[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR GLOBAL MEDIA AND U.S.
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING EFFORTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
September 29, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-112
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-962PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York Member
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida JOE WILSON, South Carolina
KAREN BASS, California SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts TED S. YOHO, Florida
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
AMI BERA, California LEE ZELDIN, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin
DINA TITUS, Nevada ANN WAGNER, Missouri
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York BRIAN MAST, Florida
TED LIEU, California FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota JOHN CURTIS, Utah
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota KEN BUCK, Colorado
COLIN ALLRED, Texas RON WRIGHT, Texas
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania GREG PENCE, Indiana
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
DAVID TRONE, Maryland MIKE GUEST, Mississippi
JIM COSTA, California
JUAN VARGAS, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas
Jason Steinbaum, Staff Director
Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Turner, Grant, Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Agency for Global
Media.......................................................... 9
Kornbluh, The Honorable Karen, Chair of the Board of Directors
Open Technology Fund........................................... 37
Bennett, Amanda, Former Director of the Voice of America......... 42
Fly, Jamie, Former President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.. 45
Crocker, The Honorable Ryan, Board Member, Open Technology Fund.. 47
INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Letter submitted for the record to the Honorable Michael Pack.... 54
Joint statement submitted for the record from Representatives
McCaul and Blackburn........................................... 57
McCaul statement submitted for the record........................ 61
Letter submitted for the record from Mr. Pack.................... 68
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 96
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 98
Hearing Attendance............................................... 99
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY
Statement for record from Representative Connolly................ 100
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted for the record.................. 102
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Statement for the record from Mr. David Kligerman................ 104
Additional information submitted for the record from Ms. Bennett. 110
OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR GLOBAL MEDIA AND U.S.
INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING EFFORTS
Thursday, September 24, 2020
House of Representatives
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Washington, DC
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eliot Engel
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Mr. Engel. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come to
order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any point, and all members will have
5 days to submit statements, extraneous material, and questions
for the record subject to the length limitation in the rules.
To insert something into the record, please have your staff
email the previously circulated address or contact full
committee staff. As a reminder to members, staff, and others
physically present in this room, per guidance from the Office
of Attending Physician, masks must be worn at all times during
today's proceedings, except when a member or a witness is
speaking. Please also sanitize your seating area.
The chair views these measures as a safety issues and,
therefore, an important matter of order and decorum for this
proceeding.
For members participating remotely, please keep your video
function on at all times, even when you are not recognized by
the chair. Members are responsible for muting and unmuting
themselves, and please remember to mute yourself after you have
finished speaking. Consistent with House Resolution 965 and the
accompanying regulations, staff will only mute members and
witnesses, as appropriate, when they are not under recognition,
to eliminate background noise.
I see that we have quorum and I now recognize myself for
opening remarks.
The committee meets this morning to examine American
international broadcasting efforts under the U.S. Agency for
Global Media. For weeks, we expected the opportunity to hear
from and question USAGM's new CEO, Mr. Michael Pack. Mr. Pack's
brief tenure has been a rocky and controversial one. He
immediately removed Voice of America's leadership as well as
the presidents and boards of Radio Free Europe/Radio Free
Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting
Network.
Removing the experienced boards from the services to
replace them with new boards consisting of himself, his chief
of staff, a number of Trump Administration political
appointees, and the senior counsel of an organization the
Southern Poverty Law Center has designated an anti-LBGT hate
group. He tried to fire the acting CEO and board of the Open
Technology Fund, but a court reversed his decision.
He removed the standards editor from Voice of America, the
watchdog who makes sure VOA's content meets all the benchmarks
of independent journalism. He declined to renew the visas for
Voice of America journalists who came to the United States to
produce unbiased news and information. I want to emphasize
this: the U.S. Government asked these people to come work for
us because of their expertise and language skills, to send news
back to countries where press freedoms are often threatened.
Now some of these people are being forced to leave the country.
It is shocking that the U.S. Government would treat any
journalist that way, let alone one we have asked to do the job.
Mr. Pack cutoff funding for Open Technology Fund, OTF,
funding that Congress had approved. To remind everyone of what
OTF does, they support development of circumvention and
communication tools so that journalists and citizens are better
able to share news and information in countries where
governments try to censor and stifle those things. We are
talking about places like Belarus, Iran, China, and Venezuela.
And he has suspended a number of senior USAGM officials in what
I believe to be a retaliatory and improper action.
Three months ago, I invited Mr. Pack to appear before this
committee to answer our questions and explain his alarming
first few weeks on the job. On August 3d, his office made a
commitment to appear here today. Let me repeat that. On August
3d, his office made a commitment to appear here today. A week
ago, shortly after the committee noticed this hearing, his
office called back to tell us he was breaking his commitment.
That is, breaking his commitment.
USAGM refused to provide specific reasons, stating only
that there were ``administrative proceedings'' that required
Mr. Pack's attention. The committee has since learned that Mr.
Pack personally scheduled for today an administrative hearing
for those people he suspended. He notified those individuals
last Thursday, the same day USAGM told the committee he was
backing out of this hearing.
My understanding is that under USAGM regulations and
standard Federal agency practice, the head of agencies should
not even be involved in such administrative hearings, that they
should be left to the security professionals. USAGM proposed
other dates in October, when the House is in recess. It is my
view that Mr. Pack manufactured this conflict to get out of
being here today, so the committee issued a subpoena to compel
his testimony. With the chair at the witness table empty, Mr.
Pack is now in defiance of that subpoena.
Our international broadcasting efforts are a critical
foreign policy tool. USAGM's constituent services provide high-
quality, independent news and information in some of the most
closed-off places in the world. The best way to push back on
the propaganda coming out of Russia, China, and elsewhere is to
provide the truth, plain and simple. We need competent
leadership at the helm of those efforts. We need someone who
understands journalism and respects journalists.
We need someone who understands that the head of a Federal
agency is accountable and that Congress has a constitutional
right to conduct oversight. We need someone who respects the
law and allows our broadcasters to operate free from
interference. Mr. Pack has made clear in his short tenure that
he meets none of those qualifications.
He is making a mockery of a U.S. agency that has long
enjoyed strong bipartisan support and he has shown tremendous
disrespect for the committee, our committee, and its role
overseeing USAGM. He is the wrong person for the job. He should
resign. And if he does not, the President should fire him.
Since Mr. Pack will not talk to us, we will instead hear
from some of those he has pushed out or tried to push out,
competent public servants and journalists who, because they
were committed to doing their jobs well, had no place in Mr.
Pack's USAGM.
I will now yield to the ranking member for any opening
comments he has.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to each of the
witnesses who are appearing before us here today.
The U.S. Agency for Global Media's mission is to further
press an internet freedom around the world. Recently, I and
many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have grown
very concerned the Agency's mission is being undermined from
the top. Most problematic to me has been what I can only
characterize as the impoundment of funds meant for the Open
Technology Fund. OTF was stood up as an independent grantee
last year in a bipartisan manner by Congress. Yet despite a
track record of success in providing internet access and other
vital support to those in China, Iran, Russia, and other
authoritarian States, CEO Pack has ignored the will of Congress
and withheld millions of dollars in funding from OTF.
This is not a typical DC policy discussion. I believe his
actions damaged support during the height of unrest in Hong
Kong and they are continuing to do so today in Belarus. Their
tragic lack of support to freedom and democracy movements is
also regrettable because, in my judgment, it directly
undermines key priorities of this Administration that I have
discussed at the very top levels.
And that, unfortunately, isn't the only concerning action.
In sum, USAGM has not been responsive to Congress in many
cases. We have asked the Agency for their strategic response to
the situation in Belarus, but have received no response. Our
office inquired about the return of Radio Free Europe to
Hungary, but received no response.
Also after most of the front office was placed on
administrative leave, we simply asked for the names of those
people who were heading the key offices at USAGM, but like so
many of our other questions, this too was met with silence. We
are a separate and equal branch of government and, Mr.
Chairman, this committee deserves the respect of a response.
Make no mistake, I believe there is some reform that needs
to be done at USAGM and that should take place, and any
questionable content such as the video which aired on Voice of
America that seemingly appeared to endorse Vice President
Biden, that should also be thoroughly investigated. There is no
place for this type of politics inside the USAGM.
But I do not think we should throw the baby out with the
bath water here, and I ask today once again for CEO Pack to
release the funding approved by Congress under Article I of the
Constitution and release the funding that was approved by
Congress for OTF and to meaningfully engage with Congress to
provide answers to the basic questions we must ask as part of
our oversight duties.
Unfortunately, as Mr. Pack has decided not to attend
today's hearing despite a subpoena from this committee and from
Congress, I hope that today's witnesses can provide us with
details about what is going on at the USAGM and his absence. I
believe that, Mr. Chairman, if we--this technology is so
important in countries like Russia, China, Iran, and North
Korea to communicate within the country, inside and outside,
and people in the country to communicate amongst themselves so
that they can be in a position to yield back from their
oppressors.
Without this important tool that Congress has authorized
and funded, we will have a very difficult time in this mission
for greater democracy and freedom throughout the world. And
with that I yield back.
Mr. Engel. I thank my friend, the ranking member. And
pursuant to notice, the committee has convened today to conduct
oversight of the U.S. Agency for Global Media and U.S.
international broadcasting efforts. As Mr. Pack has decided to
defy the committee's duly authorized subpoena, we will reset
the witness table for our second panel.
Our witnesses today----
Mr. Sires. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Engel. Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. I have a question. Why do not we leave the empty
chair with his name on there to show the people that he just
blew our subpoena, of Mr. Pack?
Mr. Engel. That is fine with me.
Mr. Sires. Thank you.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Sires.
Our witnesses today have played a variety of roles at USAGM
over the years and bring a wealth of experience on our
international broadcasting efforts. Their backgrounds range
from diplomacy to journalism to policy to government
Administration. What they have in common is that Mr. Pack
pushed them all out of their roles at USAGM, or tried to.
In my view, you have all served admirably and should be
thanked for your hard work advancing USAGM's important mission.
Ambassador Karen Kornbluh is chair of the board of
directors of the Open Technology Fund. She also served on the
boards of the other services until Mr. Pack removed her, and on
the Board of Governors. She also served as the U.S. Ambassador
to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
during the Obama Administration.
Ambassador Ryan Crocker also sits on the board of the Open
Technology Fund and was previously a member of the other
service boards. At the State Department, Ambassador Crocker was
one of our most distinguished career diplomats serving as
United States Ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria,
Kuwait, and Lebanon. I would say that is in the middle of the
fight.
Ms. Amanda Bennett is the former director of the Voice of
America where she served from 2016 until June of this year. She
is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who previously worked at
Bloomberg News, The Lexington Herald-Leader, The Oregonian, and
the Wall Street Journal.
Mr. Jamie Fly is the former president of Radio Free Europe/
Radio Liberty, and is now a senior fellow and senior advisor to
the president at the German Marshall Fund. He previously worked
as a counselor for Foreign and National Security Affairs for
Senator Rubio, and served on the National Security Council
staff during the George W. Bush Administration.
Mr. Grant Turner is the chief financial officer of the
United States Agency for Global Media, and also served as the
interim CEO of the Agency from the fall of last year until
June. He previously served as the budget director for the
Millennium Challenge Corporation and at the Office of
Management and Budget during the Bush and Obama
Administrations.
Without objection, your complete written testimony will be
made part of the record of this hearing, and I will recognize
you for 5 minutes, each, to summarize your testimony.
Mr. Turner, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF GRANT TURNER, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, U.S. AGENCY
FOR GLOBAL MEDIA
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Chairman Engel, Ranking Member
McCaul, and members of the committee. I am testifying today to
disclose significant concerns about the U.S. Agency for Global
Media specifically related to the dire events that have been
unfolding at the Agency over the past few months. First,
though, let me start by telling you a little bit about myself
and USAGM.
I have been privileged to serve in the U.S. Federal Civil
Service as a career employee for 17 years, most of the last
four at this Agency. My tenure has spanned multiple
Presidential Administrations. I began working for the Federal
Government with GAO and then I worked for OMB for 6 years,
three under President Bush and three under President Obama.
I have served as the budget director for the MCC and also
for the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia. I have a lot of experience in
government operations, but nothing in my 17 years come even
close to the gross mismanagement, the abuse of authority, the
violations of law that have occurred since Michael Pack assumed
the role of CEO at USAGM in June of this year.
Until I was abruptly removed by Mr. Pack in mid-August, I
served as the Agency's chief financial officer. For the 9-
months preceding that I was the acting CEO. Based on my many
interactions with this committee and your staffs on a
bipartisan basis, I know you care very much about our mission
to bring truthful news and information to our audiences
overseas, and I truly thank you for that years-long
partnership.
Today, USAGM networks broadcast in 61 languages to over 100
countries worldwide, reaching 350 million viewers, listeners,
and readers weekly. Our networks include the Voice of America,
Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, the Middle East
Broadcasting Networks, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and our
newest grantee, the Open Technology Fund. They are truly a gift
from the American people to the world.
We sometimes forget living in our very rich media
environment that much of the world is quite underserved. As one
of my colleagues on this hearing, Amanda Bennett, is fond of
saying, our organization exports the First Amendment. It is
part of the foundation of our Nation's success. So I am very
proud to be associated with the 4,000 employees that do the
work at USAGM and it is a privilege to be associated with the
journalists, the editors, the production specialists,
technology experts, and support staff. They are very passionate
about what they do.
During the past 4 years, the Agency has made notable and
important progress especially thanks to the input and support
of this committee. So thank you. We have modernized the
platforms that we broadcast on, moving as media markets evolve
and going to where our audiences want us to be, from radio to
TV to social media. A testament to how well the Agency has
performed in the last several years is borne out by numerous
metrics.
For instance, between the beginning of Fiscal Year 2016 and
now, our global weekly audience has grown from 226 million
people per week to 350 million people per week, a 55 percent
increase. It is a good example that we are responding
effectively to fast-moving media markets, and it is a tangible
demonstration that people across the globe crave the truth.
Our colleagues are journalists. The Agency does not do
propaganda. Our charters mandate that the editorial decisions
are made without outside influence. They are protected by what
we call a firewall and that firewall is much more than an
abstract concept. It is the law and it has been the law for
over three decades.
Our audiences live in places that are awash in government
spin, propaganda, and misinformation, or countries where there
simply is not any press and we fill that vacuum with journalism
that aims to be the best in class. Unfortunately, I have
worried about what Mr. Pack has done since his arrival. Like
many of you, I am worried about the credibility and the
goodwill of our networks being destroyed.
It has taken, literally, decades to build this trust with
our audience and, tragically, it can be destroyed far more
quickly. That is what I fear is happening now. I am worried
about our failure to support important technology tools
developed by the Open Technology Fund. OTF funds internet
firewall circumvention tools used by our audiences in Iran and
China and Russia and other closed societies to freely access
the internet and our content.
Within days of Mr. Pack's arrival, he declared war on OTF.
First, he started by firing its leadership. Then he choked off
its funding. At one point, after learning from OTF that we
might lose important tools, I sent an urgent email to Mr.
Pack's team essentially pleading for permission to release
funds to OTF and I highlighted what was at stake.
For instance, in the case of Iran, we risked losing 84
percent of the audience if we did not fund OTF's tools. To put
this in context, we are the No. 1 international broadcaster in
Iran. Many people do not know this. We have nearly 25 percent
of Iranian adults tuning in to our coverage each week. Voice of
America and Radio Free Europe's Radio Farda brand are the No. 1
TV and radio broadcasters there.
Here is a country where we worry about a war breaking out
where the Iranian people are fed a steady diet of
misinformation and half-truths about America, but every night,
a quarter million of Iranian adults--a quarter, rather, of
Iranian adults tune in to USAGM. From the VOA studios that are
just two blocks from this room to the living rooms of the
Iranian people, we bring unfiltered, truthful news about
America, our policies, and our country's values. That is
tremendous soft power and it is, unfortunately, at grave risk
right now.
OTF is not the only example. In the two and a half months I
worked under Mr. Pack, he repeatedly breached the firewall
designed to protect journalists and editors from political
influence. Months ago, he removed standards editor Steve
Springer from Voice of America. He removed the executive editor
from Radio Free Asia, Bay Fang, who is the person who leads our
overall China strategy at that network.
