193.pdf 

25 http://www.dougfeith.com/docs/20l2 _ 04_ Feith _ Ga Iston _ Sh ulsky _Paper .pdf 

2G http://papers.ssrn.com/soI3/papers.cfm?a bstractjd= l7348S0&download=yes 

6 
12


81693a-7.eps

My preference is for all current broadcasting functions to be subsumed within the State Department, including 

those of the so-called "grantees" - the non-profit organizations funded with taxpayer money that are under BBG 

control RFEIRL, Radio Free Asia, and Middle East Broadcasting (Radio Sawa and Alhurra, the Arabic 

language networks). The distinction in functions among BBG entities has largely evaporated, and the five 

separate networks (the other two are VOA and the Omce of Cuba Broadcasting) and their own language 

operations should be seen as brands, adapted to meet the needs of their target audiences. Tn some cases - as 

currently in China and Iran - several brands are covering the same market (A recent report by the U.S 

Government Accountability Office urges the elimination of some of this overlap as a cost-saving measure. 27) 

At any rate, as the Hudson 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.,,28 And being part ofthe team does not 

simply mean perfonning 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 or to encourage Cubans to protest the imprisonment of political 

dissidents. Again, such objectives need to be accomplished with honesty, sensitivity, and subtlety - not, for 

example, with a radio editorial or a statement of policy beamed by the President of the United States. As the 

Djerejian Group put it, 

(AlII broadcasting must fit into the overall public diplomacy strategy of the United States. It is 

critical, however, that news and opinion programs be accepted as credible and reliable. The 

truth is our ally.29 

A Full Reform of Public Diplomacy is Needed 

Clarifying the mission and structure of the BBG is an exercise that requires context. The BBG is part of 

something bigger: the achievement of America's national interest through the use of soft power, or non-coercive 

means of persuasion. Joseph Nye, the father of the tenn, makes it clear that the objectives of soft power are far 

lrom squishy. The goal is not simply to get people to like us. "Solt power," he writes, "is not just a matter of 

ephemeral popularity; it is a means of obtaining outcomes the United States wants.,,30 

In examining the BBG, this committee should broaden its sights and encompass the government's soft power 

function as a whole - a function we generally call public diplomacy or strategic communications and extends 

not just to the State Department but to the Pentagon, the intelligence community, and at least a dozen other 

agencies. In her statement to this committee in January, Secretary Clinton focused on the BBG in describing her 

lrustration with America's "failure to tell a message around the world." I can understand the sentiment. "We 

have the best values," she said. "We have the best narrative And we're letting thejihadist narrative fill a 

void. We need to get in there and compete." 

All true, but it is absurd 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 blame when the responsibility 

"to get in there and compete" should lie within the State Department and the White House 

27 http://www .gao.gov /assets/660/65l62l. pdf 

2E http://www.dougfeith.com/docs/20l2 _ 04_ Feith _ Ga Iston _ Sh ulskLPaper .pdf 

29 http://www.state.gov /documents/ organization/24882.pdf 

30 http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/rdenever /PPA-730-27/Nye.pdf 

7 
13


81693a-8.eps

In the waning years of the George W. Bush administration, the President assigned the Under Secretary of State 

for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (first, Karen Hughes; then, me) to be the interagency lead for 

coordinating public diplomacy and strategic communications, -with emphasis on countering violent extremism.ll 

We built a structure across government to get this job done, centered at State. But, more important, we had a 

clear mandate from the White House, backed by support from the National Security Council, to wage a war of 

ideas against the "jihadist narrative" to which Secretary Clinton would later refer 

I am not assigning blame myself, and I am certainly not saying that the Bush Administration was waging this 

war of ideas perfectly, or even well What I am doing is repeating what the bipartisan Djerejian Group 

concluded 10 years ago 

First and foremost, public diJJloma9 requires a DC,," strategic direction informed b~ seriousness and 

commitment that matches the grayity of our approach to national defense and traditional state-to-state 

diplomacy. This commitment must be led b~' the political will ohhe President and Congress and fueled by 

adequate fmaneial and human resources. 32 

This effort can be structured with the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy as the lead or with a 

special office within the White House providing direction or through the resurrection of USIA. But whatever 

the choice, international broadcasting, whose budget is roughly the same as that of the State Department's 

public diplomacy activities as a whole, must be part of overall apparatus, taking direction from its leader 

Most crucially, public diplomacy must have a major strategic component - that is, it must try to achieve specific 

goals, not just try to make foreigners like us better. I have discussed the concept of"Strategic Public 

Diplomacy" at length in my testimony three years ago before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 

Some of the conclusions may be worth repeating here 

1. Make public diplomacy a top priority. The entire government should know that the President 

sees public diplomacy as a critical part of America's overall national security strategy. 

2. Make a distinction between what I call Strategic Public Diplomacy -that is~ PD with clear 

objectives that can be achieved in a definable period, such as war-of-ideas goals - and long-term 

ongoing public diplomacy, which may be shaped strategically (with emphasis on exchanges with 

Muslim-majority nations, for example) but which is more general in its effects .... 

7. Establish a culture of measurable results. All public diplomacy programs must be assessed and 

evaluated to see how well they "move the needle.~' Measuring can be difficult and expensive, but, 

without it, we can't tell whether work is succeeding or failing. 33 

Nye divides public diplomacy into three temporal categories: in the short term, it should correct inaccuracies 

about the U.S and explain policy: in the long tenn, it should help key foreign audiences learn about America 

and its culture, mainly through exchanges; in the medium term, it should provide support to other national 

security elements to achieve specific two-to-five-year goals, such as preventing Iran from getting a nuclear 

weapon. U.S. international broadcasting can help across this spectrum of time, but it is the medium term that 

has been most neglected in current public diplomacy and that needs the most support 

31 A good discussion of the benefits and pitfalls of interagency coordination in this sphere is available here: 

http://www.au.af.mil/info-ops/iosphere/iosphere_summer06~osten.pdf 

32 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/24882.pdf 

33 http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Glassman T estimonylO0310p. pdf 

8 
14


81693a-9.eps

Mr. Chainnan, you said in your letter inviting me to testify that this hearing is an opportunity to "explore 

meaningful and significant refonl1."j4 Now is the time 

You can certainly improve the BBG with structural changes that are long overdue - introducing a CEO, 

reducing the board's authority to a traditional corporate role, breaking down the distinctions among the entities, 

and treating language services as brands 

With only these changes, however, you will be back here planning another refonn in a few years It i s the 

mission of the BBG that needs clarifying. The BBG must be part of the foreign policy team in a direct way, 

contributing to the achievement of discrete national-security goals. With such a mission, it cannot continue to sit 

outside as an independent agency but must become integrated into the foreign policy apparatus. 

