[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                   MANAGEMENT SUCCESSES AND FAILURES:
               ASSESSING THE U.S. AGENCY FOR GLOBAL MEDIA

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________


                              JULY 9, 2024

                               __________


                           Serial No. 118-110

                               __________


        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

56-596PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2024












                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     GREGORY MEEKS, New York, Ranking 
JOE WILSON, South Carolina               Member
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania	     BRAD SHERMAN, California
DARRELL ISSA, California	     GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
ANN WAGNER, Missouri		     WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
BRIAN MAST, Florida		     AMI BERA, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado		     JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee		     DINA TITUS, Nevada
MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee	     TED LIEU, California
ANDY BARR, Kentucky		     SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
RONNY JACKSON, Texas		     DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
YOUNG KIM, California		     COLIN ALLRED, Texas
MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida	     ANDY KIM, New Jersey
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan		     SARA JACOBS, California
AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, 	     KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
    American Samoa		     SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, 
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas		         Florida
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio		     GREG STANTON, Arizona
JIM BAIRD, Indiana		     MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida		     JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
THOMAS KEAN, JR., New Jersey	     JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York	     SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
CORY MILLS, Florida		     JIM COSTA, California
RICH MCCORMICK, Georgia		     JASON CROW, Colorado
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas		     BRAD SCHNEIDER. Illinois
JOHN JAMES, Michigan		     KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
KEITH SELF, Texas
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam

                    Brendan Shields, Staff Director

                      Sajit Gandhi, Staff Director

                                 ------                                

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Accountability

                       BRIAN MAST, Florida, Chair

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            JASON CROW, Colorado, Ranking 
DARRELL ISSA, California                 Member
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee		     DINA TITUS, Nevada
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas		     COLIN ALLRED, Texas
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida		     ANDY KIM, New Jersey
CORY MILLS, Florida		     SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, Florida 
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas		     MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania    
				     
                     Parker Chapman, Staff Director








                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               WITNESSES

Bennett, Hon. Amanda, Chief Executive Officer, U.S. Agency for 
  Global Media...................................................     9
Abramowitz, Honorable Michael, Director, Voice of America........    18
Capus, Honorable Stephen, President, Radio Free Europe/Radio 
  Liberty........................................................    28

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................    48
Hearing Minutes..................................................    49
Hearing Attendance...............................................    50

            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses to questions submitted for the record..................    51