It was Mr. Pack who simultaneously fired the presidents of
all our networks including Jamie Fly who is testifying here
today. Those actions and many others led the Senate
appropriators to put a hold on some of our funding. Mr. Pack
chose to ignore that hold that they placed on our funding. To
be clear, Mr. Pack's failures to act in many areas are of
concern of me, folks who are testifying today, and the
employees of USAGM, and I think all of you.
To close my remarks, I would just like to quickly mention a
few other things, irresponsible acts of financial mismanagement
that have taken hold under Mr. Pack. For example, I found
myself frequently fielding calls from the leadership of our
grantee networks who were being starved of resources because
Mr. Pack's team would not disburse funds on a timely basis.
Both Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia contacted me to
say if they did not receive funds soon they would not be able
to meet payroll. You know, this is no way to run a railroad.
Mr. Pack's team refused to approve a simple cleaning contract
for our Kuwait shortwave facility in the middle of a pandemic.
They refused for weeks to approve a contract to order
toilet paper for our Thailand transmitting facility. This had
nothing to do with shortages of toilet paper during the
pandemic. We had sources identified. Mr. Pack's team just did
not want to approve the order for weeks. I do not know why. So
staff just brought in their own toilet paper from home. That
unusual problem still existed when I left the Agency. Maybe it
is still the case today.
Based on what I have witnessed from small issues to very
big ones, I do not believe Mr. Pack and his team came to run
the Agency. I do not think they even like it. This just is not
what normal people do. It is not what normal management looks
like, certainly not in the world I come from and probably not
in yours either. I fear their mismanagement will continue to
erode the performance of the Agency and with any misstep they
will just use that to fire more people and continue to
diminishing the Agency.
So to close, we need your help. You will hear from
excellent people today. Please continue to practice the kind of
strong oversight that you are doing. It is truly helpful and it
may stop or at least slow the abuses that you are hearing
about. USAGM is a very valuable Agency to help create the kind
of world that most Americans want to live in.
I look forward to answering any of your questions later in
the hearing. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much for that testimony. Very
important and we appreciate it.
Ambassador Kornbluh.
STATEMENT OF KAREN KORNBLUH, CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OPEN TECHNOLOGY FUND
Ms. Kornbluh. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Engel, Ranking
Member McCaul, and members of the committee for holding this
hearing and for receiving my testimony. I am privileged to
serve as chair of the board of the--sorry--chair of the board
of directors of the Open Technology Fund, and I am here today
representing that bipartisan expert board.
I have worked at the intersection of democracy, technology,
and independent media for many years, currently at the German
Marshall Fund. Previously, I served, as you mentioned, as U.S.
Ambassador to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development where I negotiated on behalf of the U.S. the first
global internet policymaking principles. You have invited me
here today to discuss the challenges posed by USAGM's new
leadership to the Open Technology Fund and thereby to America's
internet freedom efforts abroad.
OTF is a bipartisan American success story. It is
absolutely critical to U.S. efforts to combat the rise of
digital authoritarianism. But, unfortunately, the Agency has
defunded and is now disparaging this small but crucial
organization, undermining both USAGM's mission and the cause of
internet freedom at a time when they are needed most.
As you know, the internet is a vital information lifeline
for billions worldwide including USAGM's audience of over 345
million people. Authoritarians increasingly strive to sever
this lifeline. Over two-thirds of the world's population live
in a country where the internet is censored. OTF was created
precisely to respond to this threat and has done so through a
considered, multipronged approach.
OTF has directly funded more than a hundred internet
freedom technologies used by over two billion people globally,
including both circumvention tools such as those that enable
tens of millions of users in China and Iran to avoid
censorship, and secure anti-surveillance technologies such as
those relied on by journalists and democracy activists in Hong
Kong and Belarus.
In addition, OTF has fostered a global community of
technologists, digital security experts, journalists, and human
rights defenders advancing internet freedom. By connecting
these groups and individuals, OTF has helped to grow the
community to thousands around the world. Research efforts
funded by OTF have also been essential to exposing aggressive
new threats in places like Xinjiang and developing next
generation solutions including, for example, AI-powered
circumvention techniques.
OTF has funded security audits that have exposed and
patched over 2,000 vulnerabilities and supported the
translation of freedom technologies into more than 200
languages. Through this rich, multipronged strategy, OTF has
not only supported the development of the world's leading
technologies, but has also empowered millions of people living
in censored countries to access USAGM content and other sources
of independent news and information online.
Both Congress and the U.S. Department of State have
recognized that OTF has become a critical bulwark against
rising digital authoritarianism. Yet in June, Mr. Pack
attempted to fire OTF's expert leadership and remove its
independent, bipartisan board of directors. Those moves were,
thankfully, blocked by a unanimous decision of the DC Circuit
Court of Appeals.
In addition, USAGM representatives have leveled a variety
of accusations the organization has repeatedly refuted
providing over 200 pages of information and documentation and
offering numerous times to undergo additional independent
financial audits. We have offered a GAO assessment and/or an
OIG investigation, but USAGM has refused making it clear that
the goal is not to resolve evidence-based concerns but, rather,
to discredit OTF.
More devastating, the Agency continues to withhold nearly
20 million in congressionally allocated funds, forcing OTF to
halt 49 out of its 60, or 80 percent, of its ongoing internet
freedom programs. This has meant leaving journalists, human
rights defenders, and activists around the world without the
tools they need. In just 4 months, the world's leading funder
of internet freedom technologies, OTF, has been dismantled and
U.S. internet freedom and democracy efforts around the globe
have been crippled.
Authoritarian regimes have made it abundantly clear that
they are willing to do and spend what it takes to extend their
control over the internet. From Xinjiang to Tehran to Minsk,
repressive regimes are deploying a new generation of advanced
technology designed to stifle dissent, track minorities, and
manipulate content online. And while these were once the
tactics of a few rogue regimes, they are now a global threat
with governments around the world investing billions of dollars
in the latest censorship and surveillance systems each year.
The United States has and should continue to confront these
threats head-on in an effort to preserve the internet as
democratic space for free expression. Instead, recent actions
have undermined critical U.S. foreign policy and national
security priorities and imperiled the lives of millions of
journalists, activists, and human rights defenders by leaving
them vulnerable around the world.
For the U.S. Government to maintain its role as a global
leader on internet freedom at this critical moment in history,
it is urgent that it restore OTF's funding and recommit to its
important work. I thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kornbluh follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much for your testimony.
We now go to Ms. Bennett.
STATEMENT OF AMANDA BENNETT, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE VOICE OF
AMERICA
Ms. Bennett. Chairman Engel, Ranking Member McCaul,
committee members, thank you. I am Amanda Bennett, the former
director of Voice of America, and I have had the privilege of
interacting with many of you on this committee on both sides of
the aisle. I have found you sometimes critical, sometimes
complimentary, but always supportive and understanding of our
mission.
I am here because I care deeply about our country's
institutions, most importantly the institution of the free
press and our First Amendment. As a result of this, I have come
to care deeply about VOA and its missions which embody those
values around the world. Although unlike some others here I
have not been involved in USAGM since my departure, I welcome
the opportunity to use my expertise and experience to talk
about the fact that I think is most important to the success of
VOA and USAGM which is the legislative firewall that protects
the journalists' independence.
And while I speak of VOA, the institution for which I am
most familiar, everything I say applies equally to USAGM and
the rest of the entities. They operate under exactly the same
legislation and practices and customs. I believe my
journalistic career sets me up perfectly to talk about this
legislative separation. My career spans nearly 50 years, all
but the previous four in private industry.
Beginning as a student at Harvard Crimson, I then spent 23
years at the Wall Street Journal where I was their second
Beijing correspondent. I have held senior positions including
top editor positions at four other leading news organizations.
I am a two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient and I have served for
nearly a decade on the board that awards those prizes.
Therefore, I think I can say that I have wide experience with
which the legislation regarding the U.S. Agency for Global
Media calls the highest standards of professional journalism.
VOA is America's largest international broadcaster, a
hundred percent government-funded but, by law, operationally
independent. VOA distributes news and information by radio,
television, and digital in 47 languages to over 60 countries.
In most of VOA's markets, VOA is the only source of critical
news. Journalism is at the heart of USAGM's mission, with the
word ``journalism'' embedded for decades throughout the
governing laws and regulations.
Unlike other government messaging operations, we do not
message. We provide useful, credible, and independent news and
information. The single most important factor in that
effectiveness is the editorial separation between news and any
outside interference. This separation is known informally as
the ``firewall,'' and is made up over decades with laws,
regulations, and common practices.
The very fact that our news is provided outside the control
of any party and power gives VOA its own power, and audiences
around the world see and appreciate the credible information
VOA provides. Around the world in the markets that VOA surveys,
it enjoys 60 to 80 percent credibility ratings even, as Mr.
Turner remarked, even in countries like Iran that are
considered hostile to America.
And this legal separation is the single most important
thing that distinguishes government-funded, independent news
from the propaganda that many of our authoritarian regimes that
we covered practice. Under the protection of the firewall, VOA
over the previous 4 years refocused on its mission as the free
press to the world. It refocused on its charter mandate to
represent all and not just some Americans. It increased
resources devoted not just to Washington but to the center of
the country.
In telling America's story, VOA reported proudly on the
things that America excels at and that much of the world wants
to know about--technology, entrepreneurship, medical advances
and research, education, and philanthropy--while at the same
time reporting, unflinchingly, on failings like school
shootings and racial tension. We also provided panels of global
medical experts on COVID-19, giving information much needed in
places that had no other access to it.
Combating bias in journalism is a critical task and
especially so in today's polarized environment. VOA made bias
training mandatory and through regular communication made
eliminating bias a priority. VOA was tough on ethics
violations, on internal corruption, and on inappropriate use of
social media. VOA's leaders were transparent and forthcoming in
these matters and outsiders knew of these actions immediately
because VOA disclosed them immediately.
In addition, VOA extended its original mission of bringing
news and information to those most isolated by launching
broadcasting into refugee camps and dramatically increasing
focus on women in the world. The team also moved VOA decisively
into the digital space where its audience's attention was
rapidly moving. One success in particular bears noting.
Morale, for which the Agency had been rightfully
criticized, rose steadily during those 4 years, with overall
employee satisfaction jumping from 47 percent in 2016 to over
70 percent in 2020, using a survey that replicated the usual
methods and questions. This is proof that the power of the
mission works. Morale improves when you treat people with
respect, support a mission with a high and inspirational
purpose, set high ethical standards, and enforce them
rigorously but fairly.
People want the organization to perform in the way it is
intended to perform and to accomplish the mission it is tasked
with accomplishing. I want nothing but success for VOA, all of
the entities, and the USAGM. When the organization runs
smoothly under the protection of this firewall and operates
proudly regardless of whatever party is in charge of the
government as has been the case for decades, it will be yet
another testament to the strength and power of the institution
and of the free press.
I encourage everyone to please respect and strengthen, if
possible, the firewall that makes this all possible. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bennett follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Engel. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Bennett.
We now go to Mr. Fly.
STATEMENT OF JAMIE FLY, FORMER PRESIDENT OF RADIO FREE EUROPE/
RADIO LIBERTY
Mr. Fly. Chairman Engel, Ranking Member McCaul, other
members of the committee, I want to thank you for holding this
hearing and inviting me to testify today. I am going to briefly
summarize my written testimony.
I first want to associate myself with the testimony of my
colleagues. We all had different vantage points during our time
working together at USAGM, but I share the concerns they have
expressed especially about the editorial independence of the
networks and the brave journalists that work at all of our
networks.
Until June of this year, I was honored to serve as
president and CEO of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty which as
we have discussed is a congressionally funded broadcaster
reaching 38 million people across 23 countries in 27 languages.
It is often referred to as RFE/RL which I will stick to to make
this--let it go faster. RFE/RL and the other private entities
that receive grants from USAGM provide objective news and
information to audiences around the world and help citizens
hold governments accountable for their actions.
You have heard a bit about my background. I have worked my
entire career in national security and foreign policy. I have
served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, on the
National Security Council staff of President George W. Bush. I
was Marco Rubio's foreign policy advisor for 4 years in the
U.S. Senate and also advised him during the 2016 Presidential
campaign on foreign policy. In July 2019, the bipartisan USAGM
board selected me to be RFE/RL's president and CEO for a period
of 3 years.
I was drawn to this work at RFE/RL because I believe that
given some trial information in our modern societies, it is
more important than ever to the fate of democracies that we
modernize the tools that helped win the cold war for this new
digital age. As you know, RFE/RL was key to that cold war of
success.
While I was president of RFE/RL, I worked to make the
network more effective in addressing current and future
challenges. When I arrived at the organization last summer, I
found that constant leadership turnover had caused significant
chaos and drift. Funding gaps were widespread, a roughly flat
budget was increasingly allowing competitors to hire away staff
and putting the network at a disadvantage in key markets.
Russia, which is our most significant competition across
Eurasia, but then also others were outspending RFE/RL by
several orders of magnitude. Morale across the organization was
low. My team and I began quickly to try to make improvements
that were fully supported by the organization's bipartisan
corporate board at the time, which I should note included a
representative of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
These changes were supported by USAGM leadership and I
briefed these changes to Members of Congress and their staff,
including some of you on this committee. After just 10 months
as president and despite a once-in-a-century pandemic that
significantly impacted our operations, we were making real
progress.
We increased RFE/RL's focus on digital platforms which
experienced significant audience growth during the pandemic. We
expanded investigative reporting and prioritized journalistic
professionalism and training. We increased coverage of China's
growing influence across Eurasia, and we developed new tools to
combat disinformation. As I left, we were developing strategies
to expand our audience inside Russia despite coming under
significant pressure from the Kremlin. I also oversaw the
preparations for RFE/RL's return to Hungary, which culminated 2
weeks ago in the launch of RFE/RL's new digital Hungarian
service.
Finally, we worked to improve RFE/RL's security and
countered attempts by foreign governments to threaten or
pressure our employees. All of this work unexpectedly ended in
mid-June, days after the Senate confirmed Michael Pack to be
USAGM's chief executive officer. In the early hours of June
18th, in Prague, where RFE/RL is headquartered, I received an
email informing me that I had been removed from my post without
cause. This action occurred without a single conversation
between me and Michael Pack after he took office, which my
understanding was the same case with the other network heads
that were removed.
I know that RFE/RL staff have subsequently reacted to my
firing with shock, frustration, anger, and most concerning,
uncertainty about RFE/RL's future. To date, more than 3 months
later, no successors have been named to replace me or my
counterparts at the other networks. Sadly, CEO Pack's arrival
has brought only more chaos and uncertainty to U.S.
international broadcasting. The turmoil cannot come at a worse
time. To be blunt, I fear we are falling behind our competitors
in the information space.
In a few short months, CEO Pack has put the Agency he
oversees and the grantee networks he funds, including RFE/RL,
at significant and potentially irreparable risk. In my written
testimony, I outline several potential reforms to U.S.
international broadcasting so that the U.S. can remain
competitive in efforts to counter disinformation, support
independent media, and strengthen democracies.
First, to do this Congress will need to increase funding
for these tools of American soft power, but that obviously
requires consistent, nonpartisan leadership of USAGM. But even
beyond that, more significant actions will be required. Two I
would like to highlight here are for Congress to pass a new
international broadcasting act that would clarify the roles and
responsibilities of the various networks and examine the
question of how best to explain American foreign policy to
foreign audiences which is at the heart of recent Trump
Administration attacks on the Agency.
Second, as part of these reforms, I would urge Congress to
make the private grantees, including RFE/RL, even more
independent of the U.S. Government. Despite the firewall, their
independence continues to be threatened. The independence of
these networks and their journalists is essential to their
credibility with their audiences. It is what attracts
listeners, readers, and viewers to their content. It is what
allows RFE/RL's brave and intrepid journalists to take risks on
a daily basis to report the truth.
The politicization of USAGM and the undermining of the
grantees' corporate boards by Mr. Pack are putting this
credibility and their work at risk. I urge you to take action
to ensure that this damage to these vital institutions does not
go further. Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fly follows:]
***No statement provided by press time.****
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Mr. Fly.
