eric schmidt with the "new york times." you talked about your area of responsibility being north and west africa. obviously a large portion of territory. we have at least two al-qaeda-linked organizations there. aqim and smaller organizations. how do you -- as you look out over that region

as you prepare your mission, how do you assess the threat on the ground and going back to your earlier comment about crises can spread and erupt and shift quickly. what have you do in new kinds of training or threat on the ground that you encounter in the new normal environment? >> thanks. >> as far as the responsibility and the principle responsibilities we had that were related toward u.s. government facilities, missions as well as personnel. we tended focus our efforts toward those. some of the areas you're talking about. the bands you're talking about and the threats that operate down there. our force has the capability it's on the self-protection capability when it is employed. if we were employed in to some of those regions, we bring our

own organic self-defense and capability in order to accomplish toes -- those missions. most notably some of the wide open areas. recovery of aircraft or personnel. we have worked through the process what the situation would like like on the ground and how we make sure in the execution of the mission we weren't putting the force at greater risk. >> this is -- does the it's part of what we call battle rhythm. we would be looking at the problem sets every day across the areas that we were responsible for. very difficult problem as you allude to who you've got the huge area the size of the united states and a lot of really bad people are running around in there.

and some places clearly operating, but they're operating in a lot of places where there aren't a lot of u.s. government interests either. i would say i'm not so sure that i've spent a lot of time focusing on areas i was not directly responsible for on a daily basis. >> okay. a question right here, i believe. >> tony with -- [inaudible] just a quick question. if you comment, where was your command element and [inaudible] predeployment cycle that going on a deployment for the amount of time you were gone. did it have any impact with readiness as you -- [inaudible] or next mission set. it's probably just as much the impacted probably have on them as well. >> well, we have rotated. so the squadron is coming to had been originally out, and in

support. they've been home for quite a bit longer than we have. regarding the command element, you know, it's a little bit of double-edged sword. on the one hand, we were away so that things we might have needed to take care of at the unit or plan and main tame momentum and sustain the lead up to the next deployment. we were not able to do, but by the same token, majority of the staff served along with me and some of my key advisers, the executive office and sergeant major. some of the things like getting to know the commander in a deployed environment and things that are reported to me and not important in how take information. all the type of things we might not have learned until we got in the workup. we were able to accomplish that while deployed. a little bit of a double-edged sword. we're certainly not behind. we haven't started the workup yet, and, you know, again, the theme of back to the future very

similar to the way it used to be when commanders do two deployments in a row inside a two-year window. that is essentially where i'll be when i pop out the other side two of the-year period. i'm going to take this question here on the aisle, then move to wrap up. >> thank you very much, colonel. paul with the u.s. news and world report. going back to the incident in benghazi, you said is partially the reason why this has been stood out. could you run us through a little bit what from that incident your unit has taken to prepare to respond. if something like that happened today, what part your unit would play? >> i think what i would say is that eventing like benghazi are the type of events that occur -- we see would be part of the new normal. and the unit was stood up in order to respond to events as part of the new normal.

not specifically tied to benghazi. but, you know, as we've talked about on the slide, and we've talked a little bit in the q and a. we have a capability and reinforcement, tactical recovery for aircraft personnel. we can also respond provided fixed sight security. we have the same type of capabilities you might imagine, you know, could be utilized in a crisis like that. >> my capstone question goes to -- i guess i'm templed to say the reception, if it's not -- perhaps the right word. the reception of u.s. forces in africa. i'm going ask you to sort of take a step up and address an issue which i think has been circulating around the formation of the u.s. africa command, and the general reorientation of

u.s. forces and national security policy toward areas of the world like africa we haven't perhaps been focused on too much for the last 40 years. what sort of reception have your forces or any other means you have determined had in and around africa where you've had the exposure? >> i think that, you know, one of the things that we do with africa is we tend to talk about it like it is a country and i think it is 58 or 59 countries. i don't remember the exact number now. each one is different -- >> sure. >> place like south sudan is about the size of texas. i mean, these are big places. so they all have regions inside of that. so they are all very different. you know, the areas that we operated in, which, you know, i mentioned -- africa operates in several

dpircht countries overseas. i think the response to the marines operating in the countries is excellent. certainly there's partners. there's great capabilities inside those nations they have already. and, you know, the opportunity to work with them, i think, is, you know, is -- i'm very optimistic about it. i think, you know, our model, the sp crisis response model is not -- we have not intention to base this force in africa. which i believe we don't -- ofwas stood up. seemed to be the hot issue. >> right. >> that is not our intention. the marine corps. is an expedition their force. we see the way we operate would be to come in, set up an expedition their base, partner with the africa nation. conduct training, and conduct operations if that was necessary and not leave a footprint.

