the overwhelming majority of are shia and kurd. the overwhelming majority of the shia areas are firmly in control -- of essentially their security forces. for the shia, the iraqi militias. the land mass is greater than the population they control. therefore, i am not as concerned that the entire state will fall. >> what specifically led us to the point we're at now with iraq? >> they're twofold. one i think has received the bulk of the attention which is the enormity of the mistake to invade iraq, not that it was badly implemented, that the occupation was badly handled. but the whole concept, the idea that we could invade a country and disrupt, and the whole political social security order

in the middle east was a catastrophic mistake but not who did what in the invasion of iraq and how bad that was but a long held american policy of arming, funding, and training sunni, jihaddist militants that goes back to the decision in the carter administration in 979 to arm, train and fund the knew hauge make immediate -- fund the mahajmadine and get them in the quagmire we had in vietnam and though it had short-term gains in getting the soviets out of afghanistan, that policy has been zast us for the united states and it goes to the precursor elements in al qaeda and after the invasion in iraq, as we were desperate to try to bring in these sunni groups that were not accepting this upending of the political order we had arranged -- engineered in iraq with the invasion, desperate to

corrupt some of the sunni elements, the surge looked at in washington think an unmitigated success took us right back to that policy and entailed beyond sending 30,000 troops to the baghdad area, it entailed arming, funding and training 80,000 sunnis and whoo it did was brought us back to the policy of arming, training and funding sunnis to fight their way into a political order, not to negotiate. we then, of course, have the military intervention in libya which adds fuel to the fire, unleashing thousands of more unni militias with forces in libya and most disastrous has been our policy towards syria we we worked indirectly and directly to train libya which s to gave strength to those in syria

and is coming home to roost in iraq. the most urgent issue is not the problem of invading iraq, as bad as it was, the most urgent issue is to deal squarely with our arming, funding and training of sunni jihaddists in each of these conflicts in afghanistan, libya and syria and iraq. >> over the weekend this was a very big topic on a lot of the sunday talk shows and senator lindsey graham had comments about the discussions the united states is reportedly going to start having with the government of iran. i'd like to take a listen to those and get your take. >> how we deal with stalin is not as bad at hitler. the iranians can provide some assets to make sure baghdad doesn't fall and we need to coordinate with the you'reians and the turks need to get the sunnis back in the game without malaki. but yes, i don't want iran to dominate iraq and that's where they're headed if the central government falls, the iranians are going in the shi'ia area of

iraq, the south. don't let the iranians save baghdad, let us save baghdad so there can be a chance at a second government. >> the south carolina senator lindsey graham, your take? >> i think it's a remarkable turn of events to see senator graham and other figures come out, honestly, i spent a decade in the u.s. government and out of it advocating the clear urgency for u.s. policy to reorient, to accept the republic of you're ran as an essential player and deal with it as an essential player. in some sense it's positive and remarkable to hear the comments, but my concern is that they are focused, again, on working with and using iran in a short-term way like in afghanistan and bosnia and lebanon to take advantage of their military assets to help us in a short-term way. that has repeatedly found and actually made the situation between the u.s. and iran worse but here it potentially could be disastrous to coordinate

with them on an overt military strategy, essentially for the u.s. air force to provide air cover for you'reian troops. that is a -- for the iranian troops. that is a trap and been the strategy for al qaeda to bring in what they call the crusaders, the united states, the and the infidels, the shi'ia in iran, to bring them in and then use their joint military intervention as a ray to rally sunnis across the muslim world who are not extreme, who are not violent, who do not go by their ideology but feel they're under a threat from the crusaders, the united states. >> in the auditorium, we welcome those joining us on our heritage.org website and those joining us today via c-span. we would ask everyone here in the house to make sure their cell phones have been called off as a beginning courtesy to our program and we'll post the program on our heritage home page for everyone's future reference. hosting our discussion today is brett shafer, r.j.k. research

fellow in the international regulatory affairs, part of the margaret thatcher center for freedom. he analyzes a range of foreign policy issues focusing primarily on the united nations and affiliated funds and programs and frequently speaks and publishes issues related on the world body and its activities. in 2009 he edited the book " conundrum, the search for alternatives" which features several experts examining an array of international activities and responsibilities conducted by the u.n. he is a frequent visitor to the sub-saharan africa as well and has written extensively on economic development, peace and security issues in that region. he first joined us here at heritage in 1995 from march 2003 to 2004 he worked at the pentagon as an assistant for international criminal court policy before returning here to heritage. please join me in welcoming brett shafer. brett?

[applause] >> good afternoon. welcome to the heritage foundation. as we noted on the flyer, in recent years, there have been a number of various stories, reports, and other sources revealing a troubling number of scandals, mishaps, misappropriations by the united nations and its affiliated organizations, and i'll go through a few of them to give you a sense for what we've seen. earlier this year the associated press reported the united nations office of internal oversight services failed to pursue cases of corruption over the last five years, including major cases inherited from the procurement task force that was disbanded in 2008. over the past few years, francis scurry, director of wipo, have been accused of overtly authorizing the transfer of dual use technology to iran and north korea and acting illegally in an effort

to identify the author of anonymous letters accusing of sexual harassment and improprieties and was recently elected to be general director of wipo. in late 2013 the u.n. dispute tribunal ruled two missile blowers retaliated against for exposing evidence tampering by a top u.n. official charged with investigating corruption were themselves retaliated against and -- by that top official who was their superior. the former spokesperson for the u.n. mission in darfur recently revealed in an interview to "foreign policy-making zone" the u.n. has routinely denied, concealed, or refused to report evidence that attacks on civilians in order to make the ituation in darfur appear more -- to appear better or more stable than it actually it. all this happened while u.s.

secretary-general ban ki-moon repeated his goal is to make the u.n. more accountable and effective. today we have three speakers, two in person and one that, unfortunately, is going to have to appear via skype due to personal reasons. and each of them have come at the issue of transparency and accountability in the united nations from a different perspective. first we have edward patrick flaherty, an american lawyer and senior partner in a swiss law firm of schwab, flaherty and associates in geneva and focuses on representing whistle blowers, staff members and third party working for or injured by international organizations such as the u.n., wipo, the world health organization and international labor organization, james wasistrom is a u.s. diplomat that serves as a anti-corruption embassy in kabul, afghanistan. when assigned to the u.s.a. peacekeeping program in cose, -- kosovo, he blew the whistle on a conspiracy to pay $500

million in kickbacks to senior kosovo officials. he identified the process for dealing with whistle blower retaliation first hand and can offer insights to its strengths and peculiarities and how it compares to the u.s. in similar procedures. finally, roger appleton was an attorney with the u.s. department of justice before being asked to serve as deputy chief legal council for the independent inquiry committee for investigation to the u.n. for oil food scandal. his distinguished service in that role led to him being named the chairman of the u.n. security task force charged for investigating fraud in the u.s. peacekeeping operations. until earlier this year, bob was director of investigations and senior legal counsel for the global fund. he recently joined dave pitney l.l.p. as a partner and due to unexpected events, as i mentioned earlier, he'll be appearing by skype. following presentation, we'll have time for a few questions and answers from the audience. and before we begin, i also