Now Ambassador Crocker is next, but he is having some
technology issues so we are only going to hear his audio. But I
am sure he has important things to tell us, so I now recognize
you, Ambassador.
Ambassador Crocker.
STATEMENT OF RYAN CROCKER, BOARD MEMBER, OPEN TECHNOLOGY FUND
Mr. Crocker. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member McCaul. Believe me, getting here this morning
was not half the fun.
I served on the board of the Broadcasting Board of
Governors from--and later USAGM--for almost 7 years from August
2013 until June 2020. During that period, I was privileged to
witness a complete makeover of the USAGM program. When I came
aboard, the BBG was essentially an entity that was running
without a CEO. It was as though a part-time Board of Governors
was managing by remote an $800 million entity. It made no
sense.
So one of the first steps we took was to create a CEO
position, and, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McCaul, you will
recall this, but we consulted broadly on the Hill, both sides
of the aisle, to explain what the problem was with not having a
CEO and to seek support for naming one. We got that support and
after a vigorous search, we hired John Lansing who has now
moved on to be the CEO for NPR.
Working with Mr. Lansing, the Board turned to the next
matter at hand which was revitalizing and improving the various
entities under the aegis of the Broadcasting Board of
Governors. Quality attracts quality. With Mr. Lansing at the
helm, we were then able to proceed with the hiring of other
entity heads who you have heard from two of them--Amanda
Bennett and Jamie Fly. It does not get better than this. You
have heard their testimony. You have seen their bios. These are
the best of the best in the journalistic world.
We also hired Alberto Fernandez, a former Foreign Service
colleague of mine, to run the Middle East Broadcasting Network.
Alberto has near-perfect Arabic. Among other things, he was
able to go on Arabic language talk shows and go head to head
with powerful political adversaries. He could out-think them.
He could out-talk them. And, when necessary, he could out-shout
them in the defense of U.S. priorities and U.S. national
security.
So this about the people, the people who run these agencies
and the people who do the frontline work as reporters, and Mr.
Fly just described, graphically, the impact that these abrupt
changes had on all of them.
The other point I would make, Mr. Chairman and Mr. McCaul,
is not just who was chosen but how they were chosen. In each
case, this bipartisan board came together, Republicans and
Democrats--I am on the Board as an Independent--for unanimous
votes appointing again these Agency leaders.
Now all of that is in jeopardy, as you have heard from my
former colleagues. The firewall, in particular, is a sensitive
issue and I am very worried that the cracks in the firewall are
going to destroy the whole image of USAGM. And I would say in
this context simply that I cannot say it any better than what
William Harlan Hale said in that first VOA broadcast, February
1942.
Speaking in German and aiming to counter Nazi propaganda,
he said, ``Here speaks a voice from America. Every day at this
time, we will bring you the news of the war. The news may be
good. The news may be bad. We shall tell you the truth.''
Mr. Chairman, Mr. McCaul, that is what VOA and its sister
agencies have done ever since. Our reputation for telling the
truth has been a core element of our strength as a Nation. Now
it is in danger putting at risk not only our national values,
but also our national security. Thank you.
[The written statement of Mr. Crocker follows:]
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McCaul, it is an honor to
appear before this Committee to discuss the roles and missions
for the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM).
These are critical times for our country in the
International arena, and USAGM plays a critical role.
I was privileged to serve on the Board of the Broadcasting
Board of Governors (later USAGM) from 2013 to 2020. It was a
bipartisan board, although my status is as an independent. This
was a period in which the Board Chair was first a Democrat and
then a Republican. It was also a period of historic change.
Since its inception, the BBG had not had a CEO. Our board
recognized this as a major structural flaw: One does not run an
$800 million corporation with no CEO and a part time. After
verifying that there were no legal barriers to the
establishment of a CEO position by the Board, we engaged
members of the Senate and House to explain the issue and seek
support for creating and filling a CEO slot.
We found broad bipartisan backing. After a rigorous search
led by then Board Chairman Jeff Shell, we selected John
Lansing, a career journalist of extraordinary ability and
accomplishment. He is also an extraordinary manger. He reviewed
the entire USAGM structure, identifying problems and proposing
solutions. He dramatically improved coordination and
cooperationamong the entities and agencies, eliminating
redundancies and building a strong sense of common purpose that
not only realized more efficient use of resources, but improved
the quality of our output. Congress remained engaged on the
issue, and passed legislation establishing a CEO position that
would be nominated by the President and confirmed by the
Senate.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McCaul, the most important
asset USAGM has is the people who work for its cause, from
reporters around the world who have the ability and courage to
report the news accurately and honestly. In many cases, they do
so at great personal risk of harassment, imprisonment, physical
abuse and even death_all for telling the truth in an arena of
totalitarianlies. This is at the core of the USAGM mission, and
has been since the founding of VOA during the darker days of WW
II It also means finding the very best people for senior
positions whose values and abilities are consistent with that
mission and who will inspire and lead their agencies and
entities.
That effort became easier with John Lansing at the helm.
Admired and respected throughout the media, he in turn
attracted the best and the brightest. It made our job as a
Board considerably easier. I can say with a total lack of
modesty that we fielded the A Team. Two of its members sit
before you_Amanda Bennett who headed VOA and Jamie Fly, former
CEO of RFE/RL. They can tell you their stories. Suffice it for
me to say that you simply cannot find more capable and
dedicated leaders. And it should not surprise you to know that
they worked closely with each other. The best gravitate to the
best.
Among the leaders who are not here is Alberto Fernandez who
headed theMiddle East Broadcasting Network_MBN. A former
Foreign Service colleague. Alberto speaks nearly perfect
Arabic. Good enough to go on Arabic language news programs
where he would out think, out talk and when necessary out shout
political adversaries in their own language. He also has
themoral courage to shine light on the most sensitive issues in
the region such as corruption.
The same is true of Libby Liu and later Bay Fang as CEOs of
Radio Free Asia. You will not find more informed and vociferous
critics of the Chinese government anywhere. Libby also worked
to establish the Overseas Technology Fund (OTF) with the
mission of circumventing the efforts of autocratic regimes such
as China to block the broadcast of the truth. Ambassador
Kornbluh will bespeaking to that as Chairman of the OTF Board
of Directors.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McCaul, I think it is very
important to note not just who we selected for these critical
positions, but how. These hiring decisions were made by
unanimous votes of the Board.
Democrats and Republicans came together to decide who could
best serve USAGM and the nation. There were no partisan votes.
This is a matter of great importance to me personally. As a
Foreign Service officer, I served six times as an American
Ambassador abroad. Three times I represented
RepublicanAdministrations, and three times Democratic. I served
the American people, not a political party.
Even in this time of hyper-partisanship, the USAGM Board on
which I was privileged to serve was able to maintain its focus
on the national security interests of the United States and to
act accordingly, getting the right people in the right places
and insuring that the mission of the agency was properly and
effectively implemented.
That Board was dissolved in June, in accordance with the
legislation establishing a Presidentially nominated and Senate
confirmed CEO position. We expected this. What we did not
expect was the wholesale firing of the agency and entity heads
we had worked so hard to identify and recruit. Nor did we
expect that the Agency's career executives would be dismissed
or sidelined. CEO Pack's actions have demoralized Agency staff,
most critically our reporters in the field. The firewall, which
has been the guarantor of objective and honest reporting for
more than 75 years, is under attack. We are in danger, I
believe, of seeing USAGM transformed into precisely the
propaganda mouthpiece we have so vigorously condemned in places
like China and Russia.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McCaul, I cannot say it better
than William Harlan Hale did in that first VOA broadcast in
February 1942. Speaking in German and aiming to counter Nazi
propaganda, he said this: "Here speaks a voice from America.
Every day at this time, we will bring you the news ofthe war.
The news may be good. The news may be bad. We shall tell you
the truth." And that is what VOA and its sister agencies have
done ever since. Our reputation for telling the truth has been
a core element of our strength as a nation. Now it is in
danger, putting at risk not only our national values but also
our national security.
Thank you.
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much, Ambassador. Thank you.
I will now recognize members of the committee for 5 minutes
each. Pursuant to the rules, all time yielded is for the
purpose of questioning our witnesses. Because of the hybrid,
virtual format of this hearing, I will recognize members by
committee seniority, alternating between Democrats and
Republicans. If you miss your turn, please let our staff know
and we will come back to you. If you seek recognition, you must
unmute your microphone and address the chair verbally. And as
we start questioning, I will start by recognizing myself.
Mr. Turner, at the beginning of your testimony, you made
clear just how qualified and experienced you are. We are
grateful for your years of service, and I presume for much of
that time you have held a security clearance. Is that correct?
Mr. Turner. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Engel. Okay, thank you. Now your testimony made clear
that following Mr. Pack's arrival when he began a pattern of
improper and possibly illegal actions, you raised the alarm.
Can you tell us a bit more specifically about who you notified
and what their reactions were?
Mr. Turner. You know, initially, I did not notify anyone
outside of the Agency. You know, when a new agency head joins,
you assume that they are going to change things. You assume
that they want to get an understanding of the organization that
they are heading. So, you know, my purpose was to assist Mr.
Pack in doing that.
He initially put in place a freeze on personnel actions, on
contract actions, and technical or IT migrations, you know,
which makes sense, you know, when you first take the seat to
get a hold of an agency. You know, but then, you know, then a
week goes by and 2 weeks goes by and 3 weeks goes by, and you
start seeing that things are really just frozen and people are
calling you saying things are breaking down.
And I mentioned calls that I am getting from the grantees
saying that, you know, ``Grant, if you do not send us funding,
I am not going to be able to make payroll next week.'' This is
the CFO of Radio Free Europe. I mean these are our partners in
the broadcasting that we do internationally. They are key to
the effectiveness of the Agency and starving them of resources
and causing operational harm to them is not, you know, how we
intend to get our job done.
Probably about a month into Mr. Pack's tenure, seeing lots
of financial mismanagement, hearing from VOA reporters in
particular about firewall violations, and being pushed 1 day to
potentially commit an Anti-deficiency Act violation--I
apologize or take credit for the budget geeks in the room--I
realized I had to notify someone and I contacted the financial
counterpart that works with us in the State Department's Office
of the Inspector General.
I made a disclosure, you know, to them and basically kind
of just, you know, laid out what I had been seeing. I also
reached out to the Government Accountability Office because
they were working on an active review of USAGM governance. And
at the time, I spoke with our Senate Appropriations Committee,
majority and minority at the same time, along with our
excellent General Counsel David Kligerman.
And we disclosed what we had been seeing, and I will say,
you know, people were pretty shocked. Some of this has come out
in the press and, you know, it is just kind of a sad state of
affairs for me because I really like the Agency, the people
there, and the mission, and it is sad to see it assailed like
this.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. Let me ask you this. Other than the
fact that they did not follow your advice, did you have any
reason to believe that CEO Pack or his close advisors were
unhappy with you because of the concerns you had raised about
financial mismanagement at the Agency?
Mr. Turner. Yes. I think, you know, I have raised these
tough issues with them, you know, I said, we cannot, you know,
starve our organizations of resources, you know, we have to
provide them funding. They are almost a hundred percent funded
by the American taxpayer.
You know, I have raised issues that we cannot lose
important tools such as those that are provided by our Open
Technology Fund grantee. I told them, you know, we cannot just
move money around willy nilly and they wanted to do some of
that. At one point, they called back, without my awareness,
about three and a half million dollars from our grantees.
You know, without the CFO knowing, without our Grants
Office being involved, without a grant agreement or amendment
being executed, outside of all of our internal controls,
calling up the grantees or sending them an email at 4 p.m. and
saying, give us 500,000 by 5 p.m., you know, this is ridiculous
kind of stuff. So, you know, we are having paper checks
delivered to us, you know, for three and a half million dollars
over the next couple of days.
And I am saying, this is going to come back to haunt us, we
cannot do this. And I know that that did not endear me to Mr.
Pack or the team that he had assembled around him. So I think
there were lots of reasons.
Mr. Engel. Let me ask you some, rapidly, some easy
questions to answer. Did any of these communications meetings
occur on or about August 12th?
Mr. Turner. You know, Mr. Pack basically did not
communicate with me for much of his tenure and I ended up
communicating largely with his leadership team. You know, I
sent him probably three, you know, emails on important things
in his first week on the job and he, you know, did not reply to
any of them. And, you know, I got the message that I should
work through the other folks around him.
The first time I met with him was about 2 weeks before I
was removed from my position and I met with him on two
different occasions that week fairly close to the August 12th
date that I was removed. And, certainly, you know, there were
some pointed exchanges, you know, shortly before he decided to
remove me.
Mr. Engel. When you were removed were six other senior
officials placed on leave at the same time?
Mr. Turner. That is correct.
Mr. Engel. Do you know if any of the others who were
suspended offered counsel to that effect?
Mr. Turner. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Engel. Yes.
Mr. Turner. Could you repeat that question?
Mr. Engel. Oh, I am sorry. It was--do you know if any of
the others who were suspended offered counsel to that effect?
Mr. Turner. I think everyone was kind of summarily
dismissed. You know, they sort of pulled our security
clearances, you know, for everyone, and said because you do not
have a clearance now and your job requires you to have a
clearance, you cannot be in your job.
So it was a pretty quick thing. I might liken it a little
bit to, you know, what we call our ``Wednesday Night
Massacre,'' which was Mr. Pack's first physical day in the
office when he sort of decapitated all of our network
organizations by firing their leadership and their boards, you
know, without any replacements, you know, just removing them.
And I think the six of us were removed because, you know,
we are sort of, you know, the folks who are following the regs
and the rules and making sure that, you know, we are in
compliance of what this institution asks of us, what the
Administration and OMB asks of us, and I think that was getting
in their way.
Mr. Engel. Has Mr. Pack scheduled any administrative
proceedings related to your suspension and, if so, when are
those scheduled for?
Mr. Turner. Yes, sir. He did. The administrative hearings
were scheduled for today at the time of this committee hearing.
Mr. Engel. And when did you learn about those proceedings?
Mr. Turner. It is within the past week.
Mr. Engel. Do you believe that your suspension was, in
fact, retaliatory in nature?
Mr. Turner. Yes, I am pretty sure that it is. It sure feels
like it. You know, I have been a civil servant who has worked
hard for, you know, both sides of the aisle in Administrations
run by Republicans and Democrats, and, you know, I was here to
help Mr. Pack. I think he would have had a better chance at
achieving some success.
I do not think he has a strategy, but it certainly feels
retaliatory to me and it is my view that that is the case with
the others that were removed as well.
Mr. Engel. Well, it is my view too. I think it was
retaliatory. I think you did your job, tried to keep the
Agency's leadership on the straight and narrow, and told your
superiors things they did not want to hear including that they
might be breaking the law. So now they are trying to fire you,
I think it is outrageous.
So, Mr. Turner, I want to thank you. It takes a lot of
courage to do what you are doing today. You are a public
servant in the truest sense of the term. If it were not for
people like you, our government agencies would not function
properly, they would just crumble, and the gross mismanagement,
people all over the world, really, would wonder why we were not
fulfilling our commitments. And if it were not for people like
you, the truth would never come to light when people in power
abuse that power and think that the rules do not apply to them.
So I salute you and I can assure you, this committee is going
to have your back.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Engel. I yield back and recognize the ranking member,
Mr. McCaul, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCaul. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to, first, before I begin my questions, enter
into the record a letter to the Honorable Michael Pack, on July
1st, 2020, signed by several United States Senators including
Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and Susan Collins.
Mr. Engel. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McCaul. I would also like to enter into the record a
joint statement with myself and Senator Marsha Blackburn, on
August 18th, expressing our extreme concerns by the state of
affairs at USAGM.
Mr. Engel. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. McCaul. Thank you.
You know, I have been heading this China Task Force up for
the last 6 months. Voice of America took our ``Origins of
COVID-19'' report, which was almost like an indictment of the
Chinese Communist Party and the cover-up that took place, all
based on truth. We translated that into Mandarin. We got it
through into mainland China and the report went viral because
the people of China need to know the truth about their
government. This is a great example of what USAGM can do and
how we can penetrate through their firewalls to talk to the
people directly.