ic there are some great opportunities and i don't see any reason why that based on the experience we had why that would be effective. >> okay. i'll give you the opportunity of second to last word and put a wrap on it. did you want to say anything else? >> no we appreciate the opportunity to come out and take these questions. i hope i answered the questions that were asked. there a couple by the look of your face i didn't get completely to what you're trying to fit. if you want to grab me after wards, i can try to satisfy your question. thank you. >> i'm very appreciate you coming. and especially so because your remarks and your discussion here in q and a highlight several

things that are core to the atlantic counsel. not the least of which is the partnership. and the importance in the new national security environment. the new normal national security environment of the united states and u.s. military forces having partnerships that it leverage and contribute to around this really fast-paced world of security threats and opportunities. but the other reason, maybe more especially the thing i'm particularly enthused about when i have you or your ilk come through the atlantic counsel it makes more pal pable what they are doing in the world when they're not in afghanistan or iraq, which got lots of attention and popular interest, obviously, and also a bit of an antedote from my point of view to the reflux i think is

prevalent around the country now that we can just come home. we just brick our forces home, settle down, and the world will go about its business. when colonel benedict comes or his predecessors and successors, i'm reminded very completely how important the day-to-day cultivation of our capabilities and our activities out in the world around the world in places, again, i don't think most americans worry too much about american interests and is to what are our military posture is about. i thawp. -- thank you very much. i thank you for coming. [applause] coming up live we got woodrow wilson center. u.s.a. agency for international development administrator. we discuss ways gort of

government and and creating new markets for american goods and services. that will be live at 12:30 eastern on c-span two. the institute for korean american studies will hold a symposium on national security concerns. the white house national security council director is one of those taking part. that will be live at 1:15 eastern on our companion network, c-span. vice president joe biden called on house democrats to, quote, aggress ily push our agenda. he spoke at the democratic retreat on the eastern shore of maryland this morning for about 20 minutes.

[applause] hello, everybody. shelby, how are you? [applause] , please, please. it's been a long week. [applause] [cheering and applause] thank you very much. thank you. last time a group stood that long and clapped for me the guy back yelled, joe, keep talking. it was raining outside. the snow stopped, the sun is shining. it's great to be with you. sorry i couldn't be here yesterday, and i just want you to know that i have within my deadline as i got off the helicopter and drove in the

short disassistance -- distance i was told, joe, if you're not at 20 minutes to 10 the president can't land. that's an incentive. [laughter] for everyone. for everyone. look, i'm going to make -- in light of the time. you've been kind enough to invite me to your caucuses before, to your -- to this retreat, and i've always enjoyed it. i've always -- and willing and anxious to stay as long as you have questions. in order get to the discussions and questions i'm going to be fairly brief in what i have to say in the opening comments. mainly, came back to say, again, thank you. that's -- i'm not being gratuitous. thank you. if not for the house of representatives in the way you stood by the president and particularly the leadership of nancy, it would not have -- this could have been much, much rougher, rougher road. we understand, as well, why we

were re-elected. because an awful lot of you in this room. because of all the help and effort you have put in on our behalf, and as nancy's probably told you, the president has committed and you know me too well. i'm fully committed to put in every bit of effort we can to be of help to any of you. [applause] the -- as jim eastland once said to me. a man i didn't agree much with anything. what would jim eastland do for you in delaware. he would say some places help and hurt. i'll come to campaign for or against you. whatever helps the most. i want to thank steve israel for being helpful and districting me where he wants me to go. [laughter] we a breakfast the other day with half a dozen of your pollsters, i'm anxious to help. i also want to thank deb we