 
                   MANAGEMENT SUCCESSES AND FAILURES:
               ASSESSING THE U.S. AGENCY FOR GLOBAL MEDIA

                         Tuesday, July 9, 2024

                          House of Representatives,
                      Subcommittee on Oversight and
                                    Accountability,
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:21 p.m., in 
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell Issa 
[member of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Mr. Issa. The committee will come to order. The purpose of 
this hearing is to conduct oversight over the U.S. Agency for 
Global Media and two of its broadcasters, Voice of America and 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. I want to thank the chairman, 
Chairman Mast, for calling this hearing and, of course, the 
full committee chairman for being here.
    USAGM's network chain of audience numbers over 420 million 
weekly viewers. With this large audience, a proud legacy, a 
mission to share America's story and report news to closed 
society, USAGM and its broadcasters should not be controversial 
as part of government in any way, shape, or form. It should be 
a consensus cause that brings the country together and shares 
our voice with the world. To put it simply, under current 
management and leadership, that may not be happening.
    USAGM's leadership has allowed the agency, particularly 
VOA, to drift into becoming another mainstream media news 
organization, indistinguishable from NPR and others. That is 
clearly not the mission we pay for.
    Let me be clear: merely modeling journalist best practices 
is an insufficient justification for an agency that consumes 
$800 billion-plus taxpayer dollars per year. Worse, as a recent 
report from Chairman McCaul makes clear, USAGM's senior 
leadership has focused not on its critical challenges but on 
protecting its favored staff. USAGM is the only organization 
where you can blatantly lie on your resume and get a pass as a 
Voice of America's Persian News Network did. We would like to 
know why, and that is part of the reason for the hearing today.
    Another issue I have personally engaged with Voice of 
America in its Middle East coverage of the October 7th murders 
in Gaza. Specifically, its refusal to call Hamas terrorists 
what they are: Hamas terrorists. Here are the facts: After 
October 7th, VOA reporters were instructed to do, and I'm 
quoting, avoid calling Hamas and its members terrorists, except 
in quotes. When my office and others brought this to light, VOA 
claimed it clarified its response, but it clearly did not. We 
have the opportunity to faithfully and truthfully report brutal 
attacks by terrorists, and we squandered that opportunity to 
reach millions of people who may have been receptive to that 
message.
    Now, Mr. Abramowitz, this happened before you took offer at 
VOA, and so I understand that your job is one of taking on 
responsibility for things you did not cause, but you now have 
the job to change it, which brings me to a larger point. VOA 
needs to re-engage with its charter, which says, and this one 
is in quotes, ``We will respect America, not any single segment 
of American society,'' unquote and, quote, ``We will present 
the policies of the United States clearly and effective, and we 
will also present responsible discussions and opinions on those 
policies.'' It is the policy of successive Administrations and 
it is the unanimous position across all acceptable corners of 
U.S. political spectrum that Hamas is a terrorist organization, 
and they have been recognized so before their terrorist attack 
on October 7th, and its members are terrorists. VOA did not 
take that stance and violated its charter.
    It also has been reliably informed that a senior VOA editor 
took reporters to use attribution because opinion in Moscow, 
Tehran, and Beijing did not see it that way. I do not spend 
$800 million of the taxpayers' money to represent Tehran, 
Moscow, or Beijing. In fact, these are all adversary states. 
Your job is to have the people of Russia, Tehran, Beijing, and 
other countries that repress free speech know what the truth 
is, not the other way around. You are the voice of America, not 
the voice of Russia, the voice of Iran, or the voice of China.
    When confronted with these failures I have discussed with 
senior leadership at USAGM and VOA, you've doubled down and 
mocked congressional oversight. It is a classic leadership 
failure, one that can bring down entire agencies.
    Ms. Bennett, your written statement focuses a lot on 
successes. Undoubtedly, there have been many successes. I was a 
soldier in the cold war, and the radio that went across the 
Czech border kept us out of a war in no small part and kept the 
hope alive in the Eastern Bloc, but we cannot address USAGM's 
failures without working to address its current shortcomings. 
At a time when American people are demanding to know what value 
they get from each agency, we must work together to make needed 
reforms and to root out waste, fraud, and clearly be 
accountable for the words you use pursuant to your mandate from 
Congress.
    And with that, I recognize the full committee chairman.
    Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank 
Chairman Mast for his work on this issue, and I also send my 
condolences to him. His father just passed away. So to Brian 
and his family, you are in our thoughts and prayers.
    The U.S. Agency for Global Media is a critical pillar of 
America's soft power. It is and will continue to be a beacon of 
freedom, supplying the truth to those living under tyranny and 
oppression. USAGM funds critical entities, including the Voice 
of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Free Asia, as well as 
the Middle East Broadcasting Network. These are the radio 
stations and news outlets that fight propaganda pushed by 
state-controlled media under the iron fist of dictators and 
despots like Putin, the ayatollah, and Chairman Xi. They shine 
a spotlight on the war crimes of Putin. They have even 
broadcast this committee's work. And like our report on the 
origins of COVID in China, they played a critical role in 
translating that report into Mandarin and sending it all across 
mainland China.
    But for all the good USAGM is capable of, there remains 
serious problems with how it is being managed. In early 2021, 
whistleblowers contacted Congress regarding the reinstatement 
of Ms. Setareh Sieg, then director of Voice of America's 
Persian News Network. The whistleblowers reached out to 
congressional democrats first, but they were ignored. And when 
they came to me, the ranking member of the committee at that 
time, I immediately opened an investigation into the claims of 
misconduct. The whistleblowers allege wide-ranging abuses, 
including that Ms. Sieg frequently berated staff, used taxpayer 
funds for personal travel, awarded government contracts to 
friends, falsified her education credentials, and engaged in a 
pattern of favoritism.
    Additionally, this committee worked very closely with the 
French embassy which informed this committee back in 2021 that 
Ms. Sieg did not attend the prestigious Sorbonne, as she had 
claimed, and she does not hold a Ph.D. or an equivalent. Also, 
this was established 3 years ago. The USAGM still refuses to 
accept these facts, but the evidence was clear: the 
whistleblowers were right. And in light of this investigation, 
I have serious concerns about employee vetting at this agency 
since this episode represents a continuation of a troubling 
pattern.
    But I want to be clear: poor H.R. decisionmaking by senior 
officials does not overshadow the important work being done by 
their subordinates, nor does it cast doubt on the important 
mission of this agency. Look no further than Radio Free Europe. 
Radio Liberty is a shining example of how these outlets should 
function.
    I would also like to commend Mr. Steve Capus, who is here 
today, on the work that you have been doing, sir. Journalists 
working for these outlets are incredibly brave. Some have 
served time in prison for simply telling the truth. Many of 
them have fled the oppression of their homeland to report on 
the tyranny of governments. They cannot tell their family where 
they are or what they are doing for free of reprisal.
    What the Sieg investigation has shown is that these 
journalists' courage is undermined by internal dysfunction at 
the agency. The U.S. Agency for Global Media must serve as a 
voice of what Ronald Reagan called the shining city on a hill; 
but, for that mission to be realized, USAGM leadership needs to 
reestablish its credibility with the Congress. There is nothing 
more powerful than the truth. When people have the freedom to 
choose their own destiny, they will always choose freedom. The 
world is on fire, and, now more than ever, they need that 
beacon of truth from the shining city on the hill.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. We now recognize the 
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Meeks, for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so pleased to see 
each and every one of you here today, and I am pleased to join 
this hearing so that we can receive an update about the 
important work that is being done by the U.S. Agency for Global 
Media and the two of the independent broadcasting networks it 
supports: the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. Thank you 
for all you are doing, for each and every one of you, and for 
being here today. It is so good to see you and the work that 
you are doing.
    Now, I must say that this is in stark contrast to the 
agency's former CEO, Michael Pack, who defied a lawful subpoena 
to appear before this committee for a hearing about his tenure 
in September 2020. And at that time, I was the chair, and 
Ranking Member McCaul's concerns were articulated at that 
hearing about the problematic leadership of the agency under 
Mr. Pack, and I agreed with him. And that's why I am so glad to 
see the new leadership, to see all of you here today to discuss 
the work of these important agencies.
    We all know that the global information space is more 
active and more contested than it has ever been before. Around 
the world, we see anti-democratic regimes suppressing the free 
exchange of ideas and information, intimidate journalists into 
self censoring, and control new media technologies and online 
spaces. And we see our adversaries increasingly working to 
shape the information space with mis-and disinformation that 
intentionally twists and obscures facts, including about the 
United States of America, our people, and our policies. And 
that is why your work remains critical to our national 
security. You and all of your colleagues are on the front 
lines. You are helping people around the world to push back 
against lies with the truth, to counter malign influence with 
open and democratic debate, to protect against the undermining 
of independent journalism, as well as promote the U.S. values 
and interests. Our values.
    As the global information landscape evolves, your agencies 
have to meet this critical moment by expanding your reach in 
emerging media landscapes in places like Africa and the Western 
Hemisphere, to counter harmful Chinese and Russian narratives 
that threaten to take root, by advocating for your journalists 
and strangers who have come under threat simply for their 
reporting and, in some cases, have been jailed for it. And by 
modernizing your work to ensure that the U.S.-supported 
broadcasters are amplifying independent news in more languages 
across more platforms to nourish audiences' hunger for unbiased 
facts and information. When I travel, we can see that they are 
looking for unabashed and unbiased facts and information.
    So I look forward to hearing about such efforts today and 
about the resources and authorities you need from us in 
Congress to be successful. We know you cannot be successful 
without Congress working with you. It is unfortunate, in my 
opinion, that I have to worry at times across by my colleagues 
across the aisle will engage you in a narrower conversation 
today. The Republican majority has seemed set on obscuring the 
history of Mr. Pack's problematic tenure, including by 
reopening an investigation into a VOA employee that Pack 
lieutenants had once tried to remove. And they tried to do that 
until Federal watchdogs paused the firing and later described 
as prosecuted due to animus.
    So let me be clear: If there are ongoing problems or 
management challenges at any of your agencies, it is your 
responsibility to deal with them. And I believe you are doing 
so, and we want to hear more about that. But your role and our 
oversight of your work should never be to simply peddle a 
partisan narrative or settle personal vendettas. If our 
Republican colleagues are serious about the investigation they 
have undertaken on USAGM and its broadcasters, then they should 
be transparent and let the facts speak for themselves, 
including by publicly releasing the transcripts from hours of 
closed-door interviews with USAGM and VOA officials from which 
they have repeatedly cherry-picked.
    So I close this by saying let's get back to focus on real 
problems and real facts. The independent journalists you all 
support around the world risk their safety to report unbiased 
information, and they deserve no less than our concerted 
supported. So let's get to the facts. And I yield back.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. We now recognize the 
ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Crow, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you to the 
witnesses for being here today. The work you and your teams do, 
often in hostile and dangerous environments, is essential to 
supporting independent journalism, access to objective 
reporting, and amplifying American values abroad. That work is 
as important now as ever in this era of renewed Great Power 
Competition against Russia and China, a competition that is put 
into sharp focus this week as our NATO allies gather in 
Washington to discuss the plan for the threats that we all 
collectively face.
    I would like to start by laying out what I hope today's 
hearing will highlight today. The first is a point I have 
already alluded to, and that is the United States Agency for 
Global Media and the broadcasters and grantees it supports are 
critical to promoting freedom of the press and countering 
authoritarian disinformation. Voice of America and Radio Free 
Europe, as well as other USAGM-supported broadcasters and 
grantees, provide objective reporting on global news stories 
and undertake independent journalism in places around the world 
where that information is hard or impossible to come by.
    And the fact that it is objective and independent is 
actually what makes it so strong and effective and what 
contrasts it with the disinformation and misinformation coming 
from our adversaries. So I want to be very clear that it is not 
the role of this committee to tell you all what to report and 
how to report it because that act alone would undermine the 
credibility, the veracity, and the effectiveness of that 
information. It would make it just like what our adversaries 
do. We report the facts. That is an American value, and that is 
what we are here to talk about.
    The second issue is the question of resources. I would like 
you to help us understand just how important it is for us in 
Congress to invest in you and give you the tools you need. 
While malign actors, like Russia, China, and Iran, are cracking 
down on independent journalism and are flooding the airwaves 
with propaganda in their own countries and around the world, we 
must give you more tools and more resources to combat their 
malign activities, not fewer. And, yet, just a few weeks ago, 
the majority passed our annual State and foreign operations 
budget bill that made deep cuts to USAGM funding. I would like 
to understand the risks, as you see them, of such a dangerous 
and ill-advised decision. So, again, I look forward to 
discussing with our witnesses the important work that you all 
do and having a fact-based discussion.
    Actually, one other thing I want to point out is that, in 
any large organization, there are always H.R. issues, and it is 
your job, as both the chairman and the ranking member alluded 
to, of making sure you run your organizations and you address 
H.R. problems. But it is also not the role of this committee to 
serve as an H.R. office. We will look at systematic issues, we 
will look at systematic problems if there are any, but to take 
up individual cases based on prior grievance or to settle 
scores of the prior Administration is not the role of this 
committee, and we will not tolerate it.
    So with that, I look forward to having a conversation with 
all of you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. It is now my pleasure to 
introduce our distinguished witnesses before us today on this 
important topic.
    First, Hon. Amanda Bennett. She is the Chief Executive 
Officer of the U.S. Agency for Global Media. Welcome. Next, Mr. 
Michael Abramowitz, who is the Director of VOA, or Voice of 
America. And, last, Mr. Steve Capus, the President of Radio 
Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
    Thank you for being here today. As you know from watching 
C-SPAN, your full statements will be placed in the record, 
including not only your written statements but any additional 
collateral information you would like to bring to us.
    And with that, I would ask to try to limit to 5 minutes. I 
won't cut you off exactly at 5 minutes, but I will begin 
tapping the gavel if it goes beyond that, so we can get to 
questioning.
    And with that, Ms. Bennett.