want to note we invited the u.n. to provide a panelist for this event. unfortunately, they were not able to provide one. so without any further adieu, ed, would you lead us off here? >> sure. thank you. >> welcome, everyone. thanks, brett. i just want to thank you and the heritage foundation for inviting me today. i followed brett's work from afar for a long time, as with james and bob, and i feel a bit like the piper here given the distinguished backgrounds of the two other panelists, i'm just a toiling lawyer trying to help some people in the field. but unlike jim and bob, i also never worked for the u.n. i did try to get a job when i first moved to geneva 20 years ago and after i had a lunch with the i.l.o. legal advisor, he told me if i was 10 years younger, he might have hired me. of course i was only 35 at the time but that was a bit of the problem, i think. the international labor office is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of age but what

they often say is that a lot of their standards don't apply to them or any of the other international organizations, which is also part of the problem. but as brett said, i represented a number of staff members and staff associations during the 20 years i've been in geneva and brought a number of cases, both internally and also in u.s. courts and the european court of human rights. one of several of my more notable cases was the case of cynthia berzak vs. ru lovers and others, he was the high commissioner of refugees in geneva who was accused of sexually assaulting ms. berzak. e case was investigated by iois, the u.n. internal investigation office and they found her reports credible but kofi annan decided it wasn't credible for some unknown reason and put the report in the trash bucket and never sent it to ms. berzak and exonerated

ms. lubbers. she came to me because really had no remedy in the internal system, nor could we really bring any case in geneva. the assault happened in geneva, by the way. so we then tried to bring a case in u.s. federal district court and we did bring the case and was dismissed because of the immunity of u.n. and went to the second circuit and challenged the immunity of the u.n. as unconstitutional. unfortunately, although we did get argument didn't get very much consideration in the decision but i still personally believe that the immunity of international organizations and the u.n. is unconstitutional in u.s. law and think eventually it will be overturned, whether hopefully in my lifetime or my client's lifetime but that remains to be seen. m also working on -- well, i'm preparing an ameekous brief for a case now -- amicus brief

for a case now brought in manhattan brought by a number of haitian survivors and victims of a cholera epidemic, where the cholera was allegedly introduced into haiti after the earthquake by u.n. peacekeepers which caused approximate 8,000 deaths and 750,000 illnesses or sickness. people were hospitalized and whatnot. he u.n. has refused to impanel the dispute resolution body which is set up in the general convention on privileged and immunities and so the haitians have been left to bring an action in u.s. district court. so i'm right now the case is at the district court level. the u.n. has challenged the case on the basis of the immunity. i expect the case will be dismissed and then it will be appealed presumably to the second circuit and i will probably be writing an amicus

for several years ago i founded an n.g.o. called the center for accountability of international organizations in geneva and on behalf of that n.g.o., or presuming that the case is dismissed, which based on the jurisprudence of u.s. law to this point, i think will probably happen. brett asked me to just open briefly about what some of the problems are for u.n. staff members, whistle blowers and whatnot. as a practitioner, the big problem is you have a system of immunity where the international organizations are not subject to local laws at all, whether you're sitting in new york or geneva, nairobi, anywhere, doesn't matter. you're subject only to the u.n. internal rules and regulations and that obviously creates a problem, particularly if you have criminal activity because the u.n. doesn't have any criminal code. so if in the case of lubbers, a

staff member, high commissioner of refugees commits an alleged criminal act, the only recourse of the victim is either internally or to try to go to the local courts, but then because of the immunity, it has to be lifted by, in this case, it would have been by the secretary-general. but that very rarely happens. so what you have is you have a case of -- with the internal system, this internal justice system set up in all these international organizations, he defendant is also the judge in a sense. they run it, they fund it and create the rules. so it's not a very fair system, as many have said, there's absolutely no accordion of arms whatsoever in this system. so you have perverse outcomes. what's happened recently in many of my cases, i mostly litigate before the u.n. appeals tribunal which deals with most of the u.n.

organizations, the u.n. proper, and then the international labor office administrative tribunal which also is based in geneva and there are about 40 different international organizations, intergovernmental organizations that subscribe to the jurisdiction of the i.l.o. and often you bring a case on behalf of a whistle blower or a disgruntled staff member, injured staff member, injured third party, and you win on the merits, whether it's an employment case or whether it's an injury case, but you then get pending damages. and you have no other recourse. that's the problem. what i tried to do more recently is challenge the u.n.'s immunity before the european court of human rights. and actually, there seems to be more room for potential success there than i've had in the u.s. courts because in a more recent found e european court at a employee of the kuwaiti

embassy in paris who had been fired and then tried to sue in the local labor courts in paris and had his claim denied because of the sovereign immunity of kuwait, the european court found he could in fact bring his claim. because he was not performing any sovereign functions, that they couldn't deny him his civil rights to bring his employment claim. now, in the united states, in the u.s. courts, the u.s. courts have viewed employment matters as protected by the sovereign immunity. so i think there is some room, some potential to use that case by analogy for staff members who work for international organizations, at least within the jurisdiction of the european court which covers some 37 to 38 european countries, including russia and ukraine, that they in fact may apply that and we might be able to get around the immunity in those courts.

what the problem is you have is no one guarding the guardians, the proverbial problem of who is going to be in charge, who is providing the oversight. in theory, it's the diplomats. it's the member states that are supposed to be providing the oversight and accountability for the organizations, but diplomats make terrible overseers. in geneva particularly, in many international organizations, the children, spouses, relatives of ambassadors have been hired as interns or staff members or consultants by these international organizations and in fact, many ambassadors after they finish their term then go to work for these international organizations. this also creates obviously a clear conflict of interest. no one wants to upset the apple cart and they foresee when i'm done with my ambassadorial career i can go work for the u.n. somewhere so i don't want to change anything that might

make me the skunk at the garden party. this also happens, i find also quite a revolving door between state department, foreign ministry officials who again are there to be the overseers of the organizations but ultimately end up working for the organizations. so there really is -- there is no effective oversight, and the internal legal systems, and this is what jim can speak to in much greater detail about his own experience, just provide no real justice because it's a system that's set up by the defendant, it's controlled by the defendant, run by the defendant. so i find that very, very difficult. occasionally you do get a win for a client but for the most part, statistically, just for example, the i.l.o. administrative tribunal staff members win less than 30% of the time. so it's not a very effective system. there's no effective system of discovery. as a lawyer, you want to have