It got the attention of President Xi's spokesman. There was
an hour-long CGTN, their propaganda television show, an hour-
long special debunking the ``McCaul Report.'' I mean, I find
that this is one of the most valuable things we have in the
State Department to talk directly to the people in China who
are oppressed every day. Talk to the people in Iran who are
oppressed every day, people in Russia, in North Korea; so I see
great value in this and I do not want to see it destroyed or
reduced by 80 percent because $20 million that Congress
appropriated has essentially been impounded.
So my question is this, and I look, you know, Ambassador
Crocker, I have no greater respect for any Ambassador more than
him, who served in, you know, Lebanon during the Marines
bombing in Beirut to the serving in--last Ambassador from
Syria, Pakistan, Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. My god. I mean
it always asks me the question, what did I do wrong?
But he has done such a great job serving the United States
of America in these outposts and nobody knows this better than
he does. So I would like to pose my question, actually, to you,
Mr. Turner, but also if I could give Ambassador Crocker and
Ambassador Kornbluh some time to talk about what impact of the
actions of Mr. Pack and this purging and also, basically, I
would say borderline actions, or actions in defiance of
congressional intent in appropriations, what impact is that
having on our foreign policy?
I do not think the top of the State Department, I wonder,
and I would urge Secretary Pompeo to take a look at what is
going on within his own Department. This undermines the very
things we are trying to achieve. The very goals that Secretary
Pompeo and I have talked about, I believe these actions
undermine that.
And, finally, Ambassador Crocker, you say our reputation
for telling the truth has been a core element of our strength
as a Nation. Now it is in danger of putting at risk not only
our national values but also our national security. Ambassador
Crocker, I put great value in those words from probably the
most esteemed Ambassador the United States has ever had. So
with that, Ambassador Crocker, I would like for you and
Ambassador Kornbluh to respond to that.
And then, Mr. Turner, since you are here in person it would
be nice to have your response.
Mr. Crocker. Thank you very much, Mr. McCaul, and thank you
for those kind words. I would stress again here that I am
politically an independent. That is a status that I assiduously
protected during my years in the Foreign Service and I continue
to do so.
I would say this. I was an ambassador to six countries in
my career. I served Republican Administrations for three of
those terms and Democratic Administrations through the other
three. I do say with a total lack of modesty that I think I
have a pretty good feel for what works and what does not, what
is right and what is not. What we got right were the right
people in the right places and we did this by unanimous
bipartisan board votes.
Bipartisanship is in increasingly short supply and I
commend you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Mr. McCaul, for keeping
that spirit alive in this critical committee. It is about
telling the truth. It is not about disseminating propaganda.
That is what our adversaries do in Russia and China.
Since 1942, our national reputation has been reinforced by
the activities and the reporting of the USAGM grantees and
entities. It started from day one, as I said in my statement.
When we deviate from that we are putting at risk our leadership
role in the world. We are effectively in the minds of so many.
Mr. McCaul, you referred to your superb China report. Our
strength vis-a-vis the Chinese Government is that we do tell
the truth. That when a report like this is produced and when
VOA and others broadcast it, our listeners around the world pay
attention because of our reputation for truth. When you take
that away we become like our adversaries. Not better than them,
simply doing what they do. People figure that out.
Damage has been done. I think there is no question about
that. Our legitimacy, our reputation for candor, our reputation
for truth has already been significantly undermined. And when
that happens, the rest of our foreign policy initiatives are
undermined. People are not stupid. They know what they are
hearing. They know what the truth sounds like. They know who
tells it. That was axiomatic until June with these mass
firings.
And I would say, if I could just echo what you have already
said, Mr. Chairman and Mr. McCaul, it was not just us on the
boards who were dismissed. It was also the case of some very,
very top-notch senior executives as Mr. Turner represents, the
best in the business. The best in the business at what they do
with a complete understanding of what the firewall is and how
it is important.
In all of this mess we have had since June, one of the
things I regret the most is how these individuals were treated.
And I am very happy to hear that the committee will stand by
these brave individuals you do not get better in Civil Service,
just as you do not get a better set of entity heads than we had
with Ms. Bennett, Mr. Fly, and their colleagues.
And, finally, on China, if I could just say a word. Two
other people that deserve mention and deserve praise for what
they did, that would be Libby Liu and Bay Fang. Libby, of
course, headed Radio Free Asia before she stepped up to direct
the team, OTF, the team we established, and they then replaced
her at RFA.
If you want people who can dip into the minds of the regime
in China to--which makes them feel that they are coming under
fire for their lies they tell their own people, you do not find
better people than Libby and Bay to send that message. So I
would, as a former career Foreign Service Officer, I just want
to salute the extraordinary quality of career people as well as
other appointments who have carried the message of America
abroad for so long. It pains me greatly to see us move into an
era where that may no longer be the case. Thank you.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Ambassador, and thank you for your
service. And now that my time is expired, I would just ask that
the witnesses, all of the witnesses appearing before the
committee today respond to my question in writing.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. McCaul. The gentleman yields
back.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Our communications efforts illustrate for the
world our democracy and the rule of law. That can work only if
lawmakers are able to do their job. Mr. Pack's refusal to be
here demonstrates to the many who depend upon our
communications efforts that at least in that instance our
democracy is not working well.
But this hearing illustrates also the opposite. This is--we
have issued a bipartisan subpoena for Mr. Pack, and I, without
objection, would like to enter into the record Mr. McCaul's
statement on this issue and the need for a subpoena.
Mr. Engel. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sherman. And I think then that this instance can help
us demonstrate to the world that the rule of law does work here
and that it is important for this committee to make sure this
matter does not drop; that there are consequences for Mr. Pack
no matter which Administration takes office in January.
I am a bit confused as to Mr. Pack's mission. I thought at
first it might just be megalomania, desire to replace one
person with another person to show he can. Then I thought it
might be some extreme libertarian budget-cutting. But the soft
power of the United States costs almost nothing compared to our
military forces and does not endanger our servicemen and women.
And then we discovered that one ideological issue and
that--and I have focused as the committee knows on our
broadcasting and other communications efforts to Pakistan. I
have urged that we have a Sindh service as well as one in Urdu.
And in the Urdu service they covered for a couple of minutes an
appeal by Biden to American Muslim voters, which at some point
should be balanced by a demonstration that both parties want
the votes of every group of Americans and that Muslims and all
the communities of the United States are a treasured part of
the mosaic of the United States.
As one witness pointed out, our broadcasting and other
efforts represents government-funded, independent journalism.
That is a tricky thing to do. And that is why we prohibit these
organizations from communicating with the American people
because there could be some effect on our elections. Now it is
possible that some American voter saw this little clip of Biden
saying that Democrats want Muslim votes. And it is possible
that the Urdu service has not yet communicated that Republicans
want Muslim votes.
But clearly, we are all in the politics business here. We
all communicate with different ethnic groups. You could
certainly influence more American Muslim voters with a thousand
dollars spent on media that actually reaches Americans than you
could with some obscure--with all due respect, not a lot of
Americans are focused on just a minute or two broadcast of Urdu
service.
What particularly concerns me though is the J-1 visas. We
bring people here. We ask them to be honest and to speak truth
to countries where speaking truth can get you killed or at
least imprisoned. Then Mr. Pack denies the application, refuses
to file the application to extend their J-1 visas which means
they are subject to deportation to the very place that we asked
them to tell truth to a country where truth is illegal.
I would like any of the witnesses, but particularly Mr.
Turner, to comment. Are lives in danger because of Mr. Pack's
efforts? Or is the freedom of these journalists in danger if
they get deported?
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, I think that is
one of the biggest worries of the people that have been removed
and the folks that are appearing at this hearing today is the
fate of these J-1 visa holders. You know, they are a very, very
specialized expertise that we----
Mr. Sherman. And if--we see them here in the hallways.
Mr. Turner. Yes.
Mr. Sherman. When American journalists are not interested
in some hearing of this committee, they may be the only
journalists.
Mr. Turner. Correct.
Mr. Sherman. And they are asking questions. And they are
saying things that might get them in trouble if they were back
in their home countries.
Mr. Turner. Yes.
Mr. Sherman. And Mr. Pack wants to send them there?
Mr. Turner. It could be quite dangerous for many of them.
Obviously, in certain countries--Russia, Iran, Vietnam, China,
many places around the world--the broadcasting that they are
doing for the United States is not welcome. You know, they want
to close off their media markets from the truth.
You know, these people are very passionate people, you
know, they come from these countries and they often want to
drive change in their countries. You know, they want, you know,
American values to go to their communities, you know, respect
for human dignity, freedom of speech, freedom of religion. And
that is why they are, you know, walking around the halls
sometimes when other folks, you know, have given up. They
really care.
They are difficult to recruit because it is hard to find,
you know, a great reporter in some of these really, you know,
specific languages, you know, whether it is Urdu, as you
mentioned, or if we are recruiting a Sindhi journalist or a
Macedonian, you know, they come from the countries. They have a
real tactile feel for the communities and the people.
Mr. Sherman. And Uncle Sam brings them here, uses them to
communicate our message back to their home countries, and then
deports them to the loving arms to the very dictators who are
so opposed to truth that we thought it was necessary to
broadcast into their country.
I believe my time is expired. I yield back. But that is a
crime.
Mr. Turner. Yes, thank you for the question. You know, the
harassment, the potential imprisonment, even worse, I think,
are at risk for some of our journalists if they return.
Mr. Sherman. We ought to be granting asylum, and I yield
back.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
express my appreciation to you and the Ranking Member McCaul
for holding this hearing. I would like to express my
appreciation for your leadership to the two of you particularly
in your introduction of the Open Technology Fund Authorization
Act. It was my real pleasure to be the Republican co-lead on
that bill.
The Open Technology Fund is a vital part of helping
journalists and democracy activists around the world. I think
of China's firewall and how important it is in that role. I
think of Iran and when it was used last January to restore the
internet when hundreds of protestors had been killed, how
incredibly important it is in that role.
And as I am listening to this hearing, trying to not place
nefarious motives on Mr. Pack, I wish he was here to defend
himself because in his absence we are left to speculate as to
his motives and they just do not sound good, and I hope
eventually we will understand what those are.
Mr. McCaul has talked about the role of the OTF in China. I
would like to point out two other regions of the world and ask
some specific questions. Perhaps, Ambassador Kornbluh, you can
help me. In Belarus has there been a role of the OTF and, if
so, how has it impacted that and what obstacles are we
encountering in Belarus?
Ms. Kornbluh. Thank you very much for your question. I did
want to start, first, by echoing what my colleague, Ambassador
Crocker, said about the importance and the professionalism and
expertise of the people, leaders that we recruited, and call
out OTF's leadership including Laura Cunningham. She and her
team are working under incredible pressure and I just admire
their work very much.
On Belarus, specifically, OTF has supported internet
freedom projects for Belarus for over 5 years. Unfortunately,
due to the funding freeze, OTF has been forced to issue stop
work orders to all of its Belarus projects. Prior to the stop
work orders, OTF has been supporting the most popular anti-
censorship and secure communications tools in Belarus including
Psiphon, Tor, and Signal.
And OTF also provided digital security support to Belarus
civil society groups. It funded secure hosting and cyber-attack
mitigation platforms for Belarusian civil society. It developed
peer-to-peer solutions to combat internet blackouts. And it
funded cutting-edge net monitoring tools to better understand
and ultimately overcome censorship in Belarus.
This shows you the multipronged approach that OTF takes
both focusing on funding the technology and empowering the
people and protecting them. Despite ongoing funding challenges,
OTF has continued to try to find ways to support journalists
and civil society in Belarus during this critical time. For
example, after the Belarusian Government announced that it had
blocked all RFE/RL websites, OTF worked quickly to spin up
several mirror sites so that Belarusians could continue to
access RFE/RL's website.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you. It would be hard to imagine a better
dollar-for-dollar investment for the results in these cases
that we have mentioned and in Belarus.
Quickly, before I run out of time, Mr. Fly, would you speak
to the Radio Free Europe, the role that Radio Free Europe plays
particularly combating Russian aggression in Europe?
Mr. Fly. RFE/RL plays an essential role. We were just
discussing Belarus where RFE/RL has a Belarusian language
service, Radio Svaboda, which over decades has provided hope
and inspiration to the Belarusian people, and in moments like
this when the people are taking their future into their own
hands, has played a key role trying to share information
between the people about what is going on in the streets, about
what the government is doing about the crackdown, revealing the
truth about the crackdown.
And as Ambassador Kornbluh said, networks like RFE as part
of the USAGM family rely on entities like OTF to help
circumvent a lot of the restrictions that governments impose on
our broadcasts or our distribution. Beyond Belarus, another key
role that RFE/RL plays is inside Russia itself where it has a
Russian service, a 24/7 Russian TV network, Current Time, in
cooperation with Voice of America, and has been doing
increasingly important digital work reaching a younger
generation of Russians.
And in response to that, the Russian Government has been
cracking down, declaring RFE/RL a foreign agent, trying to
force its journalists out of the country. Despite that, they
continue operating out of a relatively large bureau in Moscow
putting themselves and their families covering a wide range of
issues from the pandemic to politics. And through all of these
services in Russia and outside, we are pushing back against
Russian efforts to control the information space.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Fly and the rest of the
witnesses. I am out of time. I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
And thank you to the witnesses for being here. And, Mr.
Turner, thank you for your strength and your courage to come
before this committee.
And, Mr.--my friend, there, Michael Pack, you know, this
committee works on a bipartisan basis. We fund you on a
bipartisan basis. All the people that you see around this room
here that have their portraits here all supported the efforts
of that Agency. And here you have this hack coming in and
destroying some of the most important things that America can
do.
I came from a country that is very repressive. I came from
Cuba. I know what repression is. I know what repression of the
press is. I know what stories are that make it to the front
page. I have been called a member of the mafia along with Mario
Diaz-Balart, with Senator Menendez, in the front page of the
Cuban paper. We need to combat that. And the Agency that does
that is this, the Voice of America and the people that work
there.
So when you have somebody like this who Senator Menendez
questioned his confirmation from the very beginning that he was
not--it was someone who had questionable qualifications to head
this Agency, who is under investigation by the IRS, it makes
you wonder how these people get confirmed to lead an agency so
important as this one. Someone who is endangering people, these
journalists who are so courageous in this country, because if
these people have to go back to their countries you know that
they are going to be harassed, put in jail, or killed.
So I am very concerned about the direction that this Agency
is going. As chairman of the Western Hemisphere, I am concerned
about what is going on in Venezuela, this information there,
what is going on in Nicaragua. He is shutting down the
newspapers. He is shutting down the independent journalists.
And we are the only buffer. We are the only people that can get
the truth to those who live in those countries, and that is
just two of the countries. Not to talk about Russia or Belarus
and all the other places that we have.
So I find it a little bit conspicuous that one of the
things that seems to be happening is that we are destroying our
efforts to go into Russia and tell the truth to the Russian
people because of the chummy-chummy relationship that our
President has with Putin. I wonder what goes on in those
conversations where we do not get a transcript of. Is this a
result of that?
Mr. Turner. I know people are very concerned about the
politicization, you know, of the Agency and I know that is a
primary concern of this committee. As you point out, the value
is in the truth and getting that information out there. I
think, you know, Mr. Pack has just forced the Agency to
stagnate and, you know, stagnation and decline may be a bit of
its future.
You mentioned Cuba. In 2018, this is a country with the
highest growth in internet access in the world. They started
from a very low base.
Mr. Sires. And we worked very hard to get there.
Mr. Turner. Yes. And there are opportunities now as there
are in China, as there are in other markets around the world.
And this team does not seem to be focused on a strategy. It
does not seem to focused on how to get the best bang for our
buck, you know, to look at our audiences and the platforms and
how to engage the world with truthful information and
information about our policies.
And I think that is one of the biggest downsides right now.
In addition to the loss of credibility is we are losing time in
a critical moment.
Mr. Sires. You know, one of the things that bothers me is
how people could ignore a subpoena from a committee. To me that
bothers me to no end because there should be some consequences
for these people who do not want to answer of their actions
that they are committing in the work that they do when we fund
them. It is the taxpayers' money and we are entitled to know
where that money goes and why they make the decisions that they
make.