STATEMENT OF HON. AMANDA BENNETT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. 
                    AGENCY FOR GLOBAL MEDIA

    Ms. Bennett. Thank you very much. I would like to thank 
Chairman McCaul for his statement and Ranking Member Meeks for 
his statement. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Crow, members of 
the subcommittee, thank you all for the opportunity to be here.
    I would first just like to reference the photograph that we 
have here, and we will be referring to her quite a bit during 
our testimony, all three of us here, because she represents the 
dangers that are facing our journalists today. Her two teenaged 
daughters, Alsu Kurmasheva's daughters, have not seen their 
mother for months and months and months. She has been in a 
Russian jail since October, deprived of adequate medical 
attention and care and wrongly accused of being a foreign 
agent.
    Earlier this year, she wrote: My greatest wish is to get 
out of here alive and well. Some illnesses have gotten worse, 
but medications and regular exercise give me the strength to 
hold on and endure the pain.
    Journalism is not a crime. Yet, around the world, 
journalists like Alsu are increasingly targeted for just doing 
their jobs. In Russia, Belarus, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, 
Hong Kong, and China, our journalists and their families face 
enormous risks. Some of them are languishing in prison, like 
Alsu, while others' families are threatened just for the 
association with objective journalism. And, meanwhile, the 
People's Republic of China is spreading its own distorted 
message to Asia, to the Global South, the U.S., and other 
Western democracies, and Russia is following suit.
    Disinformation by our adversaries compounded with 
censorship of the truthful reporting presents an urgent 
national security risk to the U.S. Many see this terrifying 
trend and conclude that democracy has already lost the 
information war. We do not think that. USAGM and our entities, 
the Voice of America here, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty 
here, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia, the 
Middle East Broadcasting Networks, the Open Technology Fund, 
and the Frontline Media Fund were all built just for this 
moment.
    To power our mission, I have prioritized building a culture 
of trust and clarity among our workforce since day one. I have 
led with transparency, improved operational efficiency, and 
invested in the public servants who make our mission possible. 
And this approach has led to some tangible results, including 
the fact that we have gotten our very highest-ever rankings in 
the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, a survey in which we 
have been noted for being at the bottom of the barrel for years 
and years and years. For the first time, we are noted among the 
most improved.
    And it is only up from here. The Federal board, the 
International Broadcasting Advisory Board, that joined us 
earlier this year and its members are already expanding our 
capacity to advance our mission. And together we have taken 
steps to protect the entity's editorial independence to ensure 
their competitiveness, strength in journalist safety, and 
secure top leaders across our entities. And as a testimony to 
that, I am proud to be here with two of our newest leaders, 
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty President and USAGM CEO Steven 
Capus and VOA Director Michael Abramowitz, who were chosen in 
harmonious cooperation among the board of Radio Free Europe/
Radio Liberty, the IBAB board, and the CEO, and all of us 
agreed that these two gentlemen are really the extraordinary 
choices for this job.
    Many of our journalists have made tremendous sacrifices and 
faced enormous risks to report the truth, and they are some of 
the bravest people I have ever met. And we are doubling down on 
our efforts to keep them safe. Just to show you what that is 
like, I would just like to show you this thing here. It is very 
hard to lift up even. This is a bulletproof vest. It was 
provided to us thanks to the reporters at Middle East 
Broadcasting Networks, and these were used by journalists 
reporting from war zones in Gaza, Israel, Ukraine, and other 
environments around the world. And while this protective gear 
is sturdy, it is only one of the tools we deploy to protect our 
journalists. We have begun providing risk assessments, safety 
trainings, and, recently, we established a 24/7 threat working 
group that is available to our journalists at all times.
    In addition to journalist safety, we are investing in 
infrastructure and technology to secure our reach to regions 
where our reporting matters most. We recently launched the 
Frontline Media Fund to incubate and advance new approaches to 
distributing content, identify opportunities for savings, 
provide surge capacity during crises, and champion journalist 
safety and security. And as part of the FMF, we plan to launch 
the Global News Service this year which will directly compete 
with an existing similar news service that has been operated by 
China for years. We are going to create one here at the USAGM. 
The Global News Service is a transmission and translation hub 
that will revolutionize how we conclude, curate, and promote 
stories by our entities in Mandarin, English, and eventually in 
many other languages.
    We are also pursuing a new headquarters for our agency and 
VOA, and moving into a modern building will save us over $100 
million in taxpayer dollars over the course of our anticipated 
15-year lease, securing cost-savings that can be reinvested in 
our mission, particularly in updating our technology to make 
sure that we are more competitive with the technology used by 
our adversaries to preserve and extend our reach for the 
future.
    You know, this hearing refers to management successes and 
failures, but, with a mission this critical, failure is not an 
option. We are winning in the global information war. We are 
currently winning, but we are going to lose if we miss an 
opportunity to invest in our future. And we cannot succeed 
without your support. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Bennett follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. Mr. Abramowitz.

   STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL ABRAMOWITZ, DIRECTOR, VOICE OF 
                            AMERICA

    Mr. Abramowitz. Thank you, Congressman Issa and Ranking 
Member Crow, and I want to thank Chair McCaul and Ranking 
Member Meeks for your opening comments. And I really appreciate 
the opportunity to testify today. I was sworn in less than 3 
weeks ago as the new VOA director after nearly 8 years as the 
president of Freedom House where I had a first-hand 
appreciation of the impact and the global reach of 
authoritarian governments.
    When others ask me why I wanted to leave VOA, the answer 
was simple: I love the mission. It is a true privilege to take 
on this role during an age when propaganda is spreading 
globally and fact-based journalism is under dire threat. VOA is 
a critical bulwark against the accelerating efforts of 
authoritarian regimes to spread lies and disinformation. VOA is 
a vital source of trusted news and information in large parts 
of the world without access to reliable and independent news. 
It is a fierce defender of the free press and the safety of 
journalists who increasingly practice their craft amidst a 
dizzying array of physical threats. I could not be more proud 
to be leading VOA with its long and storied history of 
countering lies with truthful and factual journalism.
    I would like to take a moment to express my appreciation to 
VOA's outstanding journalists and staff who perform their 
critical work in often dangerous and trying circumstances. 
Although I haven't been here for long, I am already impressed 
with their work. On just my fourth day at VOA, I stayed during 
the evening to watch the news teams cover the Trump--Biden 
debate, and, thanks to Voice of America's live simultaneous 
translation, speakers of Russian, Mandarin, Farsi, Urdu, 
Spanish, Ukrainian, Dari, and Pashto were able to follow the 
debate live, and speakers of 40 other languages were able to 
access honest, fact-based coverage of the debate presented from 
Washington by a time-tested American media organization with a 
legal mandate to be accurate, objective, and comprehensive.
    I very much look forward to working closely with this 
committee and with the Congress more generally. I believe 
strongly that the nature of VOA's work and its importance to 
U.S. national security interests should inspire support across 
the political aisle. Voice of America is one of the most cost-
effective foreign policy tools the United States possesses. We 
are a highly efficient antidote to the disinformation and 
propaganda spread by our adversaries. As the new VOA director, 
I promise to protect taxpayer dollars and use our funds 
effectively to advance our vital mission, and I will expect 
myself and VOA personnel to adhere to highest journalistic and 
professional standards.
    I am eager to sit down with this committee to get your best 
ideas for how we can strengthen VOA and its ability to carry 
out this vital mission. I also look forward to working with my 
colleagues at USAGM and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to find 
ways to better collaborate and coordinate our efforts. With 
China and Russia doubling down on information warfare, it is 
essential that VOA and the other networks work closely together 
to create synergies and avoid duplication.
    It is early in my tenure, so it is probably a little bit 
too early to provide definitive plans. But my aspirations for 
VOA are straightforward. I want to ensure that the agency 
continues to be the leading international broadcaster providing 
factual and impartial news and information to international 
audiences, especially those living under tyranny. VOA will 
rebut misinformation and disinformation, whatever the source. 
And, in addition, we will tell America's story to the world. 
And as our charter mandates, we will represent all of America, 
not any single segment. And in so doing, we will counter 
malicious narratives spread by state-sponsored media, extremist 
groups, and other actors.
    We will also present our content in a way that is relevant 
to the diverse audiences we serve around the world. VOA, like 
many other news organizations, faces an urgent challenge of 
building audiences in places where young people have turned 
away from traditional news sources. We need to win them over 
with stories that are interesting and meet them where they are: 
on their cell phones and social media feeds and in the 
languages they speak.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and 
thank you for giving your time and energy to an agency that was 
vital in America's efforts to win the Second World War and the 
cold war and that remains just as vital today in meetings 
today's challenge of defeating authoritarianism. Thank you, 
sir.
    [The statement of Mr. Abramowitz follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. We now go to Mr. Capus.

 STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN CAPUS, PRESIDENT, RADIO FREE EUROPE/
                         RADIO LIBERTY

    Mr. Capus. Thank you, Chairman Issa. Chairman McCaul, 
Ranking Members Crow and Meeks, the distinguished members of 
this subcommittee, including Chairman Mast, thank you for 
hosting this important hearing and inviting me to speak today.
    Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty is a media organization 
with a proud history and a very bright future. It reflects the 
values of the American people through congressional and 
taxpayer support and through its independence and the desire 
for freedom for more people in the world.
    RFE/RL is unlike most any other news organization. 
Everywhere we work, we are in the thick of it. Our news 
organizations parachute in. While other news organizations 
parachute in to cover a story a day or two and then go back to 
their safe homes, our people are already home. They are firmly 
in place in some of the most difficult, dangerous places 
imaginable. There, we operate with a dedicated commitment to 
serving people as surrogate broadcasters, reaching people in 
their local languages and dialects, offering a dramatic 
alternative to State broadcasters' well-funded propaganda 
machines.
    We offer something completely different. It is called the 
truth. And just yesterday, the truth is all of us watched in 
horror as a children's hospital was bombed in Kyiv, Ukraine. 
Our extraordinary Ukraine service is comprised of nearly 200 
people based in Kyiv, Lviv, and on the front lines, and so they 
were some of the first people to show up at the scene. They 
rushed from their bomb shelter studio in the parking garage in 
Kyiv, and what they found was horrific. The video they captured 
was instantly shared around the world and seen by millions. 
Even the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense shared our video on 
their sites, and the truth went viral. And it was funded by 
you. This is how we compete with the Russian version of this 
war.
    And, yes, we do all of that kind of front-line reporting in 
Ukraine, but we also do investigative reporting. We document 
Russian atrocities, outright war crimes, and--this is 
important--we also hold the Ukrainian government accountable. 
Before, during, and after the war, our Ukraine service covers 
the local, national, and global aspects of this war for 
Ukrainians in Ukrainian.
    I have spent my entire career in American network 
newsrooms. I am the former president of NBC News. But nothing 
has been as important as the work that I am doing right here 
right now as the president of RFE/RL. These days, I work side 
by side with journalists dealing with issues of life and death. 
For example, a young Iranian journalist on our staff, Parisa 
Sohbati, she is winning awards for her podcast that connect 
young women of her age inside Iran who are facing oppression 
and terrible abuse just for being a young woman inside Iran 
yearning for freedom.
    RFE/RL has unsurpassed street credibility and brand equity 
in this region. We might still have the word radio in our name, 
but these days RFE/RL is a powerful multimedia company that 
reaches 42 million people across 11 time zones every week. That 
success is good, but it is hard earned, and our opponents are 
well funded. Consider this: China, Russia, and Iran outspend us 
by many billions, and they are not constrained by the truth. In 
contrast, RFE/RL is funded at a modest $142 million a year. We 
are outgunned, but we will not stop. Without us, Iran, China, 
and Russia will be very happy to fill the void, and we cannot 
let that happen.
    We are a thorn in the sides of these dangerous regimes, and 
so they pass new foreign agent laws, they label us extremists, 
they call us undesirable. If our work wasn't effective, they 
would simply ignore us, but they do not. We clearly are a 
threat to them, so they go to great lengths to silence us. And 
the same goes for our colleagues on democracy's front lines in 
places like Taiwan with our colleagues from Radio Free Asia. 
And with thanks to the Open Technology Fund circumvention 
technology, we reach inside closed societies.
    As I said, when all else fails, they imprison our people. 
As we sit here today, four of our colleagues are in imprisoned. 
Amanda mentioned one of them. Alsu has been held in Russia for 
nearly a year. Our colleague Vladysav is imprisoned for more 
than 3 years now in Crimea. Ihar and Andres are locked away in 
Belarus. In fact, Ihar Losik has been held incommunicado in 
Belarus for 505 days now. He has been forced to divorce his 
wife, separate entirely from his beloved profession and his 
family. Simply put, his life has been destroyed because he 
worked for us.
    I am going to conclude with the words of a famous Iranian 
women's rights activist who has been recently freed from prison 
who wrote to us: Say Hello to all of the Radio Farda 
colleagues. Your inclusive coverage is rare and very much 
appreciated inside the female section of Evin Prison.
    We want to do more. Why? Because all that we hold near and 
dear and as inherent fundamental human rights is at risk. We 
are at an inflection point in the world. In the past, during 
the cold war, when the Berlin Wall fell, during 9/11, and as 
Russian aggression surged, RFE/RL has been there to bring home 
the truth to the darkest corners. We cannot abandon the people 
who view RFE/RL as lifelines. It is worthy of your continued 
support. Thank you very much.
    [The statement of Mr. Capus follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. We now go into 5-minute sessions, 
alternating between majority and minority. And we will begin 
with Mr. Perry first for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bennett, I am sure 
you are probably aware that the oversight of your operation has 
been something of great bipartisan interest for this committee 
for some time, actually for years now. And I cannot say that we 
are openly thrilled about the cooperation from your 
predecessors, and we hope that it is better under your tenure 
here.
    Issues include, as you know, decades-long security lapses, 
a partisan bias, improper hiring practices, and abuse of visa 
programs, which are very concerning to us. Very concerning. We 
have got a wide-open border, known terrorists coming through, 
criminals, and our national security is at stake. And the abuse 
of visa programs and the lack of fidelity regarding security 
clearance is problematic to us. And so you will have to forgive 
us if we remain skeptical about USAGM's competence and 
trustworthiness.
    Mr. Capus, your eloquent talk made us think about the Voice 
of America and USAGM of days past but not of days that we have 
seen recently. We would like to change that. Clearly put and 
simply put, you are to serve the long-range interests of the 
United States, of the United States of America and its 
citizens.
    During your tenure, ma'am, as director, according to 
various VOA reporters, you and other agency officials halted a 
live interview with a known Chinese dissident after Beijing 
allegedly complained to the State Department, and then VOA 
fired the journalist conducting the interview. That is the side 
of the story I got. I am sure you have something else, and I am 
interested in hearing it. But what also concerns me is VOA used 
CCP talking points to describe the PRC's COVID-19 response 
efforts, stating, and I quote, ``From Asia to Europe, South 
America to Africa, China is providing or has pledged 
humanitarian assistance in the form of donations or medical 
expertise,'' unquote, which might be the right thing to do if 
you also include the fact that it is very likely and it has 
been known for some time and finally admitted that the likely 
location of the release of the virus is the Wuhan Institute of 
Virology. That might be at least a counterbalance. But we are 
not here to do Beijing's bidding for sure and certainly not use 
the taxpayers' money to do that.
    I am wondering, and this is another subject but along the 
same line, do you, ma'am, consider Hamas as a terrorist 
organization? Is Hamas a terrorist organization?
    Ms. Bennett. I am the head of a Federal agency----
    Mr. Perry. I know, ma'am, you are.
    Ms. Bennett [continuing]. So I will accept the definition 
that is given by the United States, which has designated Hamas 
as a terrorist organization.
    Mr. Perry. OK. So Hamas is a terrorist organization, you 
agree. And, therefore, its members are terrorists. Yet, I seen 
a memo, an internal VOA guidance, after the October 7th attack 
by Hamas directed VOA staff to avoid calling Hamas and its 
members terrorists, except in quotes. Why would that be?
    Ms. Bennett. That was a personal opinion by someone that 
circulated. It was not, by any means, the policy. The policy is 
to be careful about the use of the word terrorists with Hamas 
or any other group but to use it as it is appropriate. And this 
is one situation where artificial intelligence really enabled 
us to shed light on an important situation. In response to 
letters from both sides of Congress, we used artificial 
intelligence to look through all our languages and look at----
    Mr. Perry. Well, that is great, ma'am. And I appreciate 
that, but let's drill down on that a little bit. So Hamas is a 
terrorist organization by the definition of the U.S. 
Government. You agree. Therefore, its members are terrorists, 
and you are saying you are using artificial intelligence to 
determine when it is appropriate. So tell me when it is not 
appropriate.
    Ms. Bennett. No, sir. We used artificial intelligence to 
determine all the instances in which we did use the word 
terrorist in describing Hamas. We used it frequently, and we 