wasserman schultz he's one of the best spokesman we've ever had. [applause] debby is always there and always doing it well, and i committed and i'm trying my best, debby, to help you raise some money there as well. so doing a heck of a job for us. i want to thank you. and i particularly want to say thank you to shelby, her daughter, every time debby comes over, i convince her to let shelby stay with me awhile. hang out with me. folks, look, i'm optimistic about america's prospects and i'm optimistic about our prospects. i really mean that. it if you take a look at where we are relative to any country democrat world. we are so much better positioned than any country in the world to lead the 21st cinch i are. -- century. it is not even close. it isn't. i love reading the stories about how the chinese are doing so

well, the chinese are going eat our lunch and the europeans are coming back. folks, you wouldn't want to trade positions with any foreign leader for all that -- all the money in the world. they've got more problems -- we want to see them work their way through the problem. but america is, by far, the best position of the nation to lead the world in the 21st century. particularly economically. you know, there is a -- if you notice, i know this has been steady by american. let come home to america. an awful lot of corporations, as you know, i know i've been a broken record for a long time, but, you know, manufacturing is coming back to the united states of america. it is coming back for a simple, basic reasons. the reasons are, we have the most productive workers in the world. they point out three times as productive as the chips. i want the chinese to do well i just met for five and a half

hours with the president there and told them how much we wanted to see them do well. we said because we want do you buy our products. we want you to be in a position to buy our products. i mean it. take a look around. take a look why company are coming home. the best research universities in the world. not even close anywhere else in the world. we're in a situation where we have the court system. we protect intelligent yule property. we have a growth inagree knewty. think about it. what products can you name, how many times have you been making speeches for the last 15 years about how the chinese have graduated four or five, six times as many engineers as we have, et. cetera. where do you see a chinese brand anywhere in the world? folks, look, we are so much better off. we are so much better positioned than -- anywhere else. it always amazes me that we don't talk more about it.

you know, i was recently traveled about 800,000 so far as vice president. i was coming back from a trip that ended up being around the world. i was coming from india to singapore, and i met with a man that some of you have met with. one of the wisest men i have met, the only guy i've heard henry kissinger say he learned something from. i have great respect for kissinger. the former president of singapore. he's 92 years old, and frail, but his mind is still extremely sharp. he's still very, very articulate. i sat with him for about an hour. he wrote a book -- he didn't write a book. excuse me, there's a great book that recently been written where it just does group of interviews with him about four countries, china, india, the united states, and russia. so i turned to him 20 minutes in

the conversation and said, mr. president, what are the chinese doing now? he said something interesting. he said china is in the united states of america looking for that buried black box. i looked at him quizzically and said, you know, like flight recorder boxes that contain the data. they're trying to figure out what it is that allows americans to, quote, to be the only nation in the world to able to continually remaining itself. continually remaining itself. -- re-make itself. i sake i think i can tell you. it's an actual conversation. i said, there's two things in the black box. one, is the steady constant and significant stream of immigrants coming to america. [applause] those immigrants who come are self-selected. they have the most courage.

they have the most sense of optimism. they have the greatest sense of the ability of they and their fellow immigrants to make thick new -- things new. when you think about it, the strongest come. takes a lot of courage to pick up and say i'm heading to a country that may not particularly want me or i'm i don't speak the language. i'm going anyway. it takes a special breed of person. that's the first thing. the second thing is, the united states of america, i said, mr. president, whether you're a naturalized american citizens or by birth, you are taught from the time you are a child to challenge orthodoxy. think about it. we're the only nation in the world where as difficult as our elementary school education is, and we criticize it and want to make it better and must be made better. no child in america has ever crittized for challenging

orthodoxy. think about every other country now including our allies. the orthodoxy, orthodoxy is the holy grail. you can't build something new unless you break the old mold. that's the magic of this country. and so when i take a look at our attitude about ourselves as a people, it always surprises me when we don't have degree of optimism we should about the state of the nation. and in inspite of who is president, inspite of who is in the congress, the american people are so much stronger. so much more resilient. so much more capable, that even the ridiculous policies of our friends on the right cannot keep them from moving forward. that's what you see. that's what you see all over. and, you know, the other thing we have going for us, in this moment, steve and i talked about this. the first time in my career,