So to me, we have to change this idea that people just can
ignore a subpoena from a committee. My time is running out, but
I thank you for your courage in coming here.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Sires.
Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will tell you, I would not know Mr. Pack if he was
standing right in front of me and this seems like a pretty
substantial hit job on him and his actions and et cetera, et
cetera. But I want to point out some things that apparently are
not going to be pointed out by anybody else here.
Last June, a former chief strategy officer for the Agency
working closely with the former CEO of USAGM went to prison for
stealing nearly $40,000 during his tenure. In 2018, a reporter
and a cameraman faked a mortar attack in Nicaragua. Well, that
is interesting reporting. In the fall of 2018, the Voice of
America fired 15 of its employees after discovering they were
accepting bribes from a--or, correction--a Nigerian official.
Wonderful.
The Hoover Institution released a report citing concerns on
China's influence on American institutions including China's
charm offensive on agencies like the VOA and the CCP's
proclivity to otherwise threaten VOA reporters and their
families. Boy, I bet we love to hear that is going on. In late
2018, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, this very committee,
this committee with these people on it, said the USAGM was a
broken agency.
But I guess, according to what we are hearing today, we
should just let it go, just let it continue. Former Secretary
Clinton described USAGM as ``practically defunct'' in its
capacity to tell a message around the world. I am glad we are
paying for that. When Mr. Pack went to investigate the Open
Technology Fund at their DC location, his employees found
laptops and hard drives left unsecured in boxes. An internal
door connecting the Open Technology Fund organization with
other entities in the building complex was not only unlocked,
it was wide open.
I suspect the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, and
North Koreans, none of them have any interest in finding out
what might be in those computers. China, Russia, and other
adversaries are constantly trying to hack U.S. agencies. This
discovery was not a great look for the OTF. Apparently, OTF has
also been holding meetings on Zoom calls. Well, that sounds
pretty secure to me as an individual who has been privileged
and honored to hold a top-secret security clearance for about
35 years in the U.S. military.
Mr. Chairman, I want to enter for the record a letter from
Mr. Pack to you where he says that his staff proposed 8 days
within the month of September when they could appear. If you
would, sir.
Mr. Engel. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Perry. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, this committee respects the importance of
media independence, media freedom as absolutely essential to
any functioning civil society and we are aware and familiar
with the firewall put in place to protect journalists working
at USAGM and its subdivisions from political interference. We
all support such protections for our journalists and reporters.
Highlighting some of the issues will shed light as to why
Mr. Pack was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to his current role
and the charge that is now before him to reform the Agency.
Let's start out with a newly released report from the Office of
Personnel and Management detailing USAGM's poor vetting
practices for its employees. Fifteen hundred--1,500 USAGM
employees and contractors between 2010 and 2020--that is right
now in case anybody is wondering--40 percent of the Agency's
work force were not properly vetted before being hired.
Well, I do not know. Who should Mr. Pack look toward that
for accountability there? Should he look toward us sitting up
here? I do not know. I would think it would be the people
running the Agency. According to Real Clear Politics, the
Agency cleared hundreds of employees and contractors to work
for the U.S. Government, many from authoritarian nations the
U.S. considers adversaries. These unvetted employees maintained
access to USAGM broadcasting platforms and tools, government
buildings, IT systems, and senior government officials.
Oh, I wonder why this Agency is incompetent and ineffective
and inept. I wonder why. I have no idea. The reforms undertaken
by Mr. Pack have undergone a significant amount of public
scrutiny as they should, but USAGM's poor vetting procedures
over those last decades continue to threaten U.S. national
security and it is entirely the fault of those who mismanaged
the process, whoever that is.
Both USAGM and the State Department employees have said
that OTF's budget can be broken down into two parts,
approximately 25 percent of it spent on technology tools that
facilitate its missions to break through barriers of
authoritarian technology control--25 percent. And I will
conclude, Mr. Chairman, the other 75 percent is dedicated to
extravagant conferences at popular resort spots, extremely
generous salaries, benefits, and redundant projects already
being undertaken at other agencies.
I do not know what is going on here, but I am not ready to
blame Mr. Pack for everything. He should be allowed to come in
here and we should work collaboratively instead of the road
show and the circus that is going on right now in this
committee. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Engel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Perry.
Let me just say that Mr. Pack had every opportunity to be
here today to defend himself and his actions. He is the one who
chose not to come and to ignore this committee. And in terms of
the dates that he proposed to come to us and you said we did
not accept it, those proposed dates were in October when the
House is in recess.
So it made no sense for him to come when the House is in
recess. He could have come today and defended himself and he
could have given us some dates. We would have been happy to
accommodate him.
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, there is a
fallacy in the logic of my friend who just spoke in positing
that there are a series of problems over the last ten or 20
years and that is why we had to have a total purge and the
dismantlement of programs that are, in fact, effective, reach
audiences, and propound a democratic point of view in
authoritarian societies.
That is false logic. If there are problems you clean them
up. You do not dismantle and purge the organization and that is
what we are talking about. And if the actions Mr. Perry says
are justifiable, if they are justifiable, then I would assume
Mr. Pack would run, not walk, to this hearing to propound his
philosophy and defend his actions and it is final. His absence
speaks volumes about the fact that he, A, does not believe,
apparently, in his own personal accountability while justifying
his purges as an act of accountability for others, and he
apparently does not have the confidences on actions and so-
called reform to come before the committee and justify them.
Ms. Kornbluh, I was really bowled over by your testimony
because you enumerated the actual consequences of the actions
undertaken by Mr. Pack on a wide swath of the world in terms of
programs. Is it your view that while painful, what Mr. Pack is
doing is just cleaning up problems that were ignored by
predecessors, and is it your view that apparently my friend
from Pennsylvania wants us to believe that the organization is
just replete with people who are partying on the taxpayer dime
and, you know, being callous about their computers and,
frankly, being ineffectual in their work?
Is that a fair characterization, in your view, of the
organization whose board you chaired?
Ms. Kornbluh. Thank you so much for giving me a chance to
respond. It is hard not to be emotional about this because the
team at OTF, it is a small team. There are ten people. They
have voluntarily taken a pay cut under the financial pressure
that the Agency is in because they care so much about the
mission and vulnerable journalists and human rights activists
and ordinary people around the world who are using their tools
and services.
I would love to be able to submit for the record fuller
responses but, needless to say, I believe the Congressman has
been misinformed. The security claims are just not true. We do
not leave information on hard drives. We do not use Zoom.
Ninety percent of the funding is used for programming, for
technology. There are no two million dollars in conferences. I
think that must be a problem with somebody reading some
numbers.
In the past we have spent 200,000 on bringing together
civil society groups, but nothing like two million. In light of
the epidemic, of course, we have not been bringing people
together at all. So those claims are, unfortunately, not true.
Mr. Connolly. So wait a minute. I want to get this
straight. So you all did not spend two million dollars on
Donald Trump-owned properties like Mar-a-Lago or, you know,
that was the Secret Service. Sorry. Maybe my friend got that
mixed up.
Ms. Kornbluh. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly. Can I just ask a question here----
Ms. Kornbluh. Yes.
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. Because my time is going to run
out.
But again, going back to your testimony which was so
compelling in terms of the damage being done here, the
opportunity costs we are incurring, and it is a self-inflicted
incurrence, you know, in criminal law one of the questions
always asked when investigators are looking at crime is ``cui
bono?'' Who benefits?
When we look at what Mr. Pack has done to this
organization, who benefits? It seems to me, deliberate or
otherwise, Mr. Pack is handing a gift to the Chinese, to the
Russians, to the Iranians, and the Venezuelans. But maybe that
is just me. What do you think?
Ms. Kornbluh. I think, unfortunately, that the actions
taken against the Open Technology Fund strengthen America's
adversaries and competitors. It threatens authoritarians around
the world by weakening a key element of American soft power.
Mr. Connolly. I want to give Ms. Bennett or Mr. Fly an
opportunity to respond as well, if I have time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Engel. Well, you do not. But we will--if they speed it
up, we will let them get a few words in.
Mr. Connolly. I am sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
graciousness.
Mr. Turner. I am happy to give a quick response to some of
the things that Congressman Perry brought up. It is true we had
a chief strategy officer a couple years ago who was faking
travel. We fired him. I signed that letter. You know, we do not
put up with that.
There was questions about a mortar attack and how a video
was edited at Office of Cuba Broadcasting. They have been
investigating it and proposing those people, two people, for
removal because they care about their credibility. The
Nigerian, it was our Hausa staff. Someone left envelopes, a
dignitary who came to visit, and, you know, we cannot have the
appearance that there is, you know, any influence on the
journalism. So VOA removed those people.
OTF does not have hard drives. They are a cloud-based
system. I do not know what was seen on the floors when they
went into the office. They have not been operating there. They
have been mostly working from home because of the pandemic. I
have not used Zoom with them. Jitsi is a product that they
funded, which is secure, and they use that tool.
As far as the OPM report, you know, they dinged us for a
lot of administrative things and we have been trying to resolve
those. There were 37 items in the report that they delivered.
We have addressed more than half of those. There was no
recommendation that we should remove people from their jobs
because, you know, there was not an MOU in place, which is the
reason that, you know, that they pointed to.
Ultimately, we are not a national security agency. Mr. Pack
is making it seem like national security is at risk here. If
you are a VOA journalist and sit down at your desk, you cannot
log into any national security data base. It is a building full
of journalists. Our grantees are buildings full of journalists
who are running down stories by talking to Congressmen like
yourselves, newsmakers.
So I think it is really just sort of pretext and a good
cover for taking some, you know, abhorrent actions.
Mr. Engel. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Burchett.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here. I would like to deviate
from the current conversation and talk a little bit about
Belarus.
Mr. Turner, while you were CFO, did you review any proposed
plan for Radio Free Europe to surge its broadcasts and increase
support for free Belarus in light of the present protests that
have erupted there?
Mr. Turner. I do not recall that specifically. Obviously,
that is an important country in Radio Free Europe's portfolio.
You know, we give wide discretion in terms of the use of
budgetary resources to our grantees, so Jamie Fly as the leader
of that organization really has the say over where is the money
best spent. So I would defer to him on maybe specific questions
about Belarus and Radio Svaboda.
Mr. Burchett. OK. Well, let me just ask you this then. If
something like that were to happen, walk me through the process
to where there would be that ramp-up, so to speak, and what is
the ultimate goal? You know, oddly enough, the first time--I
remember hearing about Radio Free Europe my whole life, and
then in college this little band out of Georgia called R.E.M.
was playing on the Cumberland Avenue strip----
Mr. Turner. Good one.
Mr. Burchett [continuing]. And came out with the song
``Radio Free Europe'' and we all thought it was cool, but we
never really understood what it was about. But I see several
people in the audience nodding that they were, in fact, their
age group is in mine, so that is cool. But I would like to know
that process if you would just--it is not even in my notes. It
just came to me.
Mr. Turner. Sure.
Mr. Burchett. I am just curious at how that whole thing
works. And what is the goal? I mean do you get on there and
just pro, you know, pro-freedom, pro-what, and then how does it
work? How do you get the people to listen, first of all?
Mr. Turner. Yes.
Mr. Burchett. You know.
Mr. Turner. You know it is amazing, just sort of, you know,
the power of truth. The ranking member talked about China and
the start of the pandemic, and we saw our numbers in China
shoot up tremendously after the coronavirus broke out because
people in Wuhan are looking around and they know something bad
is happening and their government is not telling them what it
is, so they were flocking to Radio Free Asia.
They are flocking to VOA to find that truthful information.
We saw that in Iran when protests broke out this summer over
the kind of dire economic straits there. We saw it after the
killing of General Soleimani where our numbers shoot up. When
there are cases where we really want to try to surge into an
area and, you know, increase maybe the number of frequencies
that we are broadcasting on or add additional hours of
television or radio, which is mostly staff time, you know, it
is mostly, you know, people in studios and cameras that are
involved in this, we kind of, you know, circle the wagons and
pull together the funding in order to provide that surge.
We keep approximately 1 percent of our $800 million budget
as sort of an emergency fund and, you know, if we get through
the year without an enormous crisis that we need to tap into
it, then it gets spent on the normal things that we do. It is
around eight million dollars. So we would have a discussion,
first of all, with the head of Radio Free Europe, so in this
case we would have discussed this with Jamie Fly. And if he
needed resources, we would dispatch that to him. It is really
up to him as to how he wants to deploy that.
Is it more people on the ground? Do we need technology
support from OTF? In many places around the globe, OTF quietly
is providing support to protestors, so the Hong Kong protestors
are protecting their identities from surveillance by OTF tools.
Protestors in Iran, we have seen it in Beirut, around the world
people are using these tools to protect themselves. So we would
surge funds on technology and also to the broadcasting
operations.
Mr. Burchett. How do you know who all is watching it? I
mean how do you--what are your ratings? How does that work?
Mr. Turner. You know, some tools, some information is
easier. On digital and social media, we often get metrics from
the platform. So on whether if it is YouTube or Facebook or
Twitter, Instagram, or a particular platform that might be
specific to a country, we often can get that digital
information. Other times, we actually use surveys. Gallup is
one of our biggest providers.
And sometimes it seems strange, but we have----
Mr. Burchett. Gallup can trace that like----
Mr. Turner [continuing]. Gallup polls in Iran and they
will----
Mr. Burchett. When Congressman McCaul put that deal out on
China, I mean I heard a lot about that.
Mr. Turner. Yes.
Mr. Burchett. And that was like, I guess, if he were to
walk the streets of China, he probably could not walk the
streets. They would probably all be asking for his autographs,
but.
Mr. Turner. Yes. It is the power of the truth. You know, a
report like that comes out----
Mr. Burchett. Yes.
Mr. Turner [continuing]. And obviously it elicits a strong
reaction, you know, from the CCP because, you know, they fear
that kind of truth. And, you know, the information that we
provide is just unvarnished truth of the highest journalistic,
you know, quality.
Mr. Burchett. All right, very cool. So nobody on there is
speaking with my accent, I assume.
Mr. Turner. Well.
Mr. Burchett. We already got freedom in Tennessee. We are
Radio Free Tennessee all the time, so we are cool.
Mr. Turner. They would like it. You know, it is amazing,
you know, our audiences really are interested in America, you
know, we are kind of, you know, a cultural touchstone for the
world and people want to know what people are doing, what we
are thinking about. You know, teens in China want to know what
teens in America think about different issues.
Mr. Burchett. Right.
Mr. Turner. You know, so it could be, you know, a kid on
the streets of Knoxville, if we were interviewing him and
translating it to Mandarin, people, kids in China will be
listening. Kids in Cuba would want to know what are teens
thinking.
Mr. Burchett. I have run over, but I would pretty much say
for the record that they would probably need a translator for
me. So----
Mr. Turner. We have a lot.
Mr. Burchett [continuing]. As many of the members in this
committee will attest that they need one as well, but I will go
on record.
I know have gone over, Mr. Chairman, but East Tennessee,
specifically the second congressional district, is the only
place in America where people do not speak with an accent, so
thank you.
Mr. Engel. You know, Mr. Burchett, I let you speak longer
because I just love your accent.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, brother. That is very cool. I
appreciate that. I always notice that Representative Omar,
sometimes when she is--I just saw her in here, but she has
walked out. But sometimes when I speak, she gets a grin on her
face and I am not sure what that is about. But----
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Burchett [continuing]. That is cool with me. Thank you,
brother.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Engel. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to
you and the ranking member for holding this really critically
important hearing today. And I am really grateful to all of the
witnesses for coming and sharing your experiences.
I would like to spend the time I have focusing on the role
of journalists in the efforts of that we have been discussing
today. And, Ms. Bennett, I think I am going to direct most of
my questions to you to try to tap into your illustrious career
as a decorated and accomplished journalist, and so let me just
go through some of these.
First, can you explain the firewall that exists? Tell us
what that is and why it is so important to independent
journalism.