sent a graph of all the instances to the members who wrote the 
letters to us. We have used it frequently. We have used it in 
quotes, we have used it out of quotes. We have used it----
    Mr. Perry. When does it go in quotes, and when does it go 
out of quotes? When----
    Ms. Bennett. There is very widely used standards as to how 
it is used, and people, the journalists, are using their own 
determination as to whether or not it is appropriate to use it 
in quotes or not quotes. But we use it in both ways.
    Mr. Perry. But the journalists work for you, and you work 
for the United States citizens, and Hamas is a terrorist 
organization designated by the United States of America who 
attacked Israel. And the free world or the world that wishes to 
be free is counting on you to call the balls and strikes, not 
equivocate whether Hamas is a terrorist organization that 
slaughtered Jewish individuals without cause. And that is why 
many of us have pause about funding your organization because, 
if we cannot count on you to have the correct judgment 
regarding such an egregious occurrence, well, the American 
taxpayers do not want to pay for that. I yield.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. We now go to the ranking 
member for his 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, Chairman. Ms. Bennett, I want to pick 
up where we just left off here because there is just some facts 
and then there are things that are not facts. I would like to 
give you a minute or two to actually explain the facts about 
how your organization has treated the reporting on Hamas and 
its designation as a terrorist organization.
    Ms. Bennett. Yes. Thank you. And, yes, we do not shy away 
from using the word terrorist in conjunction to Hamas or any 
other terrorist-designated organization. We have found examples 
of many, many, many, well over a thousand examples in which we 
have used that exactly as you describe in appropriate manners.
    There are best practices guides that talk about how careful 
you have to be in using the word terrorist because you do not 
want to apply it indiscriminately, and the thing that 
originally started this discussion was mistakenly described as 
a policy when, in fact, it was an email sent around to staff by 
a person who was expressing her opinion, as I think we are all 
entitled to do. It did not represent the policy. The policy is 
as I have stated, which is that we are careful with the use of 
the word terrorist, but we did not shy away from using it in 
conjunction with Hamas or any other terrorist group.
    Mr. Crow. Just to clarify, you are careful with the use of 
that word because it is a serious word. You take it seriously. 
You are careful generally.
    Ms. Bennett. We are careful generally in using the word 
generally, and that applies to Hamas or any other terrorist 
organization.
    Mr. Crow. And you have never shied away from using it with 
regard to Hamas as a matter of policy.
    Ms. Bennett. We have never, and we can provide examples of 
it to anyone who requests and have done in the past.
    Mr. Crow. And to clarify your use of AI, it wasn't actually 
to determine whether or not to use it. It was actually to do 
the extra due diligence to make sure that across your entire 
enterprise that you were looking at all instances, so you 
actually were going kind of above and beyond by doing a scrub 
using AI; is that accurate?
    Ms. Bennett. That is correct. For the very first time, to 
do a scrub in all the languages that are used inside USAGM to 
look and make sure that we were using it appropriately, as 
everyone rightfully demands us to do.
    Mr. Crow. OK. Thank you. I want to touch on the issue of 
budgeting and resources. I mean, you outlined in the beginning 
the incredible case as to the powerful tool, and, Mr. Capus, 
you said it so eloquently when you indicated that the response 
from our adversaries actually indicates how effective you 
really are. I mean, they come at you and your journalists and 
reporters very hard because you pose a threat, and you pose a 
threat because you are good and you are credible and you are an 
important tool.
    So if we were going to cut your budgets, as the majority 
proposes to do, what would that look like in your 
organizations? What would be those hard decisions, those things 
you would not be able to do for us? We can start anywhere we 
want to start.
    Mr. Capus. I would say it would have a devastating impact 
on the work that we are doing, and I mentioned some of that in 
my opening statement. The work right now is vital. We are 
without a doubt targeted by Russia, by Belarus, by Iran, by 
China, you name it. And if we leave the playing field, if you 
will, if we leave that space to those countries and their 
propaganda and attempts to sway public opinion, we are giving 
them that terrain to themselves. We are busy in all of these 
areas.
    The degree of threat that our people face cannot be 
understated. Right now, we have to devote significant resources 
to advocate for our people, legal resources to try to get them 
out from behind bars, and I do not want to leave anybody 
behind. That is the other thing that goes along with the 
mission of these organizations right now is to take care of our 
people.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you. Any other thoughts on that? Mr. 
Abramowitz.
    Mr. Abramowitz. I would just say that on the issues that 
this committee cares about, that we care about,coverage of Iran 
or Russia, it would be quite devastating to have the kind of 
cuts I have seen bandied about. What is interesting to me, just 
in the first few weeks of being at VOA, is I see that when big 
news stories happen, like the debate I mentioned but also, you 
know, 2 years ago during the Women, Life, Freedom protests in 
Iran, during the recent terrorist attacks inside Russia, that 
we have a large reach in those countries, and the people of 
those countries come to VOA because it is the only source of 
information to kind of counter the false information that is 
coming from the government. And so that is what the concern 
would be, that we would steadily lose that ability to push back 
against that false information.
    Mr. Crow. Yes. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. We now go to the gentleman 
from Tennessee, Mr. Burchett.
    Mr. Burchett. Thanks, Chairman Issa, ranking member. Mr. 
Bennett, Setareh Sieg was fired for lying on her resume, for 
mishandling taxpayer dollars, and harassing staff at the United 
States Agency for Global Media. Why was she rehired? Your 
microphone.
    Ms. Bennett. Sir, that whole issue has been thoroughly 
overseen, and I have great respect for the oversight 
capabilities and responsibilities of this organization. It has 
been thoroughly overseen over a period of three and a half 
years, including all the issues you mentioned there. I hope 
that we are able to--as a conclusion was drawn, a report was 
issued. I am hoping that we will be able to work in partnership 
with your committee in oversight of the important things that 
are now facing us. So----
    Mr. Burchett. Well, ma'am, do you have any comment on that? 
I mean, I know there is a public statement that was issued 
following the Foreign Affairs Committee report, so you clearly 
have no problem with commenting on the matter. I am just 
wondering why was she rehired.
    Ms. Bennett. Sir, it is really, as you know, inappropriate 
to talk about personnel issues in an open forum like this, 
although this whole entire issue has been very thoroughly----
    Mr. Burchett. Well, ma'am, it is taxpayer money. I think it 
is very appropriate for us to talk about it. And I would issue 
some caution there. You know, the Privacy Act doesn't apply to 
Congress, and these are taxpayer moneys, and these people--
ma'am, you know, we had whistleblowers tell us that this lady 
was harassing staff. I mean, is that what is acceptable?
    Ms. Bennett. Sir, you are right. We have spent three and a 
half years being exceptionally cooperative, really trying to 
answer every question----
    Mr. Burchett. You answered every question, but you rehired 
her.
    Ms. Bennett. Sir, we dealt with that issue. We talked about 
it. It is in the report. We----
    Mr. Burchett. Well, I appreciate the talk, ma'am. But 
rehiring her, to me, really defeats a lot of the purpose of why 
we are here. I think it was pretty much proven in the committee 
report, it was unequivocal and was even proven by third-party 
credentialing service what went down on that deal, so that is 
very disappointing.
    You know, you all released a report detailing Ms. Sieg's 
offenses for which she was fired. Do you agree the committee's 
findings are accurate?
    Ms. Bennett. Sir, we do not always agree on everything the 
committee finds, but we, nonetheless, have great respect for 
the committee on its oversight responsibility and we try to----
    Mr. Burchett. And I appreciate the lawyers giving you that 
answer, ma'am. But the evidence in the report that relates to 
her lying on her resume was verified by a third-party 
credentialing service. I mean, how do we go out here and tell 
people that we are hiring and some people that we are letting 
go that, well, we will make exceptions for certain people 
because of whatever reason. And when they lie or they harass 
employees or other things or maybe some financial dealings that 
we are not clear of, sure of, that we keep these people on?
    Ms. Bennett. And, sir, as I say, we were extremely 
cooperative in talking to you about every single thing that we 
have been asked to talk about, and the report reflects the 
committee's view----
    Mr. Burchett. Ma'am, let me ask you this: do you believe 
the whistleblowers who have spoke about Ms. Sieg? Do you think 
they told the truth, or do you think they lied? Just tell me 