-- i mean, you're dealing in administrative law, many things are done on paper. and to prove your case, you want to see the documents, you want to see communications. to get those document is virtually impossible. it's worse than pulling teeth. and whenever i ask for -- in every judgment i ever get, particularly from the iloat, they always admonish me for my fishing expeditions because i'm asking for documents that are pertinent but they still continue to claim that well, you know, if you don't have the documents, you haven't proven your case so that's the end of t. just very quickly, what can be done? i think the immunity in my view is the major problem. there are times when the u.n. and other coercions should have the immunity. if they're in congo in a war zone, no doubt about it. but in terms of claims that arise in new york or geneva or

vienna, there's no need for it and they're developing countries can functional legal systems that more than adequately can address many of the claims that arise in these organizations, whether it's sexual assault or sexual harassment or termination, things of that nature. how that will happen is many different ways. now the u.n. the immunity arises out of the organization promulgated in 1945 and ratified by the u.s. senate in 1971, i think. way it gives the u.n., i should say, absolute immunity and that was the issue in the lubbers case where we tried to attack the action saying how can sexual assault be a part of the mandate of the u.n. high commission for refugees? and the judge in the second circuit very plainly said i

agree with you, but look at this convention? it's absolute. there's nothing we can do. so there are several ways to address it. one is perhaps applying the torte and commercial protections of the foreign sovereign immunities act which applies only to sovereign countries right now to the u.n. where there are specific exceptions to sovereign immunity, country immunity if you're engaged in government activity and commit a torte and something to do with real estate. the other is simply, at least in the u.s., we obviously can't do this worldwide but to make the immunity of the u.n. and other international organizations an affirmative defense where instead of being an absolute bar to any claim, that instead if the immunity is applicable and appropriate, you can raise it as an affirmative defense and the judge at that point should dismiss. right now you never get to discovery, you never get to the heart of the matter in a case brought in the u.s. court in many courts nationwide because

you filed the claim and the u.n. says we have absolute immunity, judge, dismiss the case and the judges do that because that's what the jurisprudence says. two other very quick solutions i have, one is to promulgate a u.n. fraud claims act similar to the federal flawed claims act which is the federal flawed claims act turns individual whistle blowers into private attorneys general where they can bring actions on behalf of international -- on behalf of the federal government to recover fraudulent obtained funds. i think there's room for something like that in the u.n. another important thing would be a freedom of information act for the u.n. right now getting information out of the u.n., as i said, is worse than pulling teeth. and how do you enforce those? one way to do it is to set up a special tribunal that assuming you keep the immunity in place, which if you can't get rid of the immunity, this is an

alternative and is any award made to the tribunal pursuant to the u.n. fraud claims act or u.n. freedom of information act is to reduce any of those awards from the amounts that have been allocated by congress to the u.n. which i think brett recently wrote something saying the direction assessles are $4 billion a year where i think the -- all u.n. is double that at least. that's another aspect. so i can go on. you can ask me to tell war stories and it's hard to shut him up. but i think that sort of gives a general overview of what the problem is. for me it really is the immunity. and today in the 21st century, there's no reason for the u.n. to -- other international organizations to enjoy an absolute immunity that sort of harkens back to the day of kings and queens. you know, no government today enjoys absolute immunity.

the prevailing theory in international discourse is a restricted theory of immunity, except with the u.n. so i think you have to address that at the root of it. only then can you have effective oversight and accountability of these organizations, and as i said, the diplomats haven't done it and never will be able to do it. it's up to people like jim and bob when he worked at o.i.s. to try to bring these organizations to heal and to bring them into the 21st century. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> well, it's hard to follow such an ariadite and learned presentation by someone who doesn't have that kind of learning. ut as you know, my name is jim

wasastrom. i'm a u.n. whistle blower in the flesh. what i'm about to talk about has absolutely nothing to do with my current position or the u.s. government or the u.s. government's position or vis-a-vis the u.n. this is my personal experience, not my personal tale. i worked for the u.n. for 28 years. and for the last six of those, i was attached to the u.n. peacekeeping operation in kosovo. and part of my responsibilities at the time was oversight of the public utilities. and in the course of my duties, i discovered that -- well, there's an allegation that my colleagues in the u.n., as well as some of the senior ministers in the kosovo government were up to no good and were in the process of just fixing a bid that might have generated a $500 million kickback. i tried to confirm it and annot.

i turned it over to the director of the u.n. and she and i agreed we would cooperate in a undercover investigation, which we did for several onths. my colleagues found out about my cooperation with o.i.s. and agreed in egregious allegation and trumped up a charge against me, since we were administering a province at the time, they controlled the police justice system. so they -- on a weekend after i'd been accused of all kinds of wrongdoing and i was defending myself in higher circles of the u.n. operation there, they blocked me from leaving. they arrested me at the port and brought me back to my apartment and did an illegal search of my apartment,

confiscated materials and in the end was put under investigation for a year and there were in fact five investigations that went on simultaneously. three against me criminally or administratively. one was an investigation that i was working on with the -- with o.i.o.s. and one was an investigation that i asked for and was granted on retaliation because i viewed all this as retaliation. "was cleared and in, never saw a report. and the investigators came back with a finding there was absolutely no retaliation involved despite the fact, yes, i was arrested and yes, there cease illegal search and

or and in fact all i said happened had in fact happened there was no retaliation but random acts by rogue actors. i found that, of course, further retaliation. o in 2008, my sole practitioner attorney, in manhattan and i filed a claim in the tribunal and was one of the first whistle blowers to take the ethics office that was responsible for protecting me and i felt had done a horrendous job in protecting me, took them to the u.n. district tribunal. and after four years and the u.n. ignoring six orders of the court to turn over documents which goes to ed's point about the lack of access of information in the u.n. system, so this was their own tribunal ordering the secretary-general to turn over documents on six occasions, and he didn't do so. eventually a judge turned the documents over to my attorney

and me and in my view, those documents supported my claim. so in 2012, the dispute tribunal in new york ruled in my favor. that was a very important victory for me personally. and i think for other whistle blowers because it was the first case of a whistle blower actually winning in the u.n. dispute tribunal courtroom. the judge in the case decided he would separate the liability judgment from the damages judgment, so in this case he found egregious and appalling behavior of the secretary-general and a variety of other actors. all of this is a matter of public record now. and he decided to have a separate trial on damages at a later date. but after several months, the judge changed his mind and decided not to have a separate trial and he said he had sufficient evidence. and we proponented evidence of the damages i had suffered, and

in 2013, he issued a judgment which gave me roughly 2% of my estimated losses. those losses were calculated by professionals, not by me, and they were uncontested by the u.n. so in the face of absolutely no contra verting evidence, nothing to contradict put forward, the judge decided this was only 2% of what i had estimated. he essentially knocked out anything that had to do with my osses in terms of finances and award for small amount in what they call foreal -- moral injury which is a catch-all hrase for stress and damage to reputation and defamation and so on. during this period, the u.n. was continuing to defame me. they had violated their own

rules and procedures on not speaking publicly about ongoing investigations but they did so. and in the end, i got this very, very small award. and the point in all of this to me, and i want to be very clear bout that, was never about compensation. this was always about truth and justice. and i know that may sound cliche or somehow corny, but that is what it really was for me. i was violated. my career was irreparably damaged. my name was blasted out in dozens of countries as a corrupt u.n. official caught while attempting to flee for a couple years and the u.n. supported that. quietly or maybe not so quietly. and to have that very small award was a terrible message to send to other whistle blowers who might want to come forward and that's really what it became for me was why would

anyone come forward to suffer what i had suffered if in the end you don't get truth and you don't get justice. this ecided to appeal udgment and to ask for intervention by the u.s. government to put pressure on the u.n. and earlier this year in january, with the support of congress, the 2014 consolidated appropriations bill was signed by the president. and in that there is a section, 7048 a-1-b, that i do know, in which there is a -- which refers specifically to transparency and accountability in u.n. agencies, and it requires that each and every u.n. agency adhere to whistle blower best practices. now, there may be some debate as to what those are. i don't think there is any

debate really, but maybe one could argue it. but we very specifically put in five provisions, five very pointed enumerated best practices. and i refer to only a few here. please feel free to look it up should you be interested. one is that the u.n. must have -- the u.n. staff who are whistle blowers must have access to independent adjudication. external -- some sort of body that isn't controlled by the secretary-general. secondly, that whistle blowers should -- victims -- whistle blowers who are victims of proven retaliation should have the consequences that retaliation completely mitigated for direct or indirect or future consequences of their whistle blowing. in other words, we shouldn't suffer any consequences for

whistle blowing and being victims of proven retaliation, direct or indirect or for those in the future. and the third, i think this is very important, is that those who engage in retaliation should suffer some consequences. because in my case, there were no consequences for anybody but me. all of those who engaged in retaliation and who were named in various reports went on to have great lives with no impact on them, so i was the only one who suffered any consequences. so those are three of the areas that are highlighted in this section of u.s. law. my view on what's wrong in the u.n. system, having been one of em for 28 years, the accountability institutions of the u.n., there are three of them essentially.