Ms. Bennett. Yes, thank you for asking that. A firewall of
sorts, although it is not called that, exists in virtually
every news organization at least in this country. And the
purpose of this firewall is to allow the journalists to operate
independently without reference to any kind of pressure from,
in the private sector it is from the people who provide the
money from the advertising sides, from the circulation side,
from people who in the community would want to put pressure on
you not to cover one thing or another or to cover it in a
specific way.
That firewall is a matter--it is not called a firewall in
the private industry, but it does very clearly exist. I
operated for most of my career under that system. Moving into
USAGM, it was actually a system that was codified into law and
practice. And that meant that the journalists are free to make
decisions on what they cover as was just as Mr. Turner just
remarked, on where you cover, how you cover it, what
journalists you hire, what journalists you discipline and for
what purpose, how you maintain critical standards.
Those things are all handled by the journalists without
reference to pressure from the outside, because even an
identical operation so, example, disciplining someone for
biased coverage, it is different when it is done by a
journalist who has no actual association with either side of
the argument than when it is by people who have some kind of
connection with that.
Mr. Deutch. All right, so thank you very much. So let me
ask you then, for VOA journalists who are being fired, who are
being forced to leave the country, can you speak to some of the
possible scenarios that they might face when they return home?
Ms. Bennett. Well, again, as I mentioned, I am no longer
there so I cannot speak to specific things that are happening
there. But I can say that one of the things that we are always
acutely aware of with all our journalists is the dangers they
face back home from the reporting that they do. Whether they
are in this country or out of this country their families are
facing pressure.
Many of the people who are coming to us from other
countries are some of the bravest people I know. I, in a 40-
year career, used to hear people talk about courageous
journalism, and I have said to my colleagues now, I did not
know what that meant until I came to VOA and watched the kind
of pressure from a variety of things--financial pressure,
physical pressure, imprisonment.
We have had to repeatedly, over my career at VOA I have had
to deal with extricating journalists from very, very difficult
and dangerous situations. So the fact that journalists who are
sent home without--suddenly, it certainly could be a danger.
Mr. Deutch. So let me be a little more specific. On August
31st, a group of veteran VOA journalists penned a letter to the
acting director saying that, and I quote, ``the purge appears
to be expanding to include U.S. permanent residents and even
people who have----
[Audio interference.]
Mr. Deutch [continuing]. Recklessly expressing that being a
journalist is a great cover for a spy.'' Can you share with us,
given your experience in a very long and successful career as a
journalist, highlight why that kind of remark is so dangerous
not just to lives of journalists, but also to truth and
transparency which we all know are critical cornerstones of
democracy?
Ms. Bennett. Well, you know, again, without reference to
that specific document, which I think speaks very much for
itself, I would say that fighting the perception that
journalists are spies is one of the most critical factors
particularly in reporting from danger zones. As my colleague,
my former colleague, Bay Fang, who was the former head of Radio
Free Asia who did work in conflict zones, explains, that is
something you really had to be very careful with because it
would endanger the lives of journalists who were operating in
these countries.
So suggestions that journalists are spies is a very
critical and very dangerous thing to do. As for the issues with
the security clearance, I think it was Mr. Turner explained it
very, very well and in fact that the part of the issue with the
vetting procedures that were being scrutinized was that VOA and
USAGM were actually trying to use a more stringent vetting
procedure that was more appropriate for people who had been
living in foreign countries. So it was not that we were doing
an insignificant, a less significant procedure. It was that we
were trying to do a more significant procedure.
So that is part of the issue was to make sure that these
things, the reality and the perception, matched.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you very much, Ms. Bennett. I appreciate
it.
And, Mr. Chairman, I join with so many of my colleagues in
expressing my great frustration and regret and anger that Mr.
Pack is not here to respond to these kinds of questions and to
explain to us why he would utter statements like that that are
reckless and dangerous, and to actually address our concerns. I
hope that we will have the opportunity. I suspect not, but I am
grateful for the opportunity to speak with this illustrious
panel of witnesses and to hear from them today. Thanks so much.
I yield back.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Deutch.
Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for holding this
hearing. This is just so discouraging to see another part of
our government that has just been so compromised. First----
[Audio interference.]
Ms. Bass [continuing]. At the State Department, and now to
see this. I wanted to know if you could describe to me what
UltraSurf is and who has been pushing it and what the problems
with it are. And I am not sure, whichever witness would like to
respond to this.
Ms. Kornbluh. I think maybe I should try. Congresswoman
Bass, on UltraSurf, you know, that technology that was rejected
by the State Department and the USAGM's office because the
technology did not appear to be satisfactory. It is not an open
source technology, and that is the limit of what I can say
about it as the chair. I have not been involved in evaluating
it.
Ms. Bass. Anyone?
Mr. Turner. I can also add that it is an internet
circumvention tool. It focused largely on China. As Ambassador
Kornbluh mentioned, it is an open source which is the very--it
has not been subjected to a really rigorous code review and
audit. We have been unable to fund that tool or work with that
organization through OTF because they are not in compliance
with the rigorous sort of security reviews that OTF does.
Obviously, when you have these tools that people are
risking their lives on, you know, if the government knows that
they are accessing our content or perhaps if they are a human
rights activist or a protestor it is very dangerous to them, so
we really want to have the highest assurance that it is
completely safe. We have other tools which reach China very,
very effectively and that is sort of my extent of my knowledge
of UltraSurf as well. But I am sure the Agency could provide
additional information, and OTF as well.
Ms. Bass. Either one of you?
Hello, can you guys hear me?
Ambassador?
Mr. Engel. Ms. Bass, can you repeat that because we did not
hear you for part of the time.
Ms. Bass. I am sorry. I did not hear you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Engel. We could not hear part of what you were saying
so if you could please repeat it.
Ms. Bass. Oh, sure. I was just saying, you know, who has
been pushing UltraSurf? Who has been pushing the U.S.
Government to support it? And maybe because the connection has
been a little dicey, I did not hear if you guys responded
before.
Ms. Kornbluh. Grant, do you have information on that?
Mr. Turner. You know, I believe the UltraSurf organization
has worked in the past with the Lantos Foundation and they
have, I think, represented them in some form. But I do not know
much more beyond that.
Ms. Bass. Okay. Okay.
Mr. Turner. You know, other than we, of course, are very
willing to consider tools that meet our requirements.
Ms. Kornbluh. Congresswoman, we would be happy to submit
more information for the record for you.
Ms. Bass. Okay. All right. And this is to all of you. Has
Mr. Pack ever given any indication that he would demand loyalty
from USAGM staff and try to push out those who he did not
consider loyal?
Ambassador Crocker? Anybody? Is it difficult to hear me or
what is going on?
Mr. Engel. We can hear you now. Is there----
Mr. Fly. This is Jamie Fly. I will just say at least in my
case there was no demand of loyalty because there was no
conversation, which I think was the case with the other network
heads. So at least with those of us at the networks who were
removed very early, as Grant said on his first day in the
office, he did not have time to ask for loyalty because he did
not bother to talk to us.
Ms. Bass. And if I am not mistaken, in your earlier
testimony it was not as though you were advised that anything
that you did was improper?
Mr. Fly. No. It was clear that removed me, and then the one
conversation that I had with him about 10 days later that I was
removed without cause.
Ms. Bass. Okay.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Engel. OK. Thank you, Ms. Bass. Thank you, Ms. Bass.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
calling this hearing.
I would like to just ask maybe Jamie Fly or any of the
others who might want to respond to this, but back in 2014 when
Khadija Ismayilova was arrested, a Radio Free Europe reporter
but an indigenous person to Azerbaijan, on, really, trumped-up,
politically charged charges that included--that sent her to
prison for 7 years, or least got a prison sentence because she
was serving some of it, I held a hearing.
We had the vice president editor in chief of programming
for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty come and testify, gave
great testimony on her behalf. I introduced a bill called the
Azerbaijan Human Rights Act and it listed the people like her
who had been unfairly incarcerated and on politically trumped-
up charges. And she had pointed out, frankly, how corrupt
Aliyev was, and for that she was harshly punished.
I wonder, you know, fast forward to right now with Belarus
and what is happening there, you know, many of us have spoken
out repeatedly for decades against Alexander Lukashenko who was
dubbed for years as the last dictator of Europe, of course, now
we again have Putin.
But the problem is that he is a charmer even though he is a
harsh man and for a while there it looked like he was getting
some traction with Europe and with ourselves with the United
States. He did let out most of the political prisoners, but the
recent crackdown and the gross mistreatment of the opposition
is calling out for again for us to be in absolute solidarity
with the democrats who are seeking a better life for all
Belarusians.
And I am wondering if you could speak to, if you would,
where are we on Azerbaijan? I know this is not as much of a
focused hearing on countries' specific concerns and is there
plans to ratchet up the effort even more so for Belarus?
Because they, you know, obviously, the media is totally
controlled by Lukashenko. We know that RT now is running the
media as are other operatives from the Kremlin. Not that the
ones that they replaced were any better, but it is truly a one
monopoly and the message is all Lukashenko, Lukashenko,
Lukashenko.
So again, in order to pierce that very, very dangerous
misinformation campaign, is RFE/RL ratcheting up its efforts,
vis-a-vis Belarus?
Mr. Fly. Thanks for those questions, Congressman, and
thanks for your advocacy on behalf of Khadija, and, it goes
without saying, to other members as well who often weigh in on
behalf of RFE/RL journalists throughout my tenure. In
Azerbaijan we have a strong service. We were kicked out of the
country when Khadija was the bureau chief because of her
investigative reporting about the wealth of the ruling family.
So we operate out of Prague, but provide a key service to the
Azeri people.
Khadija's--the pressure on Khadija happened well before my
tenure, but upon taking office I tried to engage her directly
to help her resolve her outstanding issues with the Azeri
Government and worked with a number of Members of Congress and
with the Department of State on her behalf. I would,
unfortunately, report that she still is facing a travel ban,
although she is not in prison anymore, but she is not able to
travel internationally which is what she was trying to do prior
to the pandemic. So her case continues to need support.
In Belarus, to pick up on what Grant Turner was talking
about earlier, RFE/RL has had a strong service for decades.
This is really the moment that a service like Svaboda steps up,
covers protests. My former colleagues tell me that since June,
our journalists at Svaboda have a combined total of 125 days
behind bars. They have been picked up 16 times while reporting
live on the pre-and post-election protests.
So they are out there on the streets putting themselves at
risk. And what they need, to pick up on what Grant was talking
about earlier, what they would normally look to USAGM for is
surge support. They would look for additional resources to get
up on, in this case, the radio airwaves since the internet is
often being blocked.
My understanding is RFE/RL has gone up on radio again,
temporarily, to deal with this crisis, but it has had to pay
for it out of its own pocket because of a lack of a response
from Mr. Pack and his team at USAGM. They would be looking for
USAGM support in engaging the State Department when their
journalists are in prison, as some are, when they are picked up
and detained, when their accreditation is stripped.
It is not just the Belarusian journalists inside Belarus,
but RFE/RL had a number of Russian-speaking correspondents from
its Russian networks who were in Belarus to report all that was
happening there so the Russian people knew what was going on in
Belarus. They were expelled from the country early on.
And so the unfortunate thing, just to close, as I have been
gone during this crisis--it happened shortly after I was
fired--is this is the moment where resources should be surged
from USAGM, additional support provided to the networks, which
is exactly by the way what the Kremlin did for Belarusian State
TV, surging in anchors, technical assistants, to make sure that
Lukashenko's propaganda network stayed on the air.
We need a similar surge in support for independent media
including Radio Svaboda. I think they are doing the best under
difficult circumstances, but USAGM could be doing much more
from my understanding.
Mr. Engel. The gentleman's time has expired.
We go to Mr. Keating.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank all of you for your service. I, you
know, just think it is important in the beginning to stress the
bipartisan support this committee has shown for this Agency.
You can look back at the time when the Republican majority was
in charge as well as today when the Democratic majority is in
charge and it has been consistent and strong and bipartisan.
And that same bipartisanship has come through with the
amendment I offered with the National Defense Authorization
Act, with the chair and the ranking member joining me, to work
with the Agency to depoliticize and to strengthen the oversight
function and to prevent changes in the firewall within the
Agency.
So it is a strong bipartisan history here that has been
deviated by the actions of Mr. Pack and the Administration. And
Mr. Pack has received most of the attention here this morning
and rightfully so. He has violated a subpoena in an arrogant
manner, a lawful subpoena, and you are struck with the irony
here that the CEO who defies the rule of law here at home is in
charge of an agency that is missioned with promoting the tenet
of democracy, of rule of law, globally.
But, you know, I want to get to the bottom of this because
he deserves his criticism here, certainly, and more so, but he
was not put there alone. He was not given the power to be there
by himself and he would not continue to act like this without
support from the Administration.
And I noticed in the testimony this morning there was
reference to things, for instance, the heart of the attack of
the Trump Administration, so I want to ask our witnesses to
give a little more testimony to what these attacks have been so
I can get a better understanding. This is not just one person
acting alone. When witnesses have mentioned this kind of
action, these kinds of attacks on the Agency, could you explore
what they are for everyone that is listening?
Mr. Turner. I can probably add one----
Mr. Keating. Probably Mr. Fly can----
Mr. Turner. I can probably add one item which I think is
relevant and it has to do with the J-1 visa holders that, you
know, that we were told by an individual who is, you know, in
Mr. Pack's team that, you know, it was largely to be in
alignment with the White House's immigration policies, you
know, rather than connected to the needs of the Agency, and,
really, the damage that could be done to a lot of our services
if these critical skill sets went away. So I think, you know,
there is an example of one instance where, you know, there is,
I think, this connection.
Mr. Keating. It was not about the mission of the Agency. It
was about other broader White House policy that had been
referenced; is that correct?
Mr. Turner. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Keating. Like immigration.
Mr. Turner. Yes.
Anyone else want to comment on these kind of attacks?
Because we do not want to put this morning's focus just on the
fact that there is a person in place. They are there for a
reason. They are doing things for a reason.
Mr. Fly. Congressman, I would just add, I mean, I think I
referenced Trump Administration attacks, although I might let
Amanda speak more about that. But what I was referencing was
that the President's own direct attacks on Voice of America
which obviously led up to the confirmation of Michael Pack.
Obviously, I was running RFE/RL which was not directly attacked
by the President, but it still was an attack on the Agency and,
ultimately, on the credibility of our journalists.
The one final thing I will just say, I mean, look, I am a
lifelong Republican. I do not believe that Mr. Pack's agenda is
a coordinated strategy that encompasses the entire
Administration. As I testified, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
was on the USAGM board and including our corporate boards until
Michael Pack dismissed him the same night he removed the
network heads. Secretary of State Pompeo or his representatives
fully supported the reform agenda that many of us were pushing
at the network.
Mr. Keating. Well, then if I could, because our time is
very short, then it must be someone above Mr. Pompeo that is
bolstering him, which leads us to whether it is Mr. Miller,
because of immigration, or the President himself. And you made
reference to the President's own remarks, so I understand the
distinction between the support perhaps of the Secretary of
State, but he is not calling the shots.
And we know what it is not. We heard from one of our
colleagues, oh, it was lack of security, Zoom, even though you
do not use Zoom. It was hard drives, even though you use the
cloud. You do not use hard drives. It was concerns about
security, even though there is more egregious breaches of
security right in the White House with Ivanka Trump and Jared
Kushner and the President himself using an unsecured phone. So
we know what it is not.
But I want to quickly go to the greater concern too.
Ambassador Crocker, who I respect enormously and have had
occasion to deal with him in other capacities, mentioned the
threat to national security. Can you take a few minutes at the
end of this to comment on the threat of, really, undercutting
this Agency to our Nation's security?
Ambassador Crocker, if you are still there, or anyone?
Mr. Crocker. I am here, sir. The logic that lay behind the
founding of VOA in the dark days of World War II was our
national security, very directly, very clearly, and that is set
by reference that initial broadcast. In just a few words, Mr.
Hale, I think, summarized the strategic logic of the creation
of VOA and its continuing mission today along with the other
entities and grantees.