what do you think?
    Ms. Bennett. Sir, that is not for me to talk about whether 
a person lies or tells the truth, sir, but I would like to say 
that we do not agree with everything that the report says. 
Nonetheless, we respect the oversight----
    Mr. Burchett. Ma'am, she mishandled over $1 million in 
taxpayer money. Is that alone not a fireable offense?
    Ms. Bennett. Sir, those allegations, long before I came 
back to the agency, were, I think, deeply investigated and 
found to be without merit, which is why I believe that the 
investigation focused in on the educational credentials and not 
on these other allegations because they were disproved very 
early on, long before I came here.
    Mr. Burchett. Well, the third party, I believe, begs to 
differ on some of those issues. Who else receives this level of 
special treatment at USAGM? Is there other people that have 
followed on this same path that you know of?
    Ms. Bennett. I am not sure what level of special treatment 
that you are asking about.
    Mr. Burchett. Well, ma'am, if there is a misappropriation 
or mishandled a million dollars in taxpayer money, that seems 
to be something I would think we would be concerned about. And 
it is very concerning to me when I talk to people about the 
level of trust in government and their lack of trust when 
things like this occur. I think it is pretty evident why they 
do not trust in government because we are not managing our 
money and we are throwing it around, and this needs to change 
and I believe it will be changing very soon.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. The gentleman did seem to want to know 
if there was merit to her false allegation that she had a Ph.D. 
from a French university. Can you answer that on the record, 
please?
    Ms. Bennett. Again, sir, we answered these questions many 
times, including the seven transcribed interviews by all the 
people involved.
    Mr. Issa. I am just asking if you can answer on the record 
whether she has a Ph.D. or not. That is not a private question, 
and I think that was part of the gentleman's inquiry.
    Ms. Bennett. I think I need to defer to the testimoneys 
that have been given by our people under----
    Mr. Issa. Then let the record show that she did not have it 
and that those were truthful, that she had lied about, and we 
will leave it that way unless we get something different from a 
witness.
    With that, we go to the gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Titus, 
for her 5 minutes.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to talk 
about some of the languages that you include and some that you 
do not. I have worked a lot with the Appropriations Committee 
to highlight the importance of including the Mongolian 
language. There are 9 million Mongolians out there that are in 
Mongolia, in Russia, and the People's Republic of China, and we 
are just not reaching them. And, yet, Mongolia is a neighbor 
that we need in a kind of unfriendly part of the world, and 
they have an opportunity to do independent foreign policy. They 
are leaning toward the West and democracy. We need to get 
information they have, and they need to hear from us.
    I wonder, Ms. Bennett, can you talk about what steps you 
have taken to try to establish a Mongolian language service? 
There is a Mongolia caucus here in Congress that would be 
interested in hearing that.
    Ms. Bennett. Congresswoman, I completely agree with you as 
to the importance of the Mongolian language, particularly as it 
relates to its neighbor in the People's Republic of China and 
the issues surrounding it. And, yes, we have done a fair amount 
of study and research as to the feasibility of adding that 
language, but, unfortunately, like so many of the other 
languages that we would also like to add to reach those people, 
the recent budget cuts have made this really impossible to do. 
We have put it on our list. We have looked for it. We are going 
to request that funding be made available for it, but, 
unfortunately, it is just a victim of the current budget 
situation for which I really feel deeply sorry.
    Ms. Titus. Well, I do, too. I know that the report for 
Fiscal Year 2025 mentioned that this was something that we 
should be doing and then to cut the resources to make it 
impossible just seems not in our own national security 
interest.
    Ms. Bennett. I would agree with you, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Titus. What are some of the other languages that you 
are looking at, like Mongolia?
    Ms. Bennett. Well, there are a number of places that we 
would like to think about broadcasting into that we talk about. 
Just off the top of my head, there would be perhaps in the 
Philippines, the languages that reach the Philippines, Brazil, 
India. These places originally were thought to have very robust 
free press availability, which no longer do. There are many, 
many parts of the world nowadays that we would like to really 
consider adding a broadcast to, and I think that those places 
would welcome our presence.
    Ms. Titus. Well, I think so, too. We will see if we cannot 
make that case to get that funding back. Yet another reason why 
the budget should not be cut.
    So let me ask you this: in Eastern Europe, we are seeing 
more and more regimes becoming more repressive. You have got 
Lukashenka in Belarus, and you've got Hungary, Poland. Moldova 
seems to be next. If you look at, after Ukraine, the pieces 
that start to fall, Moldova certainly is, you know, kind of in 
that pathway. We have got a limited presence there, but, 
despite the fact that Moldova gets an awful lot of propaganda 
from Russia, can you talk, Mr. Capus, about some of the maybe 
bright spots in that region and how we could increase funding 
there to push back Russian narratives?
    Mr. Capus. Well, we do have a presence in Moldova, and they 
are doing some fine work right now. All across that Eastern 
Europe and you get into the Caucasus and other areas, I was 
just in Georgia 3 weeks ago visiting our staff, dedicated staff 
that we have in Tbilisi. This is a group of people who not only 
are Georgian, but this is also a group of people who we have 
had to relocate several times. They used to work for us, in 
some cases, in Russia. Then we moved them to Kyiv, and now we 
have moved them to Tbilisi thinking that would be safe. And 
now, of course, this terrible, yet another one of these foreign 
agent laws has been passed in Georgia, and so they are facing 
an uncertain future, as well.
    We cannot afford to continue to open one office, close 
another one, open in a new place thinking it is going to be 
safe. We have got to--and, to be clear, we do not just simply 
do that as soon as it gets a little difficult. Everywhere where 
we operate right now, things are difficult. We stay there as 
long as we can, as long as we can keep our people safe, because 
the audiences expect us to be there. But it is an important 
task.
    Ms. Titus. There is a lot of overlap with where you are. 
You mentioned Georgia and then Kyiv and making those moves. 
With HDP, the House Democracy Partnership, we are trying to do 
some of the same things that you are doing but working through 
legislative bodies in some of these countries that are in very 
difficult neighborhoods, and I think it is a good partnership 
and I would like to see it strengthened, not weakened by budget 
cuts.
    Mr. Capus. We would love to welcome you to Prague sometime 
to talk about it.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Issa. We will now go to the gentlelady from 
Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Issa. Oh, would the gentlelady yield for just 1 second? 
I just want to get this in the record. I ask unanimous consent 
that documents from Carol Guensburg dated October 20th and 
October 10th be put in the record, and her title is the 
Associate Editor, News and Standards and Best Practices. 
Without objection, it will be placed in the record.
    I apologize, and please go forward, ma'am.
    Ms. Dean. Not at all. I thank you, Chairman Issa and my 
sympathies to Representative Mast and his family. Thank you, 
Ranking Member Crow, for holding this hearing today, and I am 
especially thankful to the three of you. It is an honor to be 
in your company, to be in conversation with you, with the 
extraordinary work, the body of work you all have done but 
especially what you are doing now. Please send my regards to 
all those you work with. They are well led by you, and that 
might reveal that I am a little puzzled by some of the focus of 
the questions today on personnel matters because what you are 
doing is so incredibly important, and we need to be an 
appropriate partner with you, not overseeing HR.
    I would like to talk first about combating disinformation. 
We have seen a startling rise in the spread of misinformation, 
disinformation, and plain flat-out lying both domestically and 
across the globe. We have even heard instances in this very 
room, which I find so regrettable. I have made a point to call 
out disinformation when I hear it and try to correct the record 
because, after all, if we are not operating under facts and 
truth, we are not operating well. I firmly believe we must 
ensure that people have access to reliable fact-based 
information. We must support credible unbiased media 
organizations that work to provide that information globally.
    Ms. Bennett, you say in your written testimony, quote, 
``Disinformation by our adversaries paired with censorship of 
truthful reporting threatens the viability of fragile 
democracies and presents an urgent national security risk to 
the United States,'' end quote. Mr. Capus, you similarly State 
that reinforcing the democratic foundation of other nations 
contributes to the safety and security of the American people. 