Thank you 

31 http://fo re ig n affa irs. h 0 u se . gov / pre 55 -relea sej ch a irma n -royce-a n n a u n ces-h ea ri n g-refo r mi ng-b rca d ca st in g-bo a rd-gove rn 0 rs 

9 
15

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 me ́lange 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. 

16

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:]

17


81693b-1.eps

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

Hearing on the Broadcasting Board of Governors 

"Broadcasting Board of Governors: An Agency' Defunct'" 

June 26, 2013 

Testimony by S. Enders Wimbush 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Engel, Members of the Committee, my name is Enders 

Wimbush. I am honored to be asked to testify before you today on this important issue. 

wish to applaud the Committee for initiating this long overdue inquiry into the 

Broadcasting Board of Governors specifically and its relationship to U.S. international 

broadcasting more generally. T have served on the front lines of US international 

broadcasting as Director of Radio Liberty at the time the Berlin Wall came down and the 

Soviet Union dissolved. More recently, T was honored with a nomination to the BBG, on 

which I served as Governor from 2010-2012. This broad and deep experience has led me 

to a stark assessment of both the BBG and US international broadcasting, and the link 

between the two. 

Allow me to state my assessment clearly. The BBG was a bad idea when it was 

initiated 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 

function legally as mandated-which may be a good thing-because it now lacks an 

operating quorum. Moreover, in my view the BBG's prospects for acquiring new life 

simply by changing its board members is a losing proposition. 

The BBG has failed to provide US international broadcasting with effective 

strategic guidance, good governance, economic efficiency, or any credible link to U.S. 

foreign policy goals and strategies. These failures are built into the BBG system. Most 

of the governors are fine, smart individuals who seek to serve their country in this 

demanding capacity. But their influence is limited because the BBG is a ship that cannot 

be turned more than a degree or two in any direction, let alone a full course correction. I 

believe that radical re-construction of U.S. international broadcasting is necessary, and T 

am heartened by this Committee's willingness to entertain it. Some believe that the BBG 

can be fixed. T do not share that view. The BBG has survived against common sense, as 

assessments by government agencies and outside experts have documented repeatedly. 

The BBG is rightfully called dysfunctional. And so it is. But it is dysfunctional 

in two difIerent but related ways. 

First, is dysfunctional organizationally, incorporating six difIerent media 

enterprises. Three of these are public enterprises-the Voice of America, the Office of 

Cuba Broadcasting (Radio and TV Marti), and the International Broadcasting Bureaumeaning that they are part of a federal agency and subj ect to its special federal rules, 

guidelines and conventions. Three others-Radio Free EuropelRadio Liberty, the Middle 

East Broadcasting Network, and Radio Free Asia-are private, SOl(c)3 organizations1 
18


81693b-2.eps

each with its own board of directors which have the same membership as the BBG 

thereby creating yet more confusion and incoherence-funded with grants from the 

federal government and subject largely to organizational norms, laws and conventions 

common to the private sector. These two distinct parts of the BBG have little common 

ground in law or practice. The BBG is tasked with balancing the many contradictory 

elements. 

Second, it does so badly. The BBG's governance model could hardly be worse or 

more debilitating. It has no real leadership; the Chainnan's role is more honorary than 

functional, and his powers are nowhere spelled out Any single governor can dominate 

the board's discussions and paralyze action on any issue. In fact, we have seen individual 

governors stymie much needed strategic refonns advocated by the current board when it 

was at full strength. Below the BBG level, the heads of the media enterprises are 

consumed in competition for resources with the heads of the other media enterprises, 

thereby reducing necessary focus on what is important: namely the critical external 

mission of U.S. international broadcasting. Little cooperation takes place, and the BBG 

lacks the power to force it to take place. When individual governors align with heads of 

the broadcast enterprises to promote that network's special interests and goals-as 

frequently happens-dysfunction is multiplied. 

On top of all this, the media enterprises themselves often lobby members of 

Congress to support their special interests as a way to head offBBG action that might 

interfere with their own objectives and strategies and indeed their own privileged 

positions. Thus BBG governance suffers a triple whammy: poor leadership that cannot 

control the competition between and among the media enterprises, who therefore take 

their issues to friends in Congress whom they hope will protect them from the BBG. 

Congress originally intended the Governors of the BBG to oversee but not 

manage the VOA (then part of the U.S. Information Agency) and RFEIRL, a non-profit 

grantee. With the abolishment of USIA, the BBG became an operating agency 

incorporating the VOA, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, with their support services 

grouped into the International Broadcasting Bureau, while providing grants to Radio Free 

EuropelRadio Liberty and Radio Free Asia (established in 1996) The agency had no 

head; the nine governors-four Democrats, four Republicans and the Secretary of Statehave acted as "collective CEO". The consequence has been confused lines of 

responsibility and authority and of oversight and management. Problems were 

compounded with the establishment of the Middle East Broadcasting Network as the 

third grantee under the BBG. The BBG as "collective head of agency" forces almost 

everything into the lowest common denominator. It also facilitates the promotion of 

personal agendas and contlict of interest both among BBG governors and network 

executives. 

Can anyone on this Committee identify another three-quarter of a billion dollar 

activity trying to balance federal requirements and private sector conventions that is both 

overseen and operated by a board of part-time volunteers? Why would the U.S. 

government wish to treat an expensive activity of such strategic importance so cavalierly? 

2 
19


81693b-3.eps

I stress the strategic importance. During the Cold War, America's international 

broadcasting was powerful and effective because it practiced an optimal formula for 

breaking authoritarian regimes' monopoly of information, not least about those societies' 

own realities. Where do such monopolies exist today? Indeed, they are rare. 

A few places like North Korea are still capable of controlling the flow of info TIn at ion to 

its inhabitants, but the larger part of global humanity has access to vast volumes of media 

outputs via TV, radio, the internet, and new social media. Drive through most parts of 

the Middle East or Asia, Latin America or Africa and the visual impact of satellite 

dishes-often two or three to a balcony-is staggering. Most are capable of bringing in 

several hundred channels of something. Cell phones and mobile devices are ubiquitous. 