there's the ethics office which is the guardian of the faith when it comes to us whistle blower protection, there's the office of internal oversight services, o.i.s., which is the inspector general and the third is the justice system. is broken some some way. for the ethics office, if we just look at the evidence, the numbers, and i get these from the government accountability project which is representing me in terms of advocacy here in washington and elsewhere, and have the present of the g.a.p. in the audience today. there have been, since the establishment of the ethics office in 2006, as i -- until at least 2013, there have been more than 300 whistle blowers, or those who have inquired about whistle blowing, have come forward to the ethics office. of those, the ethics office

reviewed 99 and found retaliation in only two cases. two. mine is not one of those two. they turned down my case of retaliation. but that's an astonishingly percentage. % or .5% depending on your denominator. this is a shame, profoundly. second, in oios, there are cases of -- that ed has referred to and brett has referred to that indicate witness tampering, evidence tampering, lack of commitment to getting their job done, free of political interference because clearly there is political interference. i won't get into the details of what we discovered in terms of the evidence in my case that they used to say there was no retaliation but when we looked at it, it was absolutely clear

they chose to set aside evidence they had in their possession to find there was no retaliation and i don't know the ex-planation for that. third is the justice system. as ed has mentioned, they are not independent. we would like them to be. and there are some very, very courageous judges on both the dispute tribunal and the appeals tribunal, and -- but they have complained about tasmering with the statute, the organic statute, the statute which defines their domain as well as the limits to how their case law can be applied to expanding the statute for whistle blower protection. so that is harmful to whistle blower protection. n my own case , we will be

have our appeal heard at vienna in the u.n. appeals tribunal on thursday. i will be going, and ed has provided me with much discouragement this morning, as have many others, but i am not discouraged, again, because i am here for the pursuit of -- i feel i've got the truth out. i think people now feel they understand what happened, that i was not a corrupt official fleeing my alleged wrongdoing but in fact i was blowing the whistle of wrongdoing of my senior colleagues and kosovo officials. and the final judgment in my case, we have been told, will be rendered in oral pronouncement eight days later on june 27. so at long last, more than seven years after all this happened, i may be at the end of this long and winding and very tortured road, which i don't believe will be the end,

because i think with the new u.s. law in place now, which, as i mentioned, required each and every u.n. agency to adhere to whistle blower best practices, or face an automatic withholding of 15% of their u.s. contribution, and that is substantial amount of money in most cases. the u.n. is under pressure to change its ways. and as far as ed's point about immunity, i would add to that, and i know this because i was once one of them in the culture of impunity, so it's both immunity and impunity and has a nice ring to it but actually is the case that people at the top don't feel any real commitment to cleaning up internal corruption to protecting whistle blowers, to reform, which we hear about over and over again in the u.n. system,

so that is a grieveous shortcoming. and one of my suggestions would be to have some sort of external body that is as independent as one can get with funding and staffing, which is independent of u.n. mechanisms but which has some sort of authority to make binding judgments on those in the secretariat. i don't know how it can be done and shrink from the task of trying to take away immunity. i admire those who are pursuing it. ecause i think it is definitely unwanted in many cases. but assuming that remains in one , these are -- this is idea and i'm not a big fan of the u.n. ethics office. i think with that track record

of two out of more than 300 that have come forward and the number keeps growing but the number of those approved as whistle blowers who have proven their case of retaliation remains more or less the same. i think something must be done with the ethics office, perhaps even getting rid of it. so with that, thanks, brett, and thank you all for coming and inviting me today. [applause] >> and bob, we're ready for you whenever you're ready. >> good afternoon. can you hear me? >> we can, though maybe we can get the volume up a little bit higher. >> ok. i was having a little bit of trouble in the last week or so, i hope i won't cover too much of the same ground. first i'd like to thank you, brett, very much for the opportunity to present here today. obviously it's a critical issue, critically important

issues and of paramount. it's a testament you're keeping these issues at the forefront and it's so important. i think my remark would be that i would echo the sentiments and completely agree with just about everything the two previous speakers have alluded to, and i think i'm going to go over the same areas that were being raised and hope i won't be too repetitive but i think it worth emphasizing what is that's deficient in these different pieces to the u.n. administration of justice. but again, just to emphasize what was said, i think one of the major problems here is the privileges of immunities that have been granted to the u.n. as a way those p.i.'s have been interpreted by the organization. and i agree, i think maybe there's a misinterpretation of the expansiveness and the reach

of privileges and immunities d it's causing wreaks of havoc that ripple throughout the administration of justice in the u.n. i would also offer that that rts the lack of a true immunity function and framework hurts accountability. and what you're seeing are examples, especially what you identified, a series of instances which demonstrate lack of accountability which, quite frankly, are really something that is unacceptable. you know, when i first came into the u.n., i first came in with the putin investigation with the welker panel and was tasked with my group leading the investigation of the secretary-general at the time

and his son, and the committee was an independent entity which was not bound by the rules of the u.n. and was able to do a little bit more of an independent investigation, i think, had an opportunity to be a little bit more accurate, thorough, and relevant. after that when i became chairman of the task force, it was an offshoot and it was within -- excuse me. we operated within the u.n. system and the u.n. rules and oios' rules and the dynamic changed considerably. was -- we saw develop if you didn't know any better, you thought the world was upside down because the investigator became the subject , and the subject became the victim. and so many cases, in one case e proved very clearly that a

procurement official had steered over $100 million in contracts to a telecommunications firm that hailed from the same country that he was from. the case was pretty well done. the evidence was very solid. it was referred to the national authorities in the southern district in the u.s. who prosecuted the case, and had convicted the staff member of fraud fraud and unlawful steering of contracts and illegal gratuities and got 8 1/2 years in jail for that. now, i think as was pointed out earlier in the conversation, in order for a criminal case to work, in order for a criminal code to be applied to a u.n. staff member, the secretary-general has to weigh the privileges and immunities of the organization. so if the secretary-general does not choose to wave those p&i's, the person can go completely scot-free with

anything and everything he has one because there's no effective system to truly address the wrongdoing. so this is a major flaw. and this reverts back to the immunity issue. if you look at the successful episodes of where there has been some accountabilities, mostly in the nation states, in this context, and where the nation states pick up the criminal cases on their own. so it would happen to -- what happens with all our other cases that didn't go the route of the national body where they -- national authority that was going to pursue them, they went into the black hole. there are cases that have not been followed up on. there's staff members that were identified as having misused, misappropriated funds,

embezzled funds that had not been identified, that have not been held accountable. the big question is well, why q is that? in could that ever happen the world's most arguably advanced international organization? i think you need to perhaps look at some other things here that have not been identified to round out the nature and cope and the dynamic, which is not want a strong ld think oversight presence. it does not. why does it not? well, cases of misconduct, cases of misappropriation, of of malfeasance, cases taking taxpayer funds are perceived in the u.n. as very bad press, very unwelcomed news and also types of messaging that can jeopardize the very

existence of the organization. the view of many in the organization is that the u.n., which it is dependent on donor contributions, is going to run into problems donors see large headlines of corruption and loss of funds and then there will be a cessation of donations to the organization, thereby ending the organization. so what you really have is a self-preservation ideal that permeates the organization and i'm not saying everyone, but i'm saying certainly those in positions of ower who are responsible for their administration, or the many u.n. employees who are making a career out of the u.n. , you know, and those who hope