And I know, Mr. Abramowitz, you have similar responsibilities.
    How do you all check, how do you use your organization 
appropriately to check and combat disinformation, particularly 
in those areas where we see vulnerable democracies at risk?
    Ms. Bennett. I would like to cede to my colleagues, but, 
first, to say something as basic as the fact that without VOA, 
without Radio Free Europe, there are big parts of the world 
that would not even know that there had been a Russian invasion 
of Ukraine because the Russians were saying there had been 
none. These are the only two sources of truth in that matter in 
very large portions of the world, so perhaps you two would like 
to talk about it.
    Mr. Abramowitz. Sure. Well, we do it in a lot of different 
ways. I think one of the things that we have 48 different 
language services, and each of those services approaches it 
differently. But, often, there are fact-checking or 
disinformation monitoring types of enterprises carried out that 
are appropriate for each culture.
    So, for instance, the Mandarin desk, I have learned, you 
know, we have a disinformation desk, and they were looking, for 
instance, at how Google's artificial intelligence gave answers 
online, and they discovered that, often, the answers were in 
line with Chinese propaganda. And then when the chat bot, the 
Google chat bot was silent on issues like human rights abuses 
in Xinxiang or street protests against COVID.
    And so our team of reporters surfaced that, and that became 
something that got public and many Members of Congress in both 
parties learned about that and they publicized it. So it is 
dozens of different exercises like that across the news 
services that we do that.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you. Mr. Capus.
    Mr. Capus. There is a number of things I would like to say 
about this, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk about it. 
I would say that all of the services, and you have to remember 
that we are operating in 23 different countries, 27 different 
language services, all of our entities have the mandate of 
identifying disinformation campaigns. Often, we are some of the 
first people to spot them before they go viral, and so they 
have the mandate to find them and then report on them. You can 
see examples across the board of all of our services doing 
incredibly important work in this.
    I think there is a misperception that our job is to simply 
be propaganda on the other side. Nothing could be further from 
the truth about that. We have a mandate to present the truth. 
If we are viewed as simply a mouthpiece for the U.S. Government 
or for just being the flip side, being propagandists, then I 
cannot think of a quicker way for all of us to be deemed 
irrelevant by the audiences that we are trying to reach.
    So we do not play games with the news. That is the most 
important thing that I would say that would be a takeaway, I 
hope, is we do not play games with the news. We report what is 
going on, and that is the mission.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you for that fine, diligent filter, and 
it is so desperately connected to national security for us but 
also globally. So thank you and especially thank you for the 
reporting at the children's hospital yesterday. I yield back.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentlelady. I will recognize myself 
now. Ms. Bennett, the committee has asked for and not received 
any substantiation, including dissertation, grades, documents 
from a university showing this alleged Ph.D. We have a valid 
whistleblower and substantiation from the French government 
that she does not have the degree from Sorbonne that she says 
she has. Now, you have refused to answer. You are saying you 
will let the reports speak for themselves. So on behalf of the 
full committee chairman, I am just simply going to make sure 
that, on the record, this committee believes that you have 
rehired somebody who lied about their degree and they have been 
re-instituted as somebody over the control of others, in a 
position of authority. Now that is not an H.R. statement. That 
is, in fact, a management statement pursuant to this 
committee's oversight and pursuant to what we do when we have 
whistleblowers report false allegations.
    Until or unless you find a way to change that, on behalf of 
the chairman and on behalf of myself, we will still stand 
feeling that you have not righted the ship. If you can find an 
explanation showing why you believe she should be rehired 
because her claim was not false or that you are perfectly happy 
to have somebody who has lied but is pretty good at other 
things, then say so to the committee. Until you do so, that is 
where the record is going to be since you refuse to answer.
    Now, as to Carol Guensburg, her title which I already put 
in the record is the Associate Editor of News Standards and 
Best Practices. That is not somebody just sending something 
around. That is somebody with the authority to say how things 
should be done and to interpret what best practices are. Is 
that not true, ma'am?
    Ms. Bennett. At the time, she was the acting in that 
position, and she was interpreting on her own behalf----
    Mr. Issa. Ma'am, she had the title. Acting gives her the 
title and the power. So my question to you is would not you 
have to agree that when someone sends something around and they 
have the title that says they, in fact, are the interpreter and 
the boss when it comes to news standards and best practices, 
that that is not just, as you said, somebody sending something 
around that. That is management making a statement telling 
people not to use Hamas terrorist, except in quotations. 
Wouldn't you agree to that?
    Ms. Bennett. Sir, she interpreted the best practices 
information, which is readily available to everyone----
    Mr. Issa. We went through a great deal----
    Ms. Bennett. It was a loose interpretation. It was 
immediately reinterpreted by management, and the----
    Mr. Issa. When did that reinterpretation occur? It did not 
occur on the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, or all the way through to the 
20th. When did it occur?
    Ms. Bennett. Sir, unfortunate--this was done at the Voice 
of America before Mr. Abramowitz's tenure there, so it was not 
done under his direct supervision, so we would have to go back 
and look. But I was made aware at the time that there was a 
reinterpretation and a re-encouragement that people look to the 
best practices guide, which is readily available to every 
employee of USAGM.
    Mr. Issa. So in the intervening 2 months, one of the things 
that happened is I met with the acting head of it and, through 
a whistleblower, discovered they went back and mocked the 
meeting and our idea that we would question whether that was 
best practice. So, once again, for the record, it was more than 
2 months.
    We are here because we do provide authorization and, 
ultimately, appropriation of an amount that, over the years, 
has been many billions of dollars. I believe in your 
organization, and I believe that the hardworking men and women, 
many of whom aren't Americans, that are across the globe and 
they are operating, trying to bring the truth to people. I 
would ask all of you, and I know I did not ask all of you 
questions here today, I would ask all of you to go back and ask 
the question. We do not want you to be propaganda. We do know 
that people take great risk, but we also know that the Voice of 
America and its other namesakes are, in fact, supposed to be 
the voice of an American position of liberty, an American 
position that promotes the human side of freedom. And it is not 
completely without a bias. It, by definition, does have the 
American bias. It does have the bias of the free world. That is 
what we did, that is what we sent over the Berlin Wall and 
throughout the Iron Curtain for generations.
    And so I would ask you to please take a good look because 
the term best practices, for gentlemen, including Mr. Capus, 
the definition that exists at CNN versus Fox, neither one of 
those definitions work. And the definition at the Washington 
Post and the definition at the New York Times, quite candidly, 
when we contrast them, they are not looking at the same book. 
So your definition has to be consistent with a mandate that 
comes from Congress and a tradition that I think everyone on 
both sides of the aisle here today can be supportive of. And I 
know I have been tough on you, and I am doing this on behalf of 
the chairman of the subcommittee, but I am also doing this 
because I believe in your organization and I would hope that 
this hearing isn't just one of those things you slough off and 
say, oh, that was good, we got it done, but you actually ask 
the question of could not we do better than saying we have best 
practices and say, you know what, we have uniquely the type of 
practices we are proud to come before Congress and show them 
what we do. And please continue using your AI to sort of figure 
out whether you have some level of consistency over so many 
languages.
    And with that, I would ask if anyone needs a followup 
question.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, Chairman. This is less a question, 
just wanting to point out in response to the questioning about 
this employee and the employee's credentials. The minority has, 
on numerous occasions, requested from the majority the 
transcripts of the TIs that the majority took at their request 
during the conduct of the investigation that is underlying the 
report. The majority has not released the transcripts from 
those TIs. So in the interest of transparency, in the interest 
of bringing to light all of the facts of this case, let's just 