Even Cuba has a growing internet culture. 

Today's problem is not enough information but the opposite. Most places, even 

some enduring the repression of nasty regimes, get plenty, much of it junk. This is the 

new competitive landscape for US international broadcasting. The amount of time 

individual consumers spend watching or listening to something from any source is now 

measured in minutes and seconds rather than hours. TV is by far the medium of choice; 

old fashioned shortwave is all but obsolete except in a few places. Our competitors, too, 

have multiplied, while our allies have retreated. China now spends billions on its soft 

power public diplomacy, much of that devoted to media. Russia is back, has invested 

heavily in media and has upped its game. Islamic Republic ofTran Broadcasting has 

branches in 45 countries and broadcasts in 30 languages. Meanwhile Western 

broadcasters like the BBC, Deutsche Welle, Radio France Internationale, Radio Canada 

International, and Radio Netherlands Worldwide have all reduced service significantly to 

accommodate reduced spending. 

One would think that American strategists would 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. It is incapable of articulating a set of media strategies, and it 

has no way to attach whatever measures it does adopt to larger U. S. national objectives. 

How else can one explain the following? Nearly every year, the BBG receives 

requests from concerned lbo-speaking Nigerians to inaugurate a broadcast service 

dedicated to their community and interests. Ibo is spoken by about 18-20 percent of the 

Nigerian population of 175 million. This translates into a media population of 

somewhere between 30-35 million in a demographically young, critical state. Energy 

rich Nigeria, of whom the US is a significant client, is one of the keys to sub-Saharan 

Africa stability. Broadcasting in Ibo would seem a no-brainer, given Nigeria's strategic 

importance. 

Yet every year the request is refused. Why? Because the BBG' s strategic 

priorities call for funding the broadcast services in its existing media enterprises first, a 

pattern largely fixed during the Cold War. Over time, this has resulted in rampant 

duplication of effort, as the broadcast services of the Radio Frees were introduced to 

buttress the work of the VOA. Thus, the VOA has a Russian broadcast service. So does 

3 
20


81693b-4.eps

RFE/RL. The Voice has a Burmese broadcast service. So does Radio Free Asia. If this 

were the end of the list, we might find a reasonable explanation, but it is just the 

beginning. U.S. international broadcasting operates two language services in each of the 

following languages Albanian, Bosnian, Macedonian, Serbian, Annenian, Azerbaijani, 

Georgian, Russian, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Arabic, Dari, Pashto, Persian, Burmese, Cantonese, 

Khmer, Korean, Lao, Mandarin, Tibetan, and Vietnamese. VOA and the Office of Cuba 

Broadcasting both broadcast in Spanish, too. 

So the 35 million lbo-speaking population will get no US broadcast service 

despite Nigeria's strategic importance because Armenia (population under 3 million) gets 

two services; Georgia (population 4.5 million) gets two services; Laos (population 6.5 

million) gets two services; Macedonia (population 2 million) gets two services; and so 

forth. Moreover, Greek still gets its own broadcast service. Thankfully it is only one, but 

how can we justify wasting money broadcasting to a country enjoying every conceivable 

media advantage, in the heart of Europe no less? No justification is possible, but the 

explanation is simple. For example, every year the BBG zeros out Greek broadcasting, 

and every year someone up here on the Hill puts it back in. 

Worse, when cuts are inevitable the targets are usually single service languages of 

great importance. Few on this Committee, T anticipate, will know much about 

broadcasting in Tatar and Bashkir. This small RFEIRL service is the only broadcaster to 

the significant Tslamic population in the center of Russia that will have a strong voice in 

the future of that ailing state. Similarly, broadcasts to the North Caucasus-ancestral 

home of the Boston Marathon bombers-are constantly on the chopping block. Good 

strategy would double down on these unique assets. BBG strategy, or lack of, is to put 

them out of business. 

The BBG's inexplicable failure to rationalize this nonsensical strategic soup by 

eliminating unnecessary duplicate services in order to sharpen its strategic focus on areas 

of important U.S. strategic interest provides more than enough justification to reorganize 

US international broadcasting. But if more proof of strategic mismanagement is wanted 

consider that each of the networks supports management and administrative serviceshuman resources and communications, for example-that cry out to be consolidated yet 

never have been. 

But Wait! Wait! advocates for keeping all these duplicates scream. They are 

necessary because they do different things. T have been hearing this canard since T ran 

Radio Liberty in the 1980s and '90s. And I repeated it shamelessly because Radio 

Liberty and Radio Free Europe were the only "surrogate" broadcasters. Surrogate meant 

that we attempted to provide the kind oflocal radio services that countries to which we 

broadcast might expect if their own media had been free. In contrast, the Voice of 

America was supposed to be America's otlicial voice, which "told America's story." 

During the Cold War while there were only two U.S. international broadcasters, 

this distinction had some validity. But it was never definite or clear cut. One of Radio 

Liberty's most popular programs was called "Broadway 1776", which was broadcast 

4 
21


81693b-5.eps

from our New York studio. It was created, over my objections, because a member of the 

Board for International Broadcasting, our oversight body at that time, insisted on, in his 

words, "a program on the United States" to be broadcast over Radio Liberty. I explained 

that RL did "surrogate" broadcasting, that we concentrated on what was going on in the 

Soviet Union. He won. "Broadway 1776" followed new Russia emigres around New 

York as they managed their transitions through typical American institutions and 

activities like the PTA, stores and shopping, intellectual life, and so on. Its powerful 

underlying message was all about America's uniqueness, its honesty, and freedom. The 

program thus was totally "surrogate", as it was all about them, and it told America's story 

wonderfully. 

I was reminded of this recently when I received a notice that the Voice of 

America's English to Africa service was creating a special focus on South Sudan. Here is 

how the services chief editor describes this offering on the BBG website "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' ... Listeners are hungry 

for breaking news and cultural infoTInation that VOA is well-placed to provide because 

we have a team of South Sudanese reporters around the country, a bureau in Juba, and an 

editorial staff in Washington D.C., where we also cover U S. foreign policy and diaspora 

angles to the South Sudan story. '" 

For the country, about the country, by country people. It's hard to get more 

"surrogate" than that. 