-- just have to hope and pray they never become a subject of a case which is wrongly, or even rightly pursued because it cannot end up -- may not end up in their interests with this kind of dynamic and a framework. but with this kind of a system and with this kind of reality, it does not promote sound and effective administration of justice. and i think as was pointed out earlier, was the example of dip nationals -- diplomats -- who is the wheel overseer? the real overseers are the diplomats and what is that? what one said earlier was it presents a significant and profound conflict of interest have those who stand in interested positions reviewing and overseeing and judging

oversight and dysfunction from where they sit. i think what you need is a truly professional independent body that is truly professional and not beholden to the administration, not beholden to the organization that can review and identify those actions and cases that have taken place and where there are challenges and claims that there have been errors and misconduct and also lack of justice. if you read the last case that came out of the undt tribunal i think was mentioned earlier, brett, in your opening remarks, the case is actually about two investigators within oias that had been retaliated against, doing their jobs by a senior member of that office. and to date, there has been no accountability and there's been no repercussion to that senior

officer despite the fact that the findings of the dispute tribunal judge were extremely strong, extremely clear and hardly profoundly challenged, yet you have two whistle blowers who have been victimized suffer severe consequences to their career, and you can have the perpetuator who is unaffected. so the role is completely reversed and that kind of result send a very sour message to the rest of the organization and the rest of the folks not only the oversight body but also throughout the administration and the organization of how can we count on, you know, this organization in the end, especially the oversight body, to, you know, effectively mete out sound and proper

investigations, yet you have results that are occurring like that where you have no accountability and victims, even after being identified as victims, even being found to be victims, and even being found to have been wrong, have still been given minimal to no recourse and there's been no accountability to the wrongdoer. kind of eams that this situation needs a complete and utter overhaul from anume ative respect and also the findings that the immunities that have been put forth by the organization don't reach to the level insofar as they claim they do is a significant start, but there also needs to be a more structured reconstruction of the accountability and oversight mechanisms in the organizations to make them truly fair, truly accountable,

truly free of conflict, and truly a way in which good cases and base cases havect are being brought to the system. i think the previous speaker was identifying how the ethics fice has not found any significant or very few significant retaliation cases. retaliation is one of the hardest things to prove. and it's clear many national contexts, retaliation can be proved by circumstantial evidence and can be derived through interferences of existing fact. and i think without an acknowledgement of that, as many national authorities have, you never are going to have an effective ethics office of sprume retaliation claims until they can realize and recognize

that these cases are difficult to prove and then have to know what to look for in the certain indices that are commonly present in such cases because without a strong whistle blower program where confidence can be built upon it, this sort of circumstance will not change and there will be little-to-no incentive in the future for people to report wrongdoing and misconduct in the organization. and especially when they don't see a level of accountability when cases are not handled to fruition and to conclusion when there aren't final dispositions that are fair and just, when there isn't the proper voice and a mechanism and assurity complaintants will not be harmed and that there is a mistake made that it can be

corrected, whether it be in the judicial forum or during the investigative process. and there's so many different ways and aspects in which these cases can be derailed through errors, even innocent errors, not just intentional malfeasance where these cases can go off the tracks and therefore have profound circumstances as you have real live and real careers that become ruined as a result of it. >> thank you, bob. before we go to q&a, i wonder if you could just briefly describe some of the successes of the procurement task force, what made it different than the oios and where those cases are right now. >> you want me to answer that? >> yes, please. > well, the task force in 2006 took over more than 300 cases from the oios investigation

division which involved procurement, fraud, financial malfeasance, financial fraud, and also took over cases of eight senior staff members being accused of misconduct. and in the three years, you can imagine, there's no way we could complete the entire inventory of the cases, we completed approximate -- i don't have my numbers in front of me, but about 200 -- a little over 200 cases, and we und more than 26 significant fraud and corruption schemes, some of them we concluded and some which we hadn't and needed to be followed up. and certainly some with significant financial loss, others where there has been pretty harsh mismanagement and misuse of u.n. funds and misuse of u.n. positions.

when we disbanded at the end of december of 2008, these cases for the most part went into a black hole. cases that were reported on we heard nothing of, cases -- many cases which we thought were sufficient to reach at least the administration of justice were not taken there. cases in which it was clear further work needed to be done seemed not to have any further work, at least there wasn't any publicity or any kind of disclosure of any significant further work to be done. d cases in which individuals in missions that identified, at least that have been found -- alleged to have been found to engage in misconduct worthy of cases in the administration of justice within the organization, not even outside it, were not taken up.

at least certainly that's the appearance that's being provided and nothing seems to have been done for some time, which dovetails into this perception that that there is no -- toive there is no make cases because you sometimes make enemies with senior officials. unless the investigators are truly protected to move forward on those cases. there is a lot of work that seems to have not been pursued at other that -- and others that have been dropped. >> thank you. we have time for a few questions and answers from the audience. i will go ahead and leave it off with one short question.

-- thering be outlined circumstances established about the , do you think any organization meets the standards? >> no. absolutely not. would be think it surprising if any ever did meet those standards? >> it would be a question if they did. back? gentleman in the i do not see a microphone. question -- the united

nations, whose delegates come ,rom different legal systems most of the world is on civil law. under which of those paradigms do the legal bodies work, and are the differences between the legal systems partly at fault

of this?mpact to what extent might there be extrajudicial, political considerations that these regulatory bodies are not thisng in reports such as was necessary to get this country's cooperation in what we were doing? these people are making a big deal about it, and may not know, and the investigators may not know, but the higher-ups might. what the consequences might the of the loopholes? -- here is theme

settlement, nondisclosure agreement, we will get back to that. >> the question is how does the un's judicial system and arbitration process base itself on common law, civil law, etc.? the politicaltent circumstances of an incident may come into play in the decisions that come down? do you want to take that up? >> for the most part my experiences that it is a mixture of the common law and civil code. does your second question, that contribute to some of the problems, i think it does. my experiences with than the is that it is much more based on documents. they do not place great weight on witness testimonies, cross-examination. as in thety much

civil code where the document is superior. as to the last part, is that a -- is their secrecy because there might be some underlying consideration? describingut you are the star chamber as well, and we have moved beyond that. there are mechanisms that the governments already used to deal with sensitive issues. today in the un's system, there is no disclosure. i think the secrecy has to be dealt with other than just throw away. see would hate to [indiscernible] ]. of themsany

whistleblowers came forward and are still being retaliated against. there is nothing dramatic, syria's, or secret -- serious, or secret in any of the cases and where the whistleblowers have come forward. >> do you have any comments system?e un's judicial did you find that secrecy came into the judgments that played out? >> to the second part, absolutely. a the first part, you have series of rules in the u.n. that are based on the charter of the organization that formal rules of conduct.