nancy, where every major issue the american people agree with the democratic party. think about it. [applause] no, i really mean it. i know, it sounds like -- [inaudible] but think about it. every issue facing the american people, particularly the em battled middle class, on every single issue from what you're able to do in the debt ceiling. they weren't about to go ahead and play games with this times because of you. the minimum wage 72% of the american people supported increase the minimum wage. early childhood education, 86% of the people. imgray gracious reform 72% of the democrats. 60% of republicans. background checks on weapons. 90% of the american people. infrastructure, 88% of the american people think it is means by which we can grow the country. it's one of the reasons i was down with jim. i do like srk, i like their port a lot too. and i like all the ports

up-and-down the east coast. so they can be able to accommodate those ships, which, if we don't widen and deepen our ports they're going to keep rolling right across the atlantic. they mean hundreds of thousand of jobs, i might add. the american people agree with us. 55 percent of marriage equality. overwhelmingly they agree on pay equity. even 55% in all the difficulties you're facing now with the alaska. 55% of the american people don't want to see it repealed. folks, i can't think of a time, i can't think of a time when the issues of most effect, the american people most effect the middle class overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly they support us. i make another point you. there is an republican party. i wish there was a republican party. i wish there was one person you could sit across the table from. make a deal, make a comprise, and know when you got up from the table it was done. that's what political parties is

able to do. that is what the president is able to commit to. there is -- all you have to do is look at the response of the state of the union over the three or four i think we should get a limb focused here. get a little focused about instead of focusing on the few things we have problems with. focus on all we have going for us, going in to this election. and talk about it. you are doing it i know. the middle class and i'll conclude with this. the middle class is we have a great economist in the white house who will debate with you whether middle class means -- middle class isn't a number. middle class is a value set. it's about whether or not you can own your home and not have to rent it. it's about whether or not you

can send your kids to the park and the neighborhood and not worry about whether he or she will be mugged or molested going two and from or in the park. it's about being able to send your kid to a school in your vicinity where you know if they do well, they will qualify. they will qualify to go school after they graduate. whether trade school or community college or a four-year college. and it is knowing you're going to be able to take care of your parents if they're elderly and hope and pray your children will never have to take care of you. that's what being middle class is. that is what it is about. the middle class is being clobbered. you know, they talk about the fact that we shouldn't be talking about income inequality. i think it would be a sin if we didn't talk about income inequality. [applause] when i was elected and ceo and made about 25 times more than

the lowest paid employee to now 240 times. that's not -- i understand all the economic arguments. i understand globalization. i understand all the consequences of the concentration of it. we have an obligation. the reason america is as strong and vital it is it has the most robust and the most coherent middle class of any nation in the world. and the only reason the poor have a shot is because of the consent of the middle class. that's why it happens. so in the middle class does well, the rich get richer, and the poor have an avenue. but that appture to get the middle class is closing. and it seems to me the single greatest obligation we have as a party is how to widen that app pature. so more people can get in and stay in. and that's what everything we talk about is about. whether it is providing decent jobs for people. whether it is making sure they

have they are educated. making sure that we are building this country. the thing that amazes me the most is how a republican friends all of a sudden, all of a sudden infrastructure is bad. building things the country needs is somehow -- i don't get it. i don't -- i really don't, by the way. it's one of the things that after all of the years i've served in the united states senate and now five years as vice president, the one that perplexes the me most. i don't get. it their friends in business are for it, the american public is for it. we're for it. all they have to do is look around and see how badly the need is. and yet, this is -- to do anything. last thing i'll say to you is that i know we got a budget deal. and it's a good thing we're moving on to not stro refight the budget again this year and next. folks, does anybody in this room

think that the republican party has walked away from the ryan budget? does anybody in this room think if they, in fact, are able to take the senate or increase their numbers or maintain their numbers in the house, that's not what they're going get back to? i campaigned for an awful lot of congressional candidates, i'm proud to and senate candidates. and many times in one of the districts like alex and they're talking about her supporters saying there's x number of republicans competing for nomination. better to have this one or that one. i think it was kay haggen not long ago. she had about 1500 people. i said, folks the thing you have to ask any one of the candidates, if they're elected, are they going vote against when the republicans move it again to reduce taxes by another $2 2,000 a year for making over $1 million. are they voting against further

limiting women's right to chooses or access to a good job. .. than now. so keep your eye on the ball.