release those transcripts so we can all see for ourselves what 
it is we are dealing with. What do they have to hide?
    So we will again reiterate our request from the minority to 
the majority to release the transcripts of those TIs so we can 
have a more thorough and open conversation. Thank you, 
Chairman.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. And we are asking whether we can get 
you a direct answer to that. I will, from experience, comment 
just briefly. As you know, you had members of your side in 
those transcribed interviews. And for purposes of the 
committee, you are free to ask questions relevant to that and 
even to opine on what you believe you understood in those 
hearings. They are not closed from essentially your release. If 
they are transcribed interviews, they are free even for you to 
say a great deal. If they are depositions, then the actual 
release requires a committee vote, but I would only say from my 
own experience please feel free to bring copies or to refresh 
your memory and ask questions from it in the future and, 
hopefully, we will be able to release all or whatever is 
mutually agreeable between the majority and minority shortly.
    Ms. Titus, do you have any further comments in closing?
    Ms. Titus. Yes. Thank you. I just wanted to ask Mr. Capus 
if he could briefly give us an update on Ms. Kurmasheva's 
situation. We met with her family, and we know she is being 
held. She is one of your journalists. Could you tell us where 
she is, how she is, what is happening?
    Mr. Capus. Well, thank you for asking. No. 1, she is a 
beloved colleague of all of us. She has been a resident of 
Prague for 25 years. She is an American citizen. She made what 
we now know is a mistake, not reporting inside Russia but she 
went home because her mother was quite ill. And she went back 
to visit her, and, when she went to leave, they stopped her and 
she has been there ever since. She has been in a prison now for 
8 months, and sometime this summer she will face a formal 
hearing. All of this has been pretrial. She will face a formal 
hearing. The charges are baseless. They have been brought up 
against her, we believe, because she works for us.
    Her conditions in the prison cell have been terrible. She 
was forced to sleep a mere few feet away from a hole in the 
floor that doubled as a toilet, and, recently, they moved her 
into a different facility. We have had to take the Russians to 
court in order to get just basic level of health care for her, 
and she has had some concerns. We have had to push to get those 
conditions treated, and we have had to go to court in order to 
get that done.
    She has not been able to have communication with her 
family. The United States has tried to send consular visits to 
her cell. We have been pushing the United States Department of 
State to give her the wrongfully detained designation, which we 
believe would give her the full weight and support of the U.S. 
Government as we push for her release, and, to date, she has 
not been given that designation, though we believe she meets 
each and every one of the criteria necessary.
    Her detention has been a blow to the organization because 
all of our people know that there are inherent risks, but this 
goes to a whole other level. And we feel most profoundly for 
her 12-year-old and her 15-year-old, two daughters who are 
wonderful, and her loving husband who also works for us. It is 
cliche to say that a workplace is family. This is family for 
us, and this hits awfully close to home.
    Ms. Titus. Is there anything we can do to call on the State 
Department to see if we could not expedite that designation?
    Mr. Capus. Chairman McCaul and this committee have already 
held hearings about all of the Americans who are wrongfully 
detained, including Paul Whelan, including Evan Gershkovich, 
and Russia is using this as a political tactic, grabbing 
Americans as they can and see what kind of a price they can get 
in exchange. It is a hateful tactic, and it happens to have 
caught up one of our colleagues in the process.
    Yes, we would like to see the designation because we think 
it would help also, especially as she is about to go into the 
formal hearing sometime this summer.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. Mr. Perry, any final words?
    Mr. Perry. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just following up, 
Mr. Capus, why do you suspect there is a delay in her receiving 
the designation? I mean, we hear the stories, and, of course, 
they are heartbreaking and they are unacceptable. They are 
outrageous. Why would there be any delay whatsoever if you 
know?
    Mr. Capus. I am not sure I can answer that, sir. I believe 
that we have had a very high level engagement with the State 
Department, and they have said and we believe, we take them at 
their word, that they are doing absolutely everything they can 
to get her out, even without the designation.
    Mr. Perry. Do they think having the designation imperils 
her freedom?
    Mr. Capus. I think you would have to ask them what their 
concern is. I think that they, I believe that they would like 
to see her released, as well.
    Mr. Perry. Well, I sure hope so, but, my goodness, I mean, 
when they say they are doing everything they can and we are 
waiting on a designation and it is your studied opinion that 
the designation would aid in her release or at least her 
defense, I cannot imagine what the rationale would be. If you 
do get the answer any time timely, I think, certainly, I would 
like to have it.
    Just one more question, Ms. Bennett. You might not really 
be aware, but, back in the summer of 2020, OPM published a 
report questioning long-running issues with the way USAGM used 
its delegated authority to conduct background investigations 
for eligibility for access to classified information. Now, the 
MOU lapsed in 2012, which is quite a long time from now, but 
USAGM simply just continued to conduct background 
investigations for, literally, several years after that.
    Is USAGM still conducting background investigations for 
potential USAGM employees under delegated authority?
    Ms. Bennett. We are on the verge of getting back our 
authorities. We have handled every single thing that has been 
asked of us. I think there is only one issue left open, and we 
expect to get our delegated authority back within, I think, the 
next 30 to 60 days.
    Mr. Perry. OK. And who is conducting the investigations 
currently?
    Ms. Bennett. ODNI.
    Mr. Perry. ODNI is currently conducting----
    Ms. Bennett. I believe that's----
    Mr. Perry [continuing]. And would you commit to providing 
the documentation regarding your eligibility when you receive 
it so that we have that?
    Ms. Bennett. Yes, absolutely. And I would just like to 
correct one piece of misinformation, this misunderstanding that 
our employees have access to classified information. These are 
not people that--these are journalists. They report news 
outside, just like every other journalists. They have no access 
to classified information; and, therefore, their security 
clearance does not need to reflect that.
    Mr. Perry. Well, I did not make that assertion. However, in 
past investigations, it was pretty clear that there were 
employees of USAGM with security clearance. I'm not saying 
under your command, but there were employees that had received 
the clearance that should not have received the clearance, if 
nothing else for the fact that USAGM was not qualified and was 
not authorized to conduct the investigation. Yet, the 
clearances were granted. And, again, this is a dangerous world. 
We have got a wide-open border. We have got known terrorists 
coming into the United States of America, and we cannot be too 
careful. And so it is important that not only that we are 
conducting the oversight but that you are watching that and 
understand that we are aware of that issue, and we do not want 
that issue to be replicated ever, ever again.
    Ms. Bennett. I feel proud of the work that the staff has 
done in clearing up the issues that have been raised, and we 
are very close to receiving our authorities back again and I am 
very pleased with that.
    Mr. Perry. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I yield.
    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. That brings to a close 
this hearing. I want to thank the witnesses for their valuable 
testimony and the members who asked questions. Both those 
members and other members of this subcommittee will have some 
additional questions for the witnesses. Would each of you be 
able to answer questions you receive in writing in the next 5 
days?
    Mr. Capus. Yes.
    Ms. Bennett. Yes.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. Please let the record reflect all 
answered in the affirmative. The chair now----
    Mr. Crow. Can I just confirm----
    Mr. Issa. Go ahead, Mr. Crow.
    Mr. Crow. Your question was, chairman, that they agreed to 
answer questions in the next 5 days. Are you saying those are 
questions that the members will posit in the next 5 days? I 
just want to make sure we are not committing them to answer----
    Mr. Issa. No, no. In the closing, it will say, you know, 
members may have 5 days in which to----
    Mr. Crow. Yes. I just want to make sure that is what you 
were referring to.
    Mr. Issa. Yes. Thank you. Pursuant to the committee rules, 
all members may have 5 days to submit statements, questions, 
and extraneous materials for the record, subject to the length 
limitations. And without objection, that brings us to a close. 
Thank you.
    [Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record 
at 3:45 p.m.]

                                APPENDIX

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                [all]