it is in chapter one of the staff roles, it comes out of the charter. it comes out of the seminal document when the u.n. was first called in the 1940's. you also have the second the nationalh is laws of the particular country you're involved in, which sometimes you pay heed to as well. if in fact you're in a certain country where for example bribery is excepted. it is a good question because in those questions there is a tension between which law should be applied? would it be the western law that prohibits rives, or the local law that seizes as a customary it as a custom and

a duty? the other issue does dovetail into the secrecy peace and is when you have a critical need in goodsain area, and your and services have been procured corruptly but it is critical that you get that item, good, medicine, food into that , otherwiseg location people may suffer and die. which takes paramount importance there? you have to impose the system of law accountability, or are you going to put more importance on the item or the good? of times thea lot importance of the item or the good ways out, and the issue

that is underlying is the bribery and corruption but it is buried. >> let me add to that. think those are exceptional cases and should be examined one by one. beother cases should examined very carefully before making a leap of faith that this is the only way of getting those goods and services to people in need. that principle can be abused. ma'am? >> [indiscernible] >> she is asking if the new u.s.

law enacted in january is addressing the issue of privileges under the un's treaty. >> it does not specifically address that issue. immunity is not among those five. done on best work practice, there is a mention of immunity. it, and irawl of think our audience members can address that. would you like to address how go after this particular issue if you were circumscribe

privileges to work on this problem? on a case-by-case basis, there comes an example that he gave in his opening about white hub. it derives most of its funds from application fees, which come from american patent applicants. the u.s. government pays a very small amount of money to them. in my opinion they do not comply with this law. it is probably not going to make any difference because they do not get very much money from the u.s. them and would not care if the u.s. cut off whatever contributions it is making. in my view they are one of the -- corrupt u organizations because of the lack of accountability. i applaud the working that jim

is doing because you have to do something like that. but it does not address the problem in a case like this. >> do you have any comment? any other questions from the audience? yes ma'am? >> [indiscernible] >> we are looking at that very seriously. they have circulated a questionnaire, where they are gathering statistics. the law does not talk about policy, we are talking about the limitation of policy. because the organization has really howut it is

that policy has been implemented. i think that they are taking it seriously, and we will see what they come up with in the end. i think it will be submitted to congress and it will be up to congress to decide whether or not these notifications and documentation that has been collected and facts that are presented are adequate. i think the accountability project and the organizations will be watching this very closely. >> i will conclude with a final question. do you get the sense that the united states is unique in its concern about these types of issues? or is the frustration with the treatment of whistleblowers within the u.n. system more widespread? >> one of the efforts i am trying to undertake is to internationalize the movement for whistleblower protection in

the u.n.. i am in touch with some organizations and governments, and with media in a variety of other countries. i am working closely with major donors in the u.n., there is considerable interest, and the fact that the u.s. has taken this step has generated curiosity. particularly countries that have a strong rule of law, and a strong belief in whistleblower protection are taking a look at taking action themselves. whether that means withholding political pressure, or other manifestations, i do not know. dea,e is interest in the i and the media has picked the story up. generate that will pressure on the policies of the

countries to do the same thing. >> i think the u.n. has to be questionn this type of , they exercise many of the interest gators -- indicators of being a sovereign state, even though they are not. they get a pass. transparency international does not repeat u.n. and i did not sure what -- review the u.n. and i am not sure why. we need to come back and re-examine that as well, to make sure that if they are functioning as a quasi-i state that they have the same accountability and oversight. >> any final remarks? >> many of the important things

we said today, it has been brought to the floor. together for the administration of justice to have a viable protection program, to have a viable administration of justice, and a fair and equitable results in an and the way it is treated. the degree of access operation theseexasperation in things that i been going on for many years about there have been a lot casualties. and we need some real energy and enthusiasm to address it because those who have suffered, and would be a tragedy to have them

just fall by the wayside. and for this to continue. >> the y very much. thank you for coming here today. i hope you enjoyed it. goodbye. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> on thursday house republicans will gather to elect a new majority leader. assibly others leadership well. the possibility of it as unknown candidate. if congressman mccarthy wins republicans will have to fill his majority whip hospost. be conducteds will by secret ballot with no record of how lawmakers vote. we have more now on the elections.

>> thank you for being with us. what is on tap for congress? guest: the biggest story obviously is on the house side with the leadership race that is going to be taking place. some of the suspense seems to come out of it at least in the majority of evan mccarthy of california, the current whip. he is on track to take over as the majority leader following the primary defeat of eric cantor. the whip race itself to be more interesting. there is the jockeying that is still going on for the whip race. i think that will be the item that gets the most attention.

interestingly, it means that something that would normally be huge news on the house side is likely to fly under the radar. the house is scheduled to consider the appropriation bill for the next fiscal year. this is somewhere in the order of defense spending overall. it is a huge portion of the discretionary budget. that may be drowned out in terms of something that people are paying attention to. on the senate side, over there we are looking at appropriation week as well, which is rather remarkable that the senate is actually reaching a point of being able to at least ponder spending bills. they are going to try to move forward with the last time they tried. it they want to merge the

commerce, science, agriculture, justice, and transportation appropriation bill all into one big bundle. this is a big picture item for the week that i'm looking at. host: i want to ask you about the defense appropriation bill. do you see either of these getting writers on these? is there a staging ground for that? guest: the iraq issue is right on target for inclusion in the defense spending bill in the house. it would be no surprise to anybody to see some sort of attempt to attach a writer that either says you couldn't put u.s. forces back on the ground

or on the other hand you might have some sort of reporting requirement that would encourage more intervention. none of these bills that are in the senate bundle are the ones that would affect the v.a. the other thing we will see is if we look back a couple of weeks to the trade of the five taliban figures. it would seem logical that there would be efforts in both the house and senate if we saw another round of attempts to either prevent the transfer of prevent the transfer of detainees from guantánamo bay or

some sort of rider that would attempt to once again blocked the transfer of any of the tj needs at gitmo to military or civilian prison facilities. earlier in the program we heard from lindsey graham on the issue of a rack. what is your sense into what senate lawmakers think as the violence continued over the weekend? it is certainly going to be a topic of discussion this week, because it came up sort of back on the radar so abruptly for the masses last week. thursday morning, i believe it was, there was a closed briefing of the armed services committee last week. the emerging voices out of that briefing were sort of a prelude

to what we heard over the weekend from senator graham and from others and i think what we are going to see in the coming weeks is probably more of these closed briefings to try to figure out what, exactly, is going on on the ground there. obviously one of the immediate concerns is the safety and facilityof the embassy in baghdad and other issues with u.s. personnel who are on the ground there. the other thing that will come up, and senator graham was one of the people who mentioned this over the weekend, if there are, in fact, as we are now seeing, reports of a back channel negotiation or conversation with regime, that will be something that will certainly get the attention of congress

and it tells you what kind of a world that we are dealing with ,nd that we are seeing in iraq if talking to the iranians is necessary for regional stability, which is something i'm sure not a lot of people could have fathomed just a couple of years ago. host: you can read his reporting at cq roll call. thank you for joining us this morning. back onenate will be c-span two at 2:00 p.m. live coverage of the house here on c-span. c-span bringsars public affairs events from

washington directly to you. putting you in the rooms at congressional events, white house briefings and conferences. offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house all as a private service of public industry. we are c-span, created 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable and satellite her biter. -- provider. wheeler speaks to the in broadband in libraries.