It is an ugly world out there as you know, sir. You
visited----
Mr. Keating. Well, thank you. If I could, you are breaking
up and my time is running out. But I would say it is so
relevant today in that regard. I just--it was just days ago
that I was on a broadcast and a briefing with Sviatlana
Tsikhanouskaya from Lithuania and she was commenting on the
importance when--we were talking about what the U.S. can do of
the kind of functions you are talking about, and your Agency
truly represents not what they are being threatened to be
turned into by this Administration and Mr. Pack. I yield back.
Ms. Bennett. Mr. Chairman, may I respond since my name was
mentioned? This is Amanda Bennett.
Mr. Engel. Certainly.
Ms. Bennett. I would like to thank the Congressman for his
question and just reiterate that yes, as Mr. Fly noted, I was
the subject of some--or my agency was the subject of some
attacks.
But I would just like to say that for me the issue--that
raises the issue of the strength of the firewall. I do not know
of any Administration that is happy with the coverage that the
media gives of them, ever, in the history of Administrations,
and so the fact that the President might have something to
complain about or be unhappy about with the coverage is nothing
new.
But the ability to then have anyone reach in and alter that
coverage is the real problem here. Everyone should be free to
have their own opinions, but VOA and the other agencies, the
other entities within the USAGM Agency have been,
traditionally, completely independent of such scrutiny and
actions. And that is what I think is important for us to focus
on that----
Mr. Keating. And that I have put in my amendment.
Ms. Bennett. Thank you for doing so.
Mr. Engel. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting this
hearing, and I thank the ranking member, Mr. McCaul, for his
really thoughtful remarks as well.
Thank you to our witnesses for your extraordinary courage.
And this is a deeply disturbing set of events in this happening
at USAGM. And, you know, the power of the truth and the ability
to ensure that trustworthy, reliable news is provided is
essential, obviously, to freedom and democracy here and around
the world. And the idea that an agency which has done this so,
such important work for so long is now under attack by this
Administration, sadly, is just one more example of breaking
important norms.
So, Mr. Turner, I want to start with you. You said that it
was clear to you after several weeks that Mr. Pack did not come
to the Agency to run it. I am wondering if it was clear to you
what he came to the Agency to do.
Mr. Turner. You know, I still have not settled on that
because, you know, no real strategy has emerged. He removed,
you know, all of the network heads and he had a rather long
confirmation process. So if he had people in mind to replace
them, I would think he would have, you know, advanced those,
you know, those individuals.
I do not think he came to run it because to me it does not
feel like he is engaged in it. He has not wanted to fund parts
of it, you know, it has been about starving the organization of
resources, whether it is, you know, people, money.
Mr. Cicilline. Yes. So, Mr. Turner, I guess that is my
question. When you do not fill positions and you remove people
from positions and you starve grantees, you do not run the
Agency, you actually stop it from doing its work which it seems
like was at least the result of his conduct.
Ms. Bennett, I want to ask you, you know, you spoke very
powerfully about the importance of the firewall. And I wonder
if you would describe what the consequences are when you have
these serious violations in the firewall repeatedly. What that
does to the confidence that people have of what is being
reported and the morale of the news reporting agencies and the
impact on our efforts to strengthen the free press and
democracy here and around the world.
Ms. Bennett. Well, again, since I have not been there
during any period after my leadership ended, I can speak in
general. However, in saying that as I said in the beginning,
the thing that distinguishes Voice of America, the thing that
distinguishes American broadcasting from the propaganda efforts
of the authoritarian regimes that we cover is the fact that we
are known to be and are in practice separate from any
Administration, this Administration or any Administration.
Any kind of attempts to regulate the output of the media by
any Administration would be unwelcome and would be damaging to
the reputation of the journalists and the journalism. And so if
you want to look at the single thing that separates us from
propaganda, it is that independence, the ability to report
things without a reference to whoever is in power.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
Ambassador Kornbluh, you spoke about the impact of the sort
of ending or preventing funding to OTF as a result of Mr.
Pack's direction. Can you speak about what were the
implications on the work and, more broadly, what is the
consequence of the kind of intervention that this
Administration has attempted to impose on the operations, the
breaking of the firewall in terms of the mission of the Agency
and, frankly, who benefits from this conduct that diminishes
the American voice around the world?
Ms. Kornbluh. Thank you, Congressman. And thank you for
your leadership on technology issues, so I know that you know
the importance of this internet freedom work.
You know, I could go through the specific implications in
Hong Kong where OTF has a long history of supporting internet
freedom efforts and was poised to expand its efforts in Hong
Kong, but it was going to surge support for circumvention tools
and expand support for digital training and then USAGM froze
and continues to withhold its funding and did that just weeks
before the new security laws came into effect, so OTF has not
been able to support any of these efforts.
I talked about Belarus. Iran, we have a similar
heartbreaking story, and so on and so on. And so I think, you
know, there are agreed-upon U.S. foreign policy and national
security priorities which OTF, this tiny organization, this
bipartisan success story, has furthered, you know, behind the
scenes in its quiet, powerful way working with civil society
groups, technologists and so on around the world and now it is
weakened. Not only does it not have the funding to do that, but
there have been attacks on it, on its reputation, on its
security that are just unfounded that really, you know, will
weaken its reputation into the future even if the funding is
restored.
So to your question about who does it help and who does it
harm, it harms us. It harms the United States. It harms people
who support democracy and democratic values around the world.
And, unfortunately, it strengthens authoritarians.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you so much. You know, Mr. Pack's
conduct is a gift to our adversaries. It is shocking. And when
you think about the strategic national security and
geopolitical consequences of the undermining of the important
work of these agencies and then the cowardly failure of Mr.
Pack to come and defend his just horrific behavior undermining
the core responsibilities that he has and to think that he is
being paid by the taxpayers of this country and does not have
the decency to comply with a lawful subpoena and answer for his
conduct, to me, says it all.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Cicilline.
Mr. Castro.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that I have
been running around to three committee hearings today, so if I
retread some ground that we have covered, please forgive me.
But to justify his decision to revoke the visas of foreign
journalists working with VOA Michael Pack claimed that they
might be spies. He presented zero evidence to back up this
claim, however. I find the use of the term ``spies'' extremely
interesting. For decades, authoritarian States have used this
exact term to discredit or target journalists working for USAGM
grantees.
And so I want to ask the panel, do you believe a U.S.
official claiming VOA journalists are spies helps authoritarian
governments discredit the work of USAGM's grantees? And I open
that up to anyone on the panel.
Mr. Fly. I will just jump in. Even, I think Mr. Pack's
comments were primarily about VOA, but I will just say having
run RFE/RL, it is incredibly demoralizing for the journalists
of an entity like RFE/RL to hear the head of USAGM making such
comments, especially given as you noted that these are the same
slurs that are hurled at them by the Kremlin, by authoritarian
regimes wherever they operate, and they are often accusations
that are weaponized as they are captured or as I mentioned
before with our colleagues in Belarus, thrown into prison.
And so it is incredibly dangerous for the USAGM head to
start basically writing the press release that the Kremlin can
then turn around and use the next week about USAGM journalists.
Mr. Castro. Thank you.
Mr. Turner. I cannot say it any better than Jamie that that
is exactly my same sentiment. To use that term against
reporters creates incredible danger. It is so irresponsible and
it shows how little he knows about this Agency.
Mr. Castro. And also the unceremonious dumping of
journalists was quite bizarre, actually. The way that it was
handled was very much what we would see in other countries with
authoritarian rulers or nations that do not exactly follow the
rule of law.
But I want to ask you, you know, right now our country is
facing a global information war from countries such as Russia
and China and others, and our best defense from their
misinformation campaigns is to provide objective, fact-based
reporting so people around the world have access to truthful
information.
Outlets like Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Voice of
America, and the others are uniquely suited to be on the front
lines of that battle. So how do the changes that Mr. Pack has
made impact our ability to combat the misinformation campaigns
of adversaries like Russia? And I would note that this
includes, it includes inserting partisanship into USAGM and
firing foreign journalists who have a better sense of how to
appeal to target audiences abroad.
Mr. Crocker. Yes. This is Ryan Crocker. Can you hear me?
Mr. Castro. Yes.
Mr. Crocker. Very briefly, the steps that have been taken
and the rhetoric that has been used not only discredits USAGM
as an objective source of news, the reputation that was very
hard-earned and many have fought to maintain, it also
endangers. I was a career field guy in some of the rougher
parts of the world. To assert that spies of foreign
intelligence agencies have infiltrated the establishment not
only discredits the reputation for honesty, it puts everyone
out there in the field at danger.
Words have consequences and to make this unfounded
assertion risks the very lives of our correspondence overseas
in some very tough places. It puts them physically at risk.
Mr. Castro. No, and I have just a few seconds left, but I
think that that is a very important point that Mr. Pack,
without evidence, has made libelous claims, really, that were
these journalists to go get a job somewhere else in another
country could threaten not only their livelihoods but their
safety.
When somebody from the U.S. Government has labeled a
journalist a spy, who is going to go trust them in another
country? Who is going to go hire them somewhere else? This man
has acted incredibly recklessly and even for that alone he
should be dismissed from his job.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Castro. Your time is expired.
We now go to Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have enjoyed and
learned a lot from listening to this hearing. I appreciate you
holding it.
Just to followup on some of the things that have already
been mentioned, we have seen governments use a technicality in
law to punish, imprison, or endanger journalists. We have seen
governments accusing journalists of being spies as ways of
curtailing them or having a chilling effect on journalists. Now
we are seeing a general backsliding of democracy in the Eastern
Europe and parts of Asia and along with that comes kind of the
predictable crackdown on journalists.
Because of COVID, we know that the spread of misinformation
is even more dangerous, so I wonder how your organizations are
dealing with that new element and what Mr. Pack's actions have,
or how Mr. Pack's actions have had an effect on your ability to
respond to this new threat.
Ms. Bennett. This is Amanda and I can, Amanda Bennett, and
I can answer the first half of that question. Perhaps someone
else could answer the second half. I think it is demonstrable
that in an era when there is just a flood of mis-and
disinformation that the most powerful obstacle to that mis-and
disinformation is to flood the zone with accurate information.
And one thing I found particularly heartwarming in my
tenure as VOA director is we did a lot of interactive work with
our audiences, and to listen to our audiences say that they
came to us because they could believe what they--that we said.
That they could see what was happening in their own countries
and that we were the ones that they came to, to tell the truth
about it, particularly if you think about during the
coronavirus.
During the coronavirus, VOA in particular, and I know my
colleagues at the other organizations did as well, very quickly
spun up panels of global physicians to answer questions and
give accurate information. Those were extremely well subscribed
and as was pointed out at the very beginning of this hearing
went viral in those countries, that information.
Doing that kind of work is absolutely critical,
particularly in this era of mis-and disinformation.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. Anybody else?
Ms. Kornbluh. Yes, I would love to weigh in as well.
Part of this information warfare that you alluded to is
that we are in a battle with China, especially, and to some
extent Russia and Iran and others, over whether there is going
to be an internet with national governments able to censor and
surveil or whether there is going to be a U.S. model where
there is open ability to access information.
And OTF has been on the front lines of this, so I will give
you an example of some of the technology they were working on.
OTF was incubating an AI-powered circumvention engine called
Geneva that would have dynamically used censorship evasion
techniques faster than China's censorship apparatus. Adjust get
past the firewall and access the internet, access VOA
information or RFE/RL information and so on.
And in just a matter of months, the project produced over
60 viable means of circumvention, a process that would have
previously taken years. That kind of innovation has now been
put on hold because of these actions.
Ms. Titus. Let me ask you this too. We have got an
Administration that does not even believe our own scientists so
that should be a problem for you, but also a President who just
enjoys attacking the press. He does it at rallies and at press
conferences, encourages people to beat up the press. He calls
members of the press names, he demeans their work, and he
started this international mantra about fake news.
Was that part of Mr. Pack's agenda and how does that affect
your attempt to get out there real news? Anybody?
Ms. Kornbluh. I will just say one thing----
Mr. Turner. I can say that----
Ms. Kornbluh. Oh, go ahead, Grant.
Mr. Turner. I will just offer this really quickly that
certainly, you know, Mr. Pack has talked about, you know,
draining the swamp and, you know, he has just sort of that, you
know, that viewpoint and he seems to think that the swamp
extends to, you know, to USAGM. So it gives you a little bit of
an inkling of, you know, what he thinks about the place right
now.
Ms. Kornbluh. I wanted to say based on my time on the
broader board of USAGM is that part of what these entities do
is they model what a free press is around the world. So they
get good information into these repressive societies, but they
also show what a free press is. And that is one of the values
that the U.S. has shown around the world, what can a free press
be.
And I think you are hearing the importance of upholding
that value and talking about the importance of the free press
internationally and the kind of harm that can be done when we
denigrate it.
Ms. Titus. Exactly. It is an institution that should be
protected, not denigrated as you say. You said that he was not
there to run the Agency. I think it is pretty clear he was
there to run it in the ground.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Ms. Titus.
Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all
the presenters. To Mr. Fly, can you explain how Russia's
foreign agent law has impacted Radio Free Europe and Radio
Liberty and how we can work to overcome any challenges brought
about by this law?
Mr. Fly. Thanks for the question, Congressman.
And Russia's actions to try to tighten regulations around
the media have had significant impact on Radio Free Europe/
Radio Liberty and our ability to reach a Russian audience. They
passed this foreign agent law a number of years ago which made
RFE/RL register as a foreign agent, basically having to say
publicly that we represent foreign interests, which is not the
case inside Russia given that our journalists inside Russia are
actually Russian citizens reporting on their own societies with
full editorial independence as we have discussed many times
during this hearing.
And they have now taken that to a new level of passing a
law that allows the designation of individual journalists as
foreign agents, basically labeling individual journalists as
spies. And, thankfully, they have not yet implemented that law,
but it is hanging over the heads of our entire network of
journalists inside Russia.
And we have tried to do our best to continue to provide
objective news and information to the Russian people, but this
is one of those issues as well where our RFE/RL would be
looking to responsible leadership at USAGM to work with the
State Department and with the U.S. Government and Members of
Congress to help RFE/RL be able to maintain that presence
inside Russia. So this is going to be an ongoing problem, I
fear, in the years to come.
Mr. Espaillat. And besides the foreign agent law, what
would you say is the most serious and most pronounced effort by
the Russians to try to cripple our efforts to promote democracy
across Europe and the former Soviet Union?
Mr. Fly. Well, inside Russia itself, one of the biggest
challenges I faced and was trying to move the organization
forward was to just get access to the Russian audience. Over
the years, the Russian Government has slowly limited RFE/RL's
ability to get content on the airwaves. It has stripped RFE/RL
of radio licenses. It has blocked its 24/7 Russian language
network from going on satellite packages.
Really, the primary way that RFE/RL reaches the Russian
audience right now is digital. And because of some of the
internet issues that we have discussed earlier, the Russian
Government has even threatened to curtail that. So that was my
biggest concern where I was trying to move RFE/RL forward to
just expanding our access.
Some of that requires a broader conversation, I believe,
between the U.S. Government and the Russian Government about
the way that Russian media, Russian State-funded and State-
directed media are treated in the United States, because Russia
Today and Sputnik do not face any of the limitations that I
just described about reaching an American audience. They can
access every American if they want to through multiple
platforms, and right now the Russian Government has blocked
RFE/RL and VOA from being able to do that.
Mr. Espaillat. And what do you think the credibility issues
would be if broadcasters sort of like became perceived as
propaganda outlets, you know, what is the impact, the overall
impact in terms of credibility, the longstanding credibility if
this were to happen?
Mr. Fly. Well, for RFE/RL, I cannot speak for the others,
but it completely undermines the confidence of the audience.
And if there are questions that, serious questions of
credibility that are raised about RFE/RL's objectivity and
independence, the audience will go elsewhere. It is an
incredibly competitive media environment right now, especially
through digital platforms and even in some of these closed
societies they have other places to go to get news and
information. Now it will not always be independent and factual,
but they will go elsewhere and that is really what is at risk.
You know, at least with RFE/RL and its services what I saw
is the connection between the audience and the network is
incredibly personal. It is emotional. People trust the
correspondence. They trust the anchors. And as soon as they
think that those journalists are not able to do their job
independently, they may be tempted to go elsewhere, which would
really be sacrificing an important tool that has been developed
over decades.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thank you all.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
Ms. Omar.
Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you for holding
this hearing.
Ms. Bennett, I just wanted to get a few facts on the table.
Is it correct that VOA needs to maintain political independence
and neutrality?
Ms. Bennett. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Omar. And is it correct the VOA is not supposed to
target American audience with its programming?
Ms. Bennett. That is also correct. Incidental acquisition
of the content is permitted because it is very difficult, of
course, to throttle the internet. But yes, targeting the United
States audience is not permitted.
Ms. Omar. Thank you.
Mr. Turner, before he was appointed as CEO of USAGM, the
only thing most people knew about Mr. Michael Pack is that he
used to make movies with Stephen Bannon. Mr. Bannon is a long
critic of USAGM, admitting to the L.A. Times that he told the
President long ago that Trump did not need to start a new
government network to push out the MAGA talking points. You got
one, Mr. Bannon said, and he argued that it was called the
Voice of America.
Now Mr. Bannon is long gone from government, thankfully,
but the Trump Administration remains intent on getting Mr. Pack
installed so quickly before the election. And this is why I was
so disturbed by a protected whistleblower disclosure that you
submitted to the Office of the Inspector General. Do you recall
that document?
Mr. Turner. Yes, Congresswoman, I do.
Ms. Omar. OK. And in that disclosure, which details
numerous abuses and potential illegal actions by Mr. Pack and
his team, two things really stood out to me. One is that you
disclosed to the IG that Mr. Pack required USAGM networks to
carry out a link to editorial pages on each of those websites
with a variety of press releases and other Administration-
produced information from the Department of UGS.
Mr. Turner. Correct.
Ms. Omar. First, why was that so disturbing to you that you
needed to disclose that?
Mr. Turner. It gets at, really, the heart of the firewall
and the independence of the organizations. You know, part of
our mission is to help communicate and help people around the
world to understand the policy positions of our government.
What is the Administration thinking about? What is the Congress
thinking about? That is why we cover hearings, you know, that
is a big part of our job.
But dictating how the news is to be delivered breaches that
firewall. Ordering each of our networks to carry the
Administration's content in a prescribed way is a breach of
that firewall and that is why I wanted to disclose it.
Ms. Omar. And, second, why was Mr. Pack so focused on using
the organization to push out the Administration's talking
points?
Mr. Turner. You know, I am not entirely sure. You know, I
think it is the one maybe concrete thing that I have seen him
do is insert, you know, these editorials into each of the
networks. So I suspect it was on his list of things he wanted
to do.
Ms. Omar. And the other thing that you disclosed was that
Mr. Pack directed members of his team to participate in VOA's
planning meetings for coverage of the upcoming elections. Why
was that something you felt you needed to disclose?
Mr. Turner. Once again, just, you know, a horrible breach
of the firewall. You know, I think the last, you know, things
that people in this committee would want is, you know, someone
from the opposing party inserting, you know, their people into
the planning meetings for the coverage of the upcoming
Presidential election.
You know, it runs, you know, one way this year, but
eventually the shoe is on the other foot. And I think that is
why when we operated under a bipartisan board, things, you
know, were quite balanced. If you look at the body of work that
our organization puts out, it is very balanced. So it--VOA said
no to that request and there are strong reporters there who
have strong journalistic principles and they resisted it.
But to one by one take out the strong people and intimidate
the others, that is, I think, a long-term question.
Ms. Omar. Well, we are thankful for that refusal. There is
danger when VOA is seen as a propaganda arm of any
Administration, and as we do our work outside of the country
our credibility is important and so I appreciate you for your
bravery and I appreciate every single person who is putting
their life on the line in honestly reporting the news.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
Mr. Engel. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of
you, to our witnesses for appearing in front of us today. So
many of my colleagues almost universally have shared their
mutual perspective of disappointment that Mr. Pack has chosen
not to honor his commitment to testify in front of us, so we
appreciate your time and, frankly, your courage.
Jefferson once said that if he had to choose between a
government without newspapers or newspapers without a
government, he would not hesitate a moment to choose the
latter. Our founders knew that a free press was vital to an
open democratic society, and USAGM was founded on those very
principles and now its networks, of course, reach more than 350
million people all around the world.
I could not say it better than its own mission statement,
``The five media organizations that comprise USAGM complement
and reinforce one another in a shared mission vital to U.S.
national interests to inform, to engage, and to connect people
around the world in support of freedom and democracy.'' So it
is clear to me that all of you, all of our witnesses here today
adhere to those very values and are committed to the pursuit in
support of this mission.
And that is why I have watched with such alarm as Mr. Pack
has compromised so many of these core elements. To name a few,
attempting to withhold funding from and cripple programs of
national security interests to the United States; making public
comments about foregoing COVID protections for employees in an
effort to ``drain the swamp;'' dismissing lawyers who advised
him on the importance of a firewall that legally protects VOA's
legally mandated editorial independence, among many other
things.
So my first question is to you, Mr. Crocker, about that
role of political appointees, the role that they can and should
play in the governance of USAGM. So please tell us, what is the
specific role of the various boards of directors of the
services?
Mr. Crocker. Thank you, Congressman, for that excellent
question. The board of USAGM, and Ambassador Kornbluh and I
were two of its members, that board was dissolved effective
with the first Presidentially nominated, Senate-confirmed CEO,
Michael Pack, as soon as he was sworn in. We expected that.
That was in a conversation that the Hill had.
But what we did not expect was the wholesale dismissal of
the mirror boards for the entities and grantees. One of the
important changes of the board on which I was privileged to
serve was to ensure that board membership across all of the
entities and agencies was the same as the USAGM board. That
gave us a common perspective. It gave us the opportunity to
ensure coherent decisionmaking.
So the entity and grantee boards again identical to the
broader USAGM board was to oversee the functioning of the
entities, to ask the hard questions and then in particular to
approve resource allocations. We were all prepared, I think, to
carry on as necessary on those boards to assist with the
process of transition. We were all summarily dismissed.
So in addition to the problems we have seen since June, you
quite correctly add to it this: It is not simply that the CEOs
were all dismissed, we have covered that at length here, a huge
hit to our entire mission effort, but also the boards that had
continuity and oversight. So effectively, as Mr. Fly and others
just said, these ships no longer have rudders and it is a very,
very dangerous development.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Crocker. You know, you all
know too well that Mr. Pack has replaced boards, replaced
members of the boards with himself, his chief of staff, Trump
political appointees with other agencies, even the senior
counsel of an organization at the Southern Poverty Law Center
as designated an anti-LGBTQ hate group.
So, Mr. Fly, a question for you, quickly. What impact does
that have on USAGM's employees, the culture, and the atmosphere
inside?
Mr. Fly. It is incredibly dangerous. And I outlined in my
written testimony at least in the case of RFE/RL the statute,
despite the additional powers given to the CEO, specifically
requires that the corporate board of RFE/RL make all personnel
decisions related to officers. I have no evidence that the RFE/
RL corporate board, the new corporate board that Mr. Pack
appointed, ever even discussed my termination. I have never met
any of the other board members other than Mr. Pack, so I do not
know how they would follow their fiduciary obligations to the
company under Delaware law where it is incorporated.
And the final thing I will just note, I have concerns about
the fact that the board of each of the grantees is now a
majority Federal board. There is only one non-Federal member on
that board. The statute, and I have it right in front of me,
says specifically that the statute is not to make any of the
grantees a Federal agency or instrumentality.
I do not know how that is maintained when you have a
corporate board of each of the grantees that is made up of a
majority of Federal officials. So I think there is a whole host
of issues here that have not been explored yet that should be
explored because I think they have significant long-term
consequences for the independence of each of the grantees.
Mr. Phillips. I wholeheartedly agree and----
Mr. Engel. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Phillips [continuing]. Thank you. I yield back. Thank
you. Thank you all for your courage.
Mr. Engel. Thank you.
Ms. Houlahan.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you all here present and also virtually for your
very, I think, brave testimony. I will also apologize in case
this question has been asked and answered. But I would love to
know, first, from Ms. Bennett, if you could help us understand
why there are so many journalists who are foreign nationals in
Voice of America and what particular skills do they bring to
the work?
And also if you would enlighten us a little bit more about
the recruitment process for these journalists and what draws
them to the work sometimes, of course, risking their lives to
do so.
Ms. Bennett. Yes. Thank you very much for that question.
The journalists that come here from other countries bring,
really, unique skills that are very, very hard to find. And we
know this because before we recruit anyone from the outside, we
are required to advertise extensively within the United States
looking for these skills. And over years and years it has
proved very difficult to find people with excellent
journalistic skills, native and colloquial command of a
language that can be used in a broadcasting platform, so--and
also people with journalistic skills and context and
understanding of the countries in which they broadcast.
These are unbelievably difficult things to find. The people
that come to us to the Voice of America to broadcast see this
as a career move because of the reputation that Voice of
America has both in their countries and around the world, so to
be able to come and work at the Voice of America is both a
tremendous honor and a tremendous risk each of them is
undertaking.
As has been mentioned previously here, it is a security and
safety risk for many of these people because the countries that
we are broadcasting to and recruiting from are largely
authoritarian countries that do not welcome the Voice of
America or Radio Free Europe or Radio Free Asia broadcasting
there. So the journalists that come here are both highly
skilled, highly knowledgeable, and highly courageous and
perform a very vital function within the broadcast of all of
us.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. I very much appreciate that
insight. This next question is for you as well as for Mr. Fly,
and I think that Mr. Phillips also asked a similar question.
But I would be interested to know what you are perceiving the
morale of everybody to be underneath these very, very difficult
circumstances, if you could comment on that, please.
Let's start with Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. I do have contact with, you know, folks who
have reached out to me and it seems like it is pretty bad. It
is sad. Mr. Pack said one of his first, one of his goals was to
raise morale and it is completely the opposite. I mean his
actions have created a chilling effect. It is intimidating
people. People are afraid, you know, for the jobs. People are
afraid that they are going to have to leave the country as you
had pointed out and go back to potentially, really, you know,
unwelcome receptions due to the work that they have done for
us. So it is pretty bad.
Ms. Houlahan. Ms. Bennett, would you like to add to that?
Ms. Bennett. I think I would like to discuss it in the
opposite effect which is that during the time up until our
departure, the leaders of the organizations, we found that our
morale had increased substantially because of the dedication
and devotion of the journalists to their mission. And so for
those of us who felt like our mission was to remove obstacles
and to clear the path for them to operate more effectively, we
found that that improved the morale. We at VOA actually
surveyed the morale and discovered that, you know, between 2016
to the previous year, this current year, morale increased from
46 percent of people believing that they were generally
satisfied with the organization to over 70 percent. That is a
pretty big jump and I attribute that completely to the
dedication that people had to the mission and their
appreciation of the fact that they felt that the mission was
being supported.
Ms. Houlahan. Thanks. And with the last 30 or so seconds of
my time, I was wondering. You clearly, I hope, have heard that
there is an enormous amount of support bipartisanly for the
mission of USAGM and as we try as a Congress to continue our
responsibility of oversight, what kind of reforms do you
believe that could be made at the Agency and how could Congress
be helpful in those reforms as well?
I will start with Mr. Turner since he is in front of me and
shaking his head.
Mr. Turner. You know, as we kind of entered on this
experiment of having our first Presidentially appointed,
Senate-confirmed CEO, we did not quite know what to expect and
I think everyone thought, you know, kind of a reasonable person
theory that, you know, you get reasonable people, the
government structure that was created would work. It certainly
does not feel like it is working very well right now. I think
there are a lot of people, you know, with ideas about what, you
know, reform could take place.
I mentioned our former general counsel, David Kligerman,
who is very knowledgeable and I know would be very happy to,
you know, to assist anyone. You know, there is a thing about,
you know, do not tear down a fence until you know why someone
put it up, and I think that is the case here. You know, we had
a bipartisan board and it worked, so maybe going back to that
might help.
Ms. Houlahan. Thank you.
I apologize for going over and I yield back.
Mr. Engel. Thank you, Ms. Houlahan.
Mr. Malinowski.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to start with a question that I think will help
illuminate the value of these broadcast agencies. We have
talked about Belarus quite a bit as a current example and I
just wanted to ask Mr. Fly to confirm that RFE and Radio
Svaboda, they are covering this crisis every single day,
basically, 24/7; is that correct?
Mr. Fly. Yes. Yes, and often as I noted before, getting
arrested while doing it.
Mr. Engel. Right. And CNN is not broadcasting 24/7 from
Belarus. Fox News is not. The Times is not doing 12 stories a
day on its front page, or any other major newspaper, right, so
this is a unique service that the rest of the international
media just does not have the resources to provide. Is that----
Mr. Fly. Yes, especially in Belarusian, which is what
Svaboda is broadcasting in, there are several other private
competitors but, obviously, their primary competitor is
Belarusian State TV. It is Lukashenko's propaganda now
buttressed by RT apparatchiks sent from Moscow.
Mr. Malinowski. Right. And just very briefly, like what is
the difference between our coverage and RT? Why do people want
to, people in Belarus want to listen to our service?
Mr. Fly. Because over decades they have built up confidence
amongst the audience and respect because they know Svaboda
stands for truth. And there have even been videos during the
protests of them seeing the Svaboda journalists covering the
protests and the crowd starting to chant, ``Svaboda, Svaboda.''
There is an emotional attachment to the brand.
Mr. Malinowski. Well, it is that notion of truth. And I
will, you know, tell you as sort of a personal experience, I
was born in Poland and my family once told me the story of like
1960's, Polish State television, Communist television which
show these images of our civil rights protests in the American
South, thinking that it would turn people against America
because there is violence, people protesting for their rights
being put down by riot police.
And it had exactly the opposite effect, because actually
seeing the truth about Americans being able to protest
injustice convinced people in Poland that actually, you know,
this is a place--this is a system that we would like to have in
our country. And so this notion that telling the truth whether
the news about America is good or bad, being valuable to our
interests, I think, is central to this discussion.
Mr. Turner, I am sure you are aware that Mr. Pack has a
longstanding association with Steve Bannon and that before his
appointment, Pack's appointment, Mr. Bannon was pushing this
appointment as a way of trying to ensure that these broadcast
agencies were promoting the President's America First agenda
around the world, that it would compete with CNN, he said.
A, is that appropriate, and B, after Mr. Pack's arrival,
did you see any sign that that was in fact his motivation?
Mr. Turner. Thank you. It is certainly not appropriate. I
think there have been windows into that. The firewall breaches
with, you know, trying to insert, you know, political
leadership or his operatives into planning sessions for VOA's
coverage of a Presidential election, I think, is an indication
of how, you know, they would like things to work.
As of now, I think each of the grantees and VOA are
showing, you know, what high-quality reporting takes place
there. You know, they are excellent journalists and they are
standing strong. I know that many of them have been asked to
compromise and there have been lots of intimidation. I think
the worry is as Mr. Pack's tenure continues to remove the
strongest of the strong, to wear down the others, does
intimidation permeate the organizations, and it is the
trajectory I really worry about.
Mr. Malinowski. Well, I would--look, I would say if
President Joe Biden were to appoint somebody to this position
with the charge of competing with Fox News or promoting the
Biden Administration's vision of the world, I would be just as
upset. It would be just as damaging----
Mr. Turner. Yes.
Mr. Malinowski [continuing]. To the integrity of this
institution. And let me just say, you know, we have heard a lot
about a lot of paranoia coming from this man about foreign
spies infiltrating USAGM. And I would say, you know, I would
never accuse somebody of consciously serving foreign interests
without evidence to back that charge, but if China, Russia,
North Korea, or any of our adversaries had, in fact,
infiltrated USAGM, they could not possibly have done more harm
to America's interests than Mr. Pack has, in fact, done on his
own. Thank you and I yield back.
Mr. Engel. Okay. The gentleman's time has expired and that
concludes the questioning. I want to thank our witnesses for
very important testimony. I want to thank our members for
being--sticking here and almost everybody on the committee
asked a question.
And this is certainly something that we are going to
continue to pursue as time moves on, so thanks to everybody
that participated and the hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CONNELLY STATEMENT
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEMENT OF KLIGERMAN
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD FROM MS. BENNETT
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]