These examples could be multiplied many times. My point is simply this. The 

Cold War division oflabor between VOA telling America's story abroad and RFEIRL or 

any of the other grantees as surrogate domestic media no longer holds. All the networks 

cover both developments in the countries to which they broadcast and help tell America's 

story to the world. Creating media organizations defined by these narrow missions is to 

pennanently constrain US. international broadcasting's flexibility and synergistic power. 

This is not to say that surrogate broadcasting is unnecessary or no longer needed. It is 

indeed, in places like Cuba, China, Iran, North Korea and elsewhere. We can and must 

continue to supply it. But we can supply it from anywhere, as we have been doing for a 

very long time. Once one rejects this largely artificial distinction, reorganizing US. 

international broadcasting will be more rational, more efficient, and more strategic. 

Allow me to summarize my main points: 

1. Get rid of the BBG as the guiding organization for US. international broadcasting. 

2. Separate oversight from management, -- that is, keep the board and perhaps more 

importantly, individual board members out of operations by creating and 

enforcing a strong firewall between them. 

3. Put one professional management in place with jurisdiction over all US. 

international media enterprises. 

4. Create conditions for strategic decision making with regard to what we broadcast, 

to whom, and on what media platforms. 

5 
22


81693b-6.eps

5. Abandon the simplistic and inaccurate "tell America's story" vs. "surrogate" 

dichotomy. 

I believe that the Committee might entertain a number of different pathways to 

accomplish these goals. For me, one stands out as far and away the most logical, and 

coincidentally the pathway that is likely to avoid recreating the dilemmas associated with 

the BBG system. This is to create a single stand-alone media organization incorporating 

all of the existing media enterprises. This would require de-federalizing the Voice of 

America and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting. The different brands have value, at least 

for the short term, so they could be continued as needed, even within a single 

organization. The objective is a single organization, with professional leadership and 

management, and strong connective tissue to America's strategic center-logically the 

National Security Council with strong input from Congress. The new organization could 

eliminate duplication and competition for resources, choose targets and methods 

strategically, establish moving and creative balances of surrogate and non-surrogate 

approaches, and become nimble in responding to new challenges. 

T fear that measures short of this radical change-e.g., tinkering with the existing 

structure to see if can be made to work-ultimately risk another BBG fiasco. I urge the 

Committee to swing for the fence. 

Meanwhile, to generate a sense of urgency to fix this very sick organization T urge all 

members of the Committee to watch reruns ofBBG meetings for the last few years. It 

won't take you long to see what's wrong. 

6 
23

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 81⁄2

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. 

24

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:]

25


81693c-1.eps

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

Hearing on the Broadcasting Board of Governors 

"Broadcasting Board of Governors: An Agency 'Defunct'" 

June 26,2013 

Testimony by D. Jeffrey Hirschberg 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Jeff Hirschberg, and I had 

the pleasure of serving on the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) for eight and 

a half years, from 2002 to 2010. It was an honor to help advance the interests of an 

organization of committed and courageous journalists who share a deep and abiding 

sense of mission. 

The title of this hearing, "Broadcasting Board of Governors: An Agency 'Defunct,'" 

conveys a fundamental misunderstanding. There is nothing defunct about the BBG. 

Its work is more relevant than ever, and its broadcasting services are performing 

better than ever. 

The five BBG organizations - Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 

Radio Free Asia, Middle East Broadcasting Networks (Radio Sawa and Alhurra 

Television), and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (Radio and Television Marti) - now 

operate in 61 languages in more than 100 countries on every conceivable media 

platform. Their broadcast signals, from shortwave to satellite, are the best in the 

agency's history. So are the results: BBG audiences are at record levels - now more 

than 200 million weekly. 

This is hardly the sign of a "defunct", or moribund, enterprise. 

Yet I recognize there is a perception of the BBG as being dysfunctional, if not 

defunct. A core problem is that only four of the nine seats on the board are currently 

filled. This means there's no quorum to make decisions on critical issues. As things 

stand, the BSG won't be able to submit its budget request to OMS in September. The 

Senate needs to confirm the three BIlG nominees named by President Obama to 

serve on the board. 

I urge the committee not to conflate the performance of the BBG broadcasting 

services with difficulties experienced by the BBG's governing board, or to use the 

circumstance of such problems to mount a too aggressive overhaul of our 

international broadcasting services. 

We can debate the merits of a structure in which a part-time board manages the 

affairs of a complex government agency. Personally, I believe there isn't much 

wrong with the BBG that a first-rate BI3G chairman and full complement of board 

members, committed to working together, could not solve. That said, the BBG 

strategic plan calls for creating a CEO position; the President's FY14 budget request 

includes this provision. I can support this, provided the CEO operates behind a firm 

editorial firewall protected by the board. The proposed legislation does that. I note, 

1 
26


81693c-2.eps

however, that this will add still another layer of management and create possible 

additional conflict within the agency. 

Safeguarding BBG editorial content from outside political pressure is the board's 

first duty, as credibility is the BBG's greatest asset. 

There is greater value, however, in the concept of a BBG board than defending the 

firewall. Private citizens from various walks oflife, including media, foreign affairs, 

and government inject fresh ideas, practical experience, and enthusiasm. J 

witnessed firsthand during my tenure how the board helped to energize the 

bureaucracy and motivate needed change, and was the driving force behind the 

creation of Alhurra television. Indeed, I would argue that the BBG board represents 

the type of beneficial public-private partnership public diplomacy studies over the 

last decade have frequently recommended. 

While the world is awash in media, people still do not have free access to news and 

information, Despite the information revolution - the Internet, mobile phones, 

Facebook, Twitter, etc. - only just over one tenth of the world lives in a country with 

a free press, the lowest level in more than a decade, accunling to Freedom House, on 

whose board I serve. 

In the Middle East, there are hundreds of satellite television channels, and yet the 

region ranks last in the world in press freedom in the 2013 Reporters Without 

Borders survey. In China, there are 600 million people online, but the government 

systematically censors their access to news and monitors their activity, In Russia, 

almost everyone has a TV and watches it, but all the major channels are controlled 

by the Kremlin. 

It is no coincidence that in the areas where extremists are most active - the Middle 

East, South Asia, and increasingly in the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa - strong, 

indigenou5, independent media are largely absent. 

Fostering free, open, democratic societies is critical to U.S. strategic interests. BBG 

nurtures such societies, and thus plays its part in our country's security. 