we have been talking for years about bridging the digital divide and i think that phrase has been around as long as i've been working in libraries. to admit something that about seven or eight years ago i started getting tired of this phrase the digital divide. my feeling was that the issue was less about bridging the digital divide and bridging the digital skills divide. less about providing access, and more about dividing literacy. -- providing literacy. of the world has moved exclusively online. those of us who have not are really at increasing risk.

you can eight years ago apply for most jobs without being online, and you cannot do that today. you could easily communicate with your child's teacher without being online, and you cannot do that today. you could apply for health insurance without being online, you could take the high school equivalency examination without being online. none of this is possible now without reliable high-speed access and public libraries evelin the best option to labe the playing field. speeds.>> first personal many of us are wondering how do we build on the incredible

success of the program and where is the funding going to come from? on the other end of the digital literacy spectrum, i would like to tell you about the room in which we are sitting. this is our digital commons that "the summer -- opened up last summer. this room really is the true embodiment of public libraries serving the adult learning needs across the city, but it was not cheap. it cost about $3 million to $4 million. how can we build more, because we know the need is there? it is my distinct pleasure to introduce to you the director of the institute of museum and library services. in heras done so much tenure to elevate libraries in the public consciousness and we

all her -- oh her an amazing debt of gratitude. thank you. [applause] i would ask our gentlemen to join me here on this page. good morning everyone. it is so wonderful to be here. i have to talk quite a bit and i will be drinking in between. it is just water, trust me. [laughter] welcome, everyone. this event is being recorded and will be made available to the public. everybody keep that in mind as we have our dialogue. to convene there institute of museum and library

services on libraries and broadband. i am doubly excited because we are having this event during national library week. array library week. library week. i want to thank our host, we cannot have a better venue than the digital commons. this building just opened up, and this place is packed with people using these resources. this is what it is all about. the issue we're discussing today is of great importance to the millions of americans who use publicnd in the 70,000 libraries as well as those who use broadband at home to access library resources. every day teens and children and adults use the libraries to further their education, seek training, and much more. i'm very proud to be joined by members of the national museum and library services board.

,here with me on the podium charlie, christie, and winston. advicerd provides policy to imls. faces out museum there, we love you too. we also honor to have david with us, the archivist of the united states. he has a lot of content. and we are excited to have the past president of the american library association here today. thank you for being with us today. this is really the first time in data duringed authority to advise the president, congress, and other federal agencies on library, museums, and information services and also to hold public hearings.

this authority was provided during the 2010 reauthorization services act which incorporated into the imls law responsibilities that were grievously held by the corporation. we chose this moment to use this new authority because this is a moment full of potential. we are encouraged that tom wheeler, the federal committee geishas chairman is working anively to modernize important source of telecommunications this course for sewall's -- discourse for schools. evenmoment is a give greater importance than many have realized, our dow list shows that a total of 15,551 individual libraries have used the discounts provided by the e-rate. in looking at the 11 years worth of data we have the annual participation rate ranges from

of the libraries in the u.s.. we are taking advantage of this program. was established when the health medications act was passed -- telecommunications act was passed. recognize the importance of technology in the library world, and change the library and services construction act, and we moved on to the library services and technology act. we can help all libraries serve the public and looting targeting library services to individuals with geographical association, -- and

socioeconomic backgrounds. creation, imls we have recognized the connected society as a hub for the digital world. we're at the crucial moment of the merging of technologies. i would like to note for the record that the national issuednd plan and the four years ago recommended affordable access to at least one gigabyte per second anchored to public institutions, including libraries. a very laudable goal. through the recent grants through the rock band technology opportunities, we demonstrate a national commitment and sense of

urgency around high-speed internet delivery and the opportunity for innovation that access provides for our communities. we know that one third of all america wins, 100 million people, have not adopted broadband high-speed internet at home for a variety of reasons. -- also tellll that 19 million do not have access at all. this has a dramatic impact of libraries to serve those with the need of benefits and a digital world. flock toof americans public libraries to access workforce development and economic opportunities, our libraries can do their well-established role as community angers. seekerslso help job heading to their trusted institutions, relying on the

internet connection to search for work or sharpen the skills. we know that 80% of fortune 500 companies require online job obligations. to realistically succeed in today's exciting, you need the internet. -- today's society, you need the internet. be able totical to deliver on the goods and services we need. has a unique vantage point. we are here to better understand how to best serve the public interest. we're not here to support one path forward, but instead to provide an opportunity for a public hearing to examine a variety of points of view. we look forward to hearing from our great lineup of analyst representing rural, tribal, and urban perspectives. we will examine the broad public benefits of library broadband, analyze data, and broadband use that -- at public libraries that will bring this to libraries.

thank you very much. we will now begin with a wonderful welcome by the sec chairman tom wheeler. it gives me great pleasure to introduce thomas wheeler, who has graciously taken time to start things off for us this morning. we appreciate that so much. for over three decades chairman wheeler has been involved with new telecommunications networks and services, experiencing the revolution in telecommunications advocate,y expert, an and a businessman. as entrepreneur he started or help start multiple companies, many litigation services. -- communication services. he understands the importance and role of libraries. with his vast and average background, -- diverse background, we are very fortunate to have him here with us today. please welcome tom wheeler. [applause]

much.nk you very this is something very important, and congratulations of museum andtion library services on heading this meeting to get the message out. i'm privileged to share the podium today with my friend from the white house who has been a foring pusher and advocate the kinds of changes that we to make sureking that we are bringing the e-rate program into the 21st century. i'm also joined by a couple of my colleagues were intimately involved in this. jonathan chambers and daniel alvarez.

when you look for fingerprints on what the fcc is doing in terms of the rate reform, you dan'sind john and fingerprints all over it. there also two other important people in this audience. i think that their presence here today creates a construct for how we can discuss things. i have an august responsibility in following in your footsteps as chairman of the sec. while there are many names that get attached to the e-rate at the, the present creation, seminal name associated with that is read hunt. -- reed hunt.

programuld be no e-rate without mr. hunt, and that is a factual statement. [applause] the archivist of the united rio is alsoid fe here. and he has more goodies in his house down on pennsylvania avenue than anyplace else. and over the years i have been privileged to hang around a lot of those goodies and hang around david. he is a library guide to begin he was stolen from the new york public library where he was ning that great institution. what he has done at the national archives is to open up the national archives. and so much of that concept of opening up means digitization. and i want to give you a personal example of why what

reed and david have enabled can be transformative. i wrote a couple of books on the civil war, the most recent was abraham lincoln's use of the telegraph. thank goodness that the national archives, there sat abraham lincoln's hand written telegrams. the spielberg movie was a but they gote mode it wrong. he did not dictate his telegrams. he wrote them out in longhand. thank odd he did, and thank god they are saved at the national archives because it becomes a one degree of separation.