But just as the BBG targets those countries that most need support for a free press, 

many of those same countries are mounting deliberate, well-financed, and 

increasingly sophisticated campaigns to drive information flows and influence 

global public opinion. This includes China and Russia, in particular, but also Qatar 

with its expansion of Al Jazeera in English, as well as Iran and Venezuela, 

Because we in the u.S. endorse free flows of information, and there is a First 

Amendment to our Constitution, we support the right of any state or company to 

publish or broadca5t just about whenever and wherever it likes, including on our 

domestic airwaves. Yet we have to face what we're up against, and we have to make 

a commitment as a nation, with adequate levels of focus and funding for our own 

2 
27


81693c-3.eps

international broadcasting services, to compete effectively. 

We don't have to look far to observe our global competitors in operation. We see 

their publicity inserts are in our newspapers, their channels on our cable TV 

networks, and their neon signs in Times Square. 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was right when she said a couple of years 

ago that there was as an "information war" under way. It is my belief that we will 

lose that information war unless the u.S. is committed to resourcing our broadcast 

entities suffiCiently to meet the challenge. 

Two weeks ago, Vladimir Putin celebrated the work of Russia's global TV network, 

Russia Today, with this remark: "'When we were devising the concept (Russia 

Today) in 2005, we wanted to see one more player on the global information scene 

which would not only objectively talk about events in our country, Russia, but would 

also try - I want to emphasize this - try to break the monopoly of the Anglo-Saxon 

media on global information flows. And I think we have succeeded.'" What viewers 

of Russia Today notice, both in the u.S. and overseas, is routine anti-American 

content, albeit well produced. 

China is investing billions in its long-term global information effort. In places such as 

sub-Saharan Africa, where its programs have yet to enjoy a mass audience, China 

takes the tack of buying media properties and funding media infrastructure to 

ensure it has a permanent place in the media landscape. Its investments in 

information are in sync with its investments in trade and commerce. For China, the 

two go hand in hand: information is an integrated component of national power 

projection. 

Al Jazeera outspends the BBG by at least three to one in the Middle East. In the u.S. 

alone, it has committed $750 million, equivalent to the BBG's entire budget, to buy 

the Current TV network and build out its u.s. news operation. It remains to be seen 

how Al Jazeera's news coverage in America in English compares in style and tone to 

its news coverage in the Middle East in Arabic, which since the Arab Spring has 

closely tracked Qatar's foreign policy, including support fur the Muslim 

Brotherhood. 

Unlike the United States, none ofthese countries - Russia, China, Qatar - believes in 

press freedom as a matter of principle or fundamental right. Ifthey did, they would 

respect press freedom at home, and none does. Instead of truly seeking to expand 

information choice, as BBG does, our competitors' international media efforts are 

ultimately designed to advance their policy agendas. 

The United States would be myopic not to see the current reality and possible future 

consequence of rapidly shifting global information flows. Our government should 

not, in my view, cede any territory on the information battlefield. 

3 
28


81693c-4.eps

When increasingly people in the world lack access to credible, accurate news and 

information and when state-sponsored media of competitor nations that do not 

embrace our values are increasingly active, now is the time to strengthen, not 

weaken, the BBG. 

As this committee meets to consider the future of U.S. international broadcasting, 

there are proposals to break up the BBG. Some believe the work ofthe Voice of 

America and the other broadcasters is so different they cannot successfully coexist 

within the same organization. 

I reject this view and believe it further reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of 

what the BBG is about. 

None of the BBG broadcasters is engaged in public relations work or propaganda. 

They're journalistic organizations. VOA and MBN expressly cover the United States. 

They do so to open a window on the American democratic experience. The aim is 

not to make people like us; it's to let them see democracy in action. Doing so directly 

supports the mission of fostering free, open, democratic societies. 

Coverage of this country that shows how democracy works complements coverage 

of societies that are struggling to establish or consolidate democracy. U.S. and local 

news coverage are thus inherently compatible. They can and do co-exist naturally 

within one integrated BBG organization. 

At the same time, none of the BBG broadcasters advocates regime change or other 

efforts to produce certain desired effects. Such an approach is not consistent with 

objective journalism. 

The only way for U.S. government-funded broadcasters to have success is to retain 

credibility with audiences. And the only way to ensure credibility is to play the news 

straight up - to report the facts as they are, and let audiences make up their own 

minds about what the facts mean. 

Audiences are smart. They know spin when they see it. They'll reject impostors. 

VOA, RFEjRL, RFA, MBN, and Or.B are all news organizations. They practice 

objective journalism. They don't do advocacy (beyond the VOA editorials, which are 

clearly labeled as such) or act to bias coverage towards pre-set desired outcomes. 

Either ot'thcsc activities would jeopardize their credibility with audiences and 

nullify any long-term benefit they can have. 

As news organizations, BEG broadcasters must be seen as independent actors. 

Congress wisely incorporated VOA and the other broadcasters into the independent 

BBG in 199B with passage of the Foreign Affairs reform and Restructuring Act, the 

same legislation eliminated the U.S. Information Agency. 

1 
29


81693c-5.eps

I urge the Committee to harness the best of our broadcast entities and address the 

other half of the equation, which is the fact that the BBG and its broadcast entities is 

substantially under-resourced. 

5 
30

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 

31

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 81⁄2 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——

32

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. 

33

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 

34

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 

35

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 nonsurrogate 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. 

36

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 

37

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. 

38

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. 

39

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 

40

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. 

41

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? 

42

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. 

43

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 

44

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 

45

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. 

46

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 parttime 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 counterterrorism 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. 

47

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. 

48

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 

49

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? 

50

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.] 

(51)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

52

f


81693n.eps

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6128 

Edward R. Royce (R-CA), Chairman 

June 26. 2013 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. to be 

held in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Olliee Building (and available live on the Committee website at 

httR;~!\Y'0!~J~QB::jgD!\(rillJ:?_.h~;l(S~cgQv): 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Wednesday. June 26. 2013 

10:00 a.m. 

Broadcasting Board of Governors' An Agency "Defunct" 

The Honorable James K. Glassman 

Founding Executive Director 

George W. Bush Institute 

(Former Chairman of/he Hroadca.~'1ing Hoard rd"Uovernors, and Former Under 

Secrelary ofSlale for Puhlic Diplomac), and Puhlic Afftlirs) 

The Honorable S. Enders Wimbush 

Executive Director for Strategy & Development 

National Bureau of Asian Research 

(Former GOl'ernor of the Broadcasting Board afGovernors) 

The Honorable D. Jeff Hirschberg 

Chairman 

The Northeast Maglev. LLC 

(j,'ormer Governor C?fthe HroadcaslinR Hoard qfGownlOrs) 

By Direction of the Chairman 
53


81693m-1.eps

COMMITTEE ON :FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MINUTES OF FULL COMlVIITTEE HEARING 

nay Wednesday llate~_~O",6/."-,'2",6II",,-,,-3,,----__ Ru"m~_~2,,,1,-,7c:2,--__ 

Startin): Time ___ 111;'£21 ~ ~ __ Ending Time _--"'11"'."'·4"'4'-----_ 

Recesses L.-to __ l L-to __ ) L-to __ ) L-to -> L-to -> L-to __ ) 

Presiding Mcmbcr(s) 

Chairman b'award R. Ko}'ce, Rep. Ros-Lehtim:n 

Check all ojtlle/ollowing 'hili apply; 

Open Session [Z] 

Executive (dosed) 8.s.iu,,0 Televised IZl 

TITLE OF llEARI:\"G: 

Electronically Recurded (laped)[Z] 

Stenographic Record [Z] 

"Broadcasting Board a/Governors; An Agency 'De/ulIct'" 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS I'IU:S~:NT: 

See A/tached Sheet. 

NO:>l-COMYlITTEE YlElVffiERS PRESE:KT: 

None. 

HEARING WIT:KESSES: Same a. meeting n{ltice attached? YesG] NoD 

(If' "no ", please list below and inc/urie title, agency, departmelJt~ or organization.) 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: (L;'il allY statements submittedJor the record.) 

None. 

TIlVIE SCHEDULEn TO RECONVENE ___ _ 

or 

TIME ADJOURNED _1_1'_44 __ _ 
54

f


81693m-2.eps

Present 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

"Broadcasting Board of Governors: An Agency 'Defunct'" 

June 26,2013 

Member Present Member 

Edward R. Roycc, CA X Eliot L EngeL NY 

Christopher H, Smith, NJ Eni F,H, Faleomavaega, AS 

lleana Ros-Lehtinen, FL X Brad Sherman, C A 

Dana RohrabaeheL CA Gregory W. Meeks, NY 

Steve Chabot OH Albia Sires, NJ 

Joe Wilson, SC X Gerald E. Connolly, VA 

Michael T. McCaul, TX X ll1eodore E. Deutch, FL 

Ted Poe, TX Brian Higgins, NY 

Matt Salmon, AZ X Karen Bass, CA 

Tom Marino, PA William Keating, MA 

Jeff Duncan, SC David Cicilline, RI 

Adanl Kinzinger, lL Alan Grayson, FL 

Mo Brooks, AL Juan Vargas, CA 

Tom Cotton, AR Bradley S, Schneider, lL 

Paul Cook. CA X Joseph P. Kennedy IlL MA 

George Holding, NC X Ami Bera, CA 

Randy K. Weber, Sr., TX Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Scott Perry, P A Grace Meng, NY 

Steve Stockman, TX Lois Frankel. FL 

Ron DeSantis, FL Tulsi Gabbard, HI 

Trey Rade I, FL Joaquin Castro. TX 

Doug Collins, GA 

Mark Meadows, NC 

Ted S, Yoho, FL 

Luke Messer. TN 
55


81693d-1.eps

CHAIRMAN EDWARD ROYCE ON BEHALF OF DANA PERINO 

June 21,2013 

Chainnan Edward Royce 

Dana Perino and Company 

25 Central Park West, #15R 

New York, NY 10023 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs 

2170 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chainnan Royce, 

As a fonner Governor who served on the Broadcasting Board of Governors and a former 

White House Press Secretary, I want to thank you and your staff for your efforts to 

preserve and improve America's important international broadcasting programs. 

I have long believed that access to a free and fair press is the best way to ensure freedom. 

And despite the press corps driving me up a wall at times, 1 considered it the press 

secretary's j ob not only to defend the president to the press, but also to defend the press 

to the president when necessary. Ensuring reporters' access and answering their 

questions to the best of a government ot1icial 's ability is critical to keeping our 

democracy strong through third-party accountability. 

After T left the White House, T had an opportunity to travel on a diplomatic mission for 

the U.S. State Department. The goal of the trip was to try to get the government of 

Azerbaijan to be more willing to talk to the journalists who were struggling to do their 

jobs. It was the fIrst time I'd ever spent a week alone under state-controlled media, and T 

did not like it. T was alarmed by that feeling of suppression from a government actively 

keeping the truth from its citizens. The information that was forced on people was of the 

government officials always looking perfect in every photo and doing all matter of good 

things always. Most of the people I met did not trust the government's news and they 

looked for other ways to get information, including from America's Voice of America 

and other programs. 

When Twas nominated to be on the BBG, T thought of all the people that have benefited 

from America's international broadcasting and I was honored to be a part of the board. 

After two years, my professional circumstances changed and T was no longer able to be a 

fully participating board member. I resigned in December 2012, though I have remained 

a supporter ofBBG and promote the programs when possible. 
56

f


81693d-2.eps

As with any organization, time and competing visions and politics have caused the BBG 

often to struggle under the weight of uncertain budgets, constant leadership turnover and 

dysfunctional implementation. Congressional interest comes and goes with only a few 

Members of Congress taking an active role in oversight and participation in interviews 

with the BBG journalists. 

The most vexing problem is the structure of the current BBG. If a person who did not 

know the background of how that structure evolved and saw the flow chart for the first 

time, they immediately would know that stagnation would be the best outcome. 

The Board is able to attract top-notch people to serve. While there is an even split of 

Republicans and Democrats on the Board, 1 never once saw any partisanship that would 

impede progress. There are agreed upon goals and a desire to steer the organization with 

good advice and clear leadership; however, the structure of the Board was exasperating 

and many of the members struggled to manage their daily work responsibilities outside of 

government with the constant need for engagement and decision making by the 

managerial board. I believe that if the Board was more advisory than managerial, that 

problem would be alleviated and the good advice and creative ideas from the board 

members would rise above the problems. 