when you hold in your white golved hand, the piece of paper that abraham lincoln wrote on, there is one degree of separation that you feel from abraham lincoln. that is a privilege that a few researchers, like i was privileged to have, get. what david has done is to digitize all of those documents, not only be telegrams but the other great holdings in the national archives. so that there is one click between someone who wants to explore and abraham lincoln. when i started my research on lincoln's telegrams, i was using the microfilm copies of his

telegrams. look at the librarians at knowing what that is. you get this canister and use it down at this clunky machine and you would go through each microfilm picture one by one. now thanks to david, you can click and it is there. because people like david verio digitize the product, the information. because people like reed hunt made that digitize information available, that is why the work we're talking about here today in terms of the importance of libraries is so incredibly key to what gets done. as we are sitting in this room

here, we are moving from stacks of books to online centers. the library has always been the on-ramp to the world of information and ideas. now it is at gigabit speeds. as i amll know, and seeing as i travel across the libraries are playing a more and more important role in our communities. as was pointed out earlier. where americans without computers go to get online. it is where students after school go to get online. it is where americans go to apply for their v.a. benefits,

or apply for their health care, or apply for their job. librarians end up being the guide at the side. people make these kinds of .igital explorations as a history buff i have always been interested in the role that andrew carnegie played in the library history of america. things -- everyone ,lways thinks of him as steel and he was first a network guy. he started as a telegraph operator for the pennsylvania railroad. as a matter of fact he was wrought here during the sobel during theght here

civil war, and was responsible for stringing the telegraph line out toward manassas. but what abraham lincoln knew about the battle was a result of andrew carnegie's work. that we areropriate talking about libraries, about carnegie's contribution to making libraries what they were in the 19th century. and we come back to networks. and that is why e-rate modernization is so important. the program we had was the schools and libraries program. we need to also call it the libraries and school program, to make sure that we recognize and emphasize the important contribution of each of those

institutions. so what are we doing? we are moving from supporting 21stcentury technology to century broadband technology. it is a reallocation of resources, and they are never pleasant, but they are essential if we are to keep pushing forward. we are moving the broadband to the person at the library. it is not just the extra milk connection -- external connection, but it is how you get the wi-fi to the individual in the library. we are getting the application process intotive the 21st century as well, and we are focused on fiscal

responsibility. the key is not just more money, although more money is warranted and we will deal with that. the key is money well spent. byencouraging consortium, creating longer support times so you can have longer contracts with lower rates, and by establishing a system of you cane pricing so know what is a fair price. we do not expect librarians to be telecom experts and be able to go out there and haggle with telecom companies. how do we help in that regard? we also have limited pilot programs that test new approaches that could benefit all. susan, we're really grateful to launching imls for this dialogue today. perfect, our

public notices out now, and we will shortly be releasing our plan for 2015 and forward. there is a distinguished list of participants you have lined up today, but before i sit down i want to return to the historical roots here. andrew carnegie built 2500 libraries in a public-private partnership. century.th accessned information for millions and millions of people for over a century. precipice ofhe being able to have the same kind on the flow ofct information and ideas in the

21st century. that is why the work that you all are doing is so important. that is why the reform and modernization for the e-rate program is so essential. and that is why today's hearing, and the kinds of topics you are going to explore are so helpful to those of us who are trying to work on just how do we seize on this incredible moment of historic significance? thank you for all you are doing. [applause] >> thank you so much. my librarians do not want to haggle, but we haggle in everything we do. so we do a pretty good job.

have ae are excited to member of the gates foundation coming to speak soon. about andn talk are grounded the -- andrew carnegie, and i'd refer to bill and melinda gates as our 21st y andrew carnegie. i'm now very pleased to introduce thomas, the chief of staff of the commerce department national telecommunications and information administration. he is currently on detail to the office of science and technology all of the at the white house as deputy chief technology officer for telecommunications. managerialrovides support for ah wide range of activities.

he was one of the first individuals who really encouraged us to have this hearing and make it happen. welcome, tom. [applause] >> thank you. good morning everybody. thank you to imls for having this hearing. share theal thrill to dance with chairman wheeler. he is my favorite policy person and easy -- in d.c. favorite, i do work in the white house, you never know who is watching. [laughter] we are really trying to work through the connect ed program and we recognize that the real local level at the in libraries and at the other

organizations represented here. my main message this morning is just to thank you for all the work you do. for some of us this is personal. i can tell you that my mother was the library ian. -- cameper zaman read and interviewed her. she said that what has changed is that parents have lost the idea that kids need to come to school prepared to learn. this goes not just where education can happen and when they leave education stops. the whole community has to be focused on education. that is why the work of libraries is so important. effort.real community we found that the strongest

applications were the ones that had the whole support of the community, the library, the school, the business community, the mayor, the county, the governor, the one worries all the community come together to support the application were the ones that had the best chance of succeeding. we are really proud of the work that we did. if you get a chance to my shake my partner in the audience, -vfivemaybe -- high maybe. connected 1300 libraries to ultrafast broadband to meet the increasing demand from the patrons. they have created or upgraded public emitter centers -- public computer centers. we will be releasing three case studies studied by an individual

evaluator that we hired on the positive and for improvements and effects that the program is in three library systems in particular. as you will see, you can go onto 420website, and in delaware previously unemployed people received job offers after using the new job centers at public libraries vanished by the delaware public libraries. they were estimated to have more than 102,000 hours of wait time saved. over 120 library locations have provided nearly 850 thousand allowinghours, people to look at things online.

we know the needs of the libraries, i read a statistic that 60% of libraries say they are the only source of free access in the community. you can look at that as glass are-full, because lenders not getting resources to be open, but i tried to be encouraged by that because we're stimulating demand. we have the kids and adults in the steps and in the cars. millions of americans are using the internet at local libraries veltidy for degrees, professional skills, participate in social affairs. i think libraries are truly centers of lifelong learning, and i think they are available to all regardless of age, income or disability. for those individuals who do not have computers at home, or even

those who do, if you're trying to study, if you're trying to do certain tasks, it may be that the environment is noise the -- may not always be the best place to do it. for maintaining the stability of libraries. tell you about my grandmother. she was a teacher, and the had -- and she was the andmistress, she got bored went back to teaching until her 90th birthday. the joy of teaching was all the compensation she wanted. cousin ofing with a mine who remembered my grandmother and said that people would come to your grandmother's house and she had books all over the place. the child was with

visitors, the child would always leave her a present and it would always be a book. present ather would book to a child and the child thought they had gone to disneyland. she had this enthusiasm that is fused into everything. she had a lot of books, they diminished over the years as she gave them away. she loved to share them with the kids. she knew that what my mom had observed, which is we need to be in all of this together. education is not in the school, it is in the home, the library, the entire community. chairman wheeler, myself, and those in washington, we're going to keep doing what we can do here, but we are depending on you. we know how hard you're working to make things happen at the local level. we will support you because we

know it takes all of us to make this effort a success. thank you for having me here. have a great day. [applause] thank you gentlemen. that was a great way to start. i will ask our panel number one to join me here on the podium. first of all i would like to say thank you very much to chairman wheeler and to tom for being with us. we are very honored. we're moving onto the panel discussion portion of our program. i want to remind everybody that this hearing is being live cast, and viewers are in courage to submit questions via twitter. we also have some cards on your chairs if you have q