Outside of structural changes, 1 would add that one of the most effective tools the BBG 

has used in recent years is helping to ensure access to the Internet in countries that have 

government censorship over search engines and electronic communication. Given how 

many different ways people have to find news - on a computer, a tablet or a phone - this 

investment could be the best bang for the taxpayer buck. There are many dedicated 

people in the USA who are working day and night to keep the technology one step ahead 

of the governments that want to keep access restricted, and the U.S. government should 

aid these technology warriors and encourage more of them. 

Thank you for your efforts to address the concerns about the BBG's current structure. 

believe there is broad agreement that the mission of the BBG is still as important today as 

it was in the past. While I do not have specific recommendations, I support the discussion 

and ideas generation. Please consider me as an avid supporter of improvements to the 

system to ensure its continued effectiveness. 

Sincerely, 

Dana Perino Inc 
57


81693e-1.eps

CHAIRMAN EDWARD R. ROYCE 

INSERT FOR THE RECORD 

"BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS: AN AGENCY 'DEFUNCT'" 

June 26, 2013 

Broadcasting Board ofGovemors: Absence ofa Board Quorum 

Due to the resignations of various BBG Governors since January 20 12, the number of sitting 

Govemors is down to four (4), which is below the quorum of five (5) Govemors established by the 

International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (as amended). 22 USC § 6201 et seq. 

Quorum Requirement. The International Broadcasting Act requires that "decisions ofthe Board 

shall be made by majority vote, a quorum being present," and specifics that "'a quorum shall consist of 5 

members." 22 USC § 6203(f). There arc currently on four (4) currently seated members oftl,e Board. 

less tl,m, the statutory quonun. 

Loss of Decision-Making Authoritv. Because the Board of Governors no longer is able to meet its 

quorum requirement, its existing members, whether acting individually or collectively, have no legal 

autllOrity to mal,e decisions on behalf of the Agency. A federal board or other collective head ofa fcderal 

agency' which docs not possess the mininuull number of members necessary to satisfy a statutorilyprescribed quorum requirement loses its decision-mal,ing authority. hl New Process Steel v. National 

Labor Relations Board (NLRBt 130 S.C!. 2635 (2010). for example, the United States Supreme Court 

invalidated decisions taken by two (2) members ofthe NLRB, because the NLRB's statute required a 

quomm oftluee (3) members. The Supreme Court concluded that 'lhe Board quonllu requirement. 

should not be read as rmll easily sunnounted technical obstacle of little or no import:' adding that "rilf 

Congress wishes to allow the Board to decide cases with rless than a quorum], it can easily do so." hi. at 

2644. 

In BBG's case. tl,e lack ofquormn will deprive the remaining members of the Board of authority 

to make final decisions. 11,is incapacity extends to the exercise of the Board's non-delegable authorities. 

22 USC § 6204(a). (b), notwithstmlding the fact that such authorities may be exercised only by the Board. 

As the United States Supreme Court concluded in New Process Steel, "Tongress' decision to provide for 

a board quorum ... must be given practical effect rather than swept aside in the face of admittedly 

difficult circumstances." hI. 

Eftcct of Absence of Board Quorum on BBG Operations. The absence of a Board quorum will 

have a negati ve long-teuu operational impact on the Agency because of the importmlce of some of the 

Board's non-delegable authorities to deteuuine the Agency budget aIld to allocate resources muong the 

clements of U.S. international broadcasting. Immediate operational impact is less likely, however, 

because of the extensive delegations of authority that have been previously made by the Board of 

Governors. 

Non-Delegable Board Authorities. The Board's non-delegable authorities arc listed in 

Attachment 1. Thcsc authoritics arc generally dircctcd toward thc ovcrall supervision of United Statcs 

international broadcasting, consistent with Congress' intent that the Board of Governors should act as a 
58


81693e-2.eps

supervisory Board. not an operational Board. 1 The non-delegable authorities that may have the most 

direct operational impact arc budget-focused and include the following: 

Detenl1ination of the addition or deletion of language services; 

Making grants for broadcasting and related activities to RFE/RL and RF A: 

Allocating funds appropriated for intemational broadcasting acti vities among the various 

elements of the Inte111<1tion<11 Brmdc<1sting Bureau and grantees: <1nd 

Appointment of staff personnel for the Board and fixing of compensation therefor. 

See 22 USC § 6204(a)(4), (5), (6), (II), Without a quorum, the remaining Govemors will not be able to 

make decisions "ith respect to these matters. 

Board Committees. Board committees may still convene and consider matters 'within their 

respective tenl1S of reference. The BBG By-Lmvs c1arify, ho\ve\!er, that "Board committees have no 

authority to make decisions on behalf of the Broadcasting Board of Govemors Ulliess the Board delegates 

specific authority to them." By-Law 2.17. The Board made no relevant delegations of authority to any of 

its committees. The authority of Board committees is limited to reporting on Committee deliberations 

<1nd f0111lUl<1ting "recommend<1tions for considemtion and decision by the plenary Bmrd." ].4. 

Prior Delegations Still Valid. While the absence of a quorum deprives the remaining BBG Board 

members of decision-making authority going forward, it docs not nullify previous delegations of authority 

made by the Board so long as the delegations were otherwise validly adopted.' In the course of its tenure 

since July 2010, the Board of Govemors made valid delegations of authority to the IBB Director, the 

VOA Director <1nd the OCB Director. In each e<1se, the Bmrd's deleg<1tion W<1S <1pproved by <1 majority of 

Governors, a quorum being present, with respect to an authority the exercise of which the Board had the 

power to delegate. These delegees may continue to exercise the authorities so delegated notwithstanding 

the legal incapacity of the remaining Govemors to issue exercise Board authority. See id. 

Delegation to the IBB Director. hl April 2011. the Board adopted all extensive delegation of 

authority to the TBB Director. Included in it are the following authorities: 

• ''To providc for the gcneral administrative managemcnt of the federal agency known as the 

Broadcasting Board of GovemOfs, including without limitation. by exercising any authority 

1 The March 19, 1998 Conference Report on the Foreign Affairs Restructuring Act (which made the BBG an 

independent federal agency) (Rep, 105-342) explains that Congress purposely did not give the Board authority to 

"direct" broadcasting activities. The Conference Report explains: "The word 'direct' implies day-to-day 

management responsibilities, a function that is incongruous with a part-time oversight board. The daily operations 

of the broadcasters are conducted by the Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau, and the presidents of 

the respective grantees, operating under the supervision of the Board." 

2 The United States Supreme Court recognized the ongoing validity of prior delegations in New Process Steel: 

II[O]ur conclusion ... does not cast doubt on prior delegations of authority to nongroup members, such as the 

regional directors or the general counsel." 130 S.Ct. at 2642 n.4. 

2 
59


81693e-3.eps

provided for in the International Broadcasting Act, except those non-delegable authorities 

reserved by §6204(b) of such Act to the Board"; 

• "To carl) out all nonmilitary broadcasting activities supported by the United States government, 

other than those expressly reserved to the Board or its grantees"; 

• To provide "oversight and direction to ... the Director of Voice of America. the Director of the 

Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and other employees of the federal agency with respect to all 

functions specifically delegated by the Board"; 

• "To identify. evaluate and resolve strategic tradeoffs and conflicts among the broadcasting 

entities. consistent with the broad guidelines established by the Board and subject to the Board's 

continuing oversight."; 

111e IBB Director is also empo\\ered to appoint members of "a professional Board staff' tor such 

positions as the Board may determine are necessary. 111e delegation qualifies the authority by stating that 

the appointment of ·"the Executive Director, chief financial officer and ehieflegal officer shall be subject 

to approval by the Board." 

Delegations to the VOA and OCB Directors. In April 2011, the Board also adopted delegations 

of authority to the VOA and OCB Directors, respectively. The delegations authorize them to "supervise 

the development of programming" for their respective entities, to comply with their respective statutory 

mandates and to develop long-term strategies to improve the quality and reach of their respective entities. 

In March 2011, the Board decided that the VOA and OCB Directors "report to the lBB Director with 

respect to ... day-to-day operational flmclions [namely 'key functions ofthe federal Agency, 

manageLmentJ of the BBG's global distribution network and chair ofthe lBB Coordinating Committee. 

and report to the Board only with respect to their respecti,-e programming. 

3 
60

f


81693e-4.eps

ATTACHMENT I 

BBG's NON-DELEGABLE AUTHORITIES 

The Board's full list of authorities is iucluded in 22 USC §6204(a)(I)-(l8). The Board may delegate 

the authorities provided in l§6204(a)( 1)-(19)], except those authorities provided in paragraphs (1), (2), 

(3). (4). (5), (6), (9), or (II) to the Director ofthe hltemational Broadcasting Bureau, or any other officer 

or employee of the United states, to the extent the Board determines to be appropriate. The Board has the 

following non-delegable authorities: 

§6204(a)(1) To supervise all broadcasting activities conducted pursuant to this chapter, the Radio 

Broadcasting to Cuba Act l22 U.S.c. 1465 et seq.], the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act l22 

U.S.c. I 465aa et seq.], and Worldnet Television, except as provided in section 6205 (b) of this 

title. 

§6204(a)(2) To review and evaluate the mission and operation of, and to assess the quality, 

effectiveness. and professional integrity of, all such activities within the context ofthe broad 

foreign policy objectives of the United States. 

§6204(a)(3) To ensure that United States intemational broadcasting is conducted in accordance 

with the standards and principles contained in section 6202 of this title. 

§6204(a)(4) To review, evaluate, and determine, at least annually, after consultation with the 

Secretary of State, the addition or deletion oflanguage services. 

§6204(a)(5) To make and supervise grants for broadcasting and related activitics in accordancc 

with sections 6207 and 6208 ofthis title. 

§6204(a)(6) To allocate funds appropriated for intemational broadcasting activities anlOng the 

various elements ofthe International Broadcasting Bureau and grantees, subject to the limitations 

in sections 6207 and 6208 of this title and subject to reprogramming notitication requirements in 

law for the reallocation of funds. 

§6204(a)(9) To submit to the Prcsident and the Congress an annual rcport which summarizes and 

evaluates activities under this chapter. the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act r22 U.S.c. 1465 et 

seq.], and the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act [22 U.S.c. H65aa et seq.]. Each annual report 

shall place special emphasis on the assessment described in paragraph (2). 

§6204(a)(lI) To appoint such staff perso1lllel for the Board as the Board may detennine to be 

necessary, subject to the provisions of title 5 governing appointments in the competitive senice, 

and to tix their compensation in accordance with the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III 

of chapter 53 of such titlc relating to classitication and Gcncral Schedulc pay ratcs. 

4 
61

Æ


81693f.eps

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly (VA-ll) 

HCFA Full Committee Hearing: Broadcasting Board of Governors: An Agency "Defunct" 

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 

lOam 

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) oversees all u.s. government-supported, civilian 

international media. According to the BBG, its mission is to inform, engage and connect people 

around the world in support of freedom and democracy. Broadcasters within the BBG network 

include the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcasting 

Networks (Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa), Radio Free Asia, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting 

(Radio and TV Marti). 

For FY 2014, the Administration requested $731.1 million-3% (or $20 million) below FY 2012 

actual funding, for broadcasting. According to the Congressional Budget Justification, 

reductions result from the elimination of language services, such as the closure of Radio Free 

Europe/Radio liberty's Balkan service, and increased efficiencies, including the consolidation of 

Voice of America's news gathering and programming as well as position reductions at the Office 

of Cuba Broadcasting. These unfortunate reductions are a reminder that budget cuts and 

disinvestment from our diplomacy have real-world consequences. 

With regard to the BBG operations in general, a January 2013 GAO report found that nearly 

two-thirds of the BBG's language services-offices that produce content for particular 

languages and regions-overlap with another BBG service by providing programs to the same 

countries in the same languages. GAO identified 23 instances of overlap involving 43 of BBG's 

69 services. For example, in 8 instances involving 16 services, a Voice of America service and a 

Radio Free Asia service overlapped. Almost all overlapping services also broadcast on the same 

platform (i.e., radio or television). Post-sequester funding levels present an opportunity for BBG 

to address duplicative services. 

The aforementioned GAO report laid out two recommendations: 

Ensure that BBG's annual language service review includes systematic consideration of 

the cost and impact of internal overlap among BBG entities' language services. 

Ensure that BBG's annual language service review includes systematic consideration of 

the activities of u.s. commercial broadcasters and other democratic nations' 

broadcasters, such as the languages used and the countries served. 

As we hear testimony from today's panel, an analysis of BBG's operations, including efficient 

use of limited resources, would be useful. A great power cannot disinvest from diplomacy. The 

BBG's role in public diplomacy is important, which means that all dollars allocated to 

broadcasting be used in the most efficacious way possible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

###