keep your eye on the ball. the american people are where we are and let's go out and make every single effort, not just to defend but to aggressively push, aggressively push our agenda. they are with us. they are with us. and i'm sure in hell glad i'm with you. thank you very much. [applause] >> live now to remarks from u.s. agency for international development administrator rajiv shah. he is expected to discuss ways government and corporate america can form partnerships in developing countries for infrastructure investment and creating new market for american boards and services. this is live coverage from the woodrow wilson center in washington, d.c. we expect it to get underway in a moment live on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> once again we're live at the wilson center here in washington, d.c. waiting remarks from u.s. agency for development administrator rajiv shah discussing public/private partnerships in developing

countries. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. happy valentine's day and welcome to the wilson center. i'm jane harman, the president and ceo of the wilson center. i'm a recovering politician. and if you're noticing these bicycles, they are gifts from

our, our visiting politician, earl blumenauer who heads the congressional bike caucus. all of you and all of us think it is marvlous thing to support. earl, thank you for all the gifts. for all of you extra brownie point braving the weather to show up. i was predicting we would have 10 people in the audience. shows how valuable my predictions are, but also shows how valuable this panel is. we're delighted to see all of you an see an extended audience through all of the social media that will take the events today and show them across the globe. two of our scheduled panelists, matthew bishop of the economist, and sharon dagastino of johnson & johnson are not here. obviously they're not here because their trains were canceled. but roger mark de souza directs

the important wilson program will join the conversation later in the program. there he is. yes he is here. to substitute for them. and thank you, roger mark, but also, we're sad that they can't be here. so, it's a great pleasure to welcome back to the wilson center u.s. aid rajiv shah, a great friends of ours. usaid. and rajiv has not spoken here in two months, no, 2012, not 2013. whoa, in 14 months. he spoke on what then secretary of state hillary clinton called the economic state-craft, something i think everyone agrees is a crucial part of the tool box we use to project a u.s. narrative in the world. as raj put it, quote, harnessing american inagain newt to advance global development and in the process strengthen our own

nation's economy is what we should be doing. the numbers tell the story. since 2000 one aid formed more than 1600 public/private partnerships with over 3500 partner organizations with an independent estimated value of more than $20 billion with a b in public and private fund but the work of usaid and public/private partnerships doesn't just provide a bounce to our economy and our jobs picture. it also enhances our security at a time when too many see our foreign policy in kinetic terms like drones and special-ops and guantanamo bay prison, soft power diplomacy or i would call it smart power diplomacy delivers life-saving help to desperate people an improves their image of america. it is an invaluable foreign policy tool. think thailand in 2004 and the devastating tsunami. all of you were old enough to remember that. in relief efforts americans and

thais worked side-by-side to deliver food and supplies. americans lined up to donate blood. a u.s. humanitarian assistance helped build trust with thailand's government and with the thy people. building this relationship played an important part in the ct efforts, counterterrorism efforts with thai authorities which led to very successful outcome just a little bit later. segue to the philippines or japan or pakistan or even iran after its devastating earthquake and to today. let's talk about syria. syria is a moral catastrophe. secretary kerry's announcement of an additional 3$0 million in humanitarian assistance in january brings our total commitment to $1.7 billion. that's good news, but, we can and should do more. increased aid can thwart recruitment from terror groups

like the nusra front and independednt sis. and change the situation on the ground. the wilson forum is proud to be leading forum on maternal health initiative and environmental change and security program which roger mark heads. and a new ecsp report, harvesting peace, food security conflict and cooperation, examines the relationships between food insecurity and conflict, recommending that humanitarian and development partners work more closely together. so rajiv, is here to chart out where we are going in 2014. after he speaks he will take part in an all-star panel featuring earl blumenauer, my very good friend who was elect odd congress in 1996 and with whom i served with for, many, many years. earl is one of the brain's behind usaid's first global water strategy launched in may of 2013.

our moderator is adjacent son. wonderful name, we've just been discussing this. npr's global health and development correspondent. i would like to recognize many wilson supporters in the audience but particularly the ambassador from the philippines who is, where is he? there he is, sitting in the second row. jose cucia. i mentioned earl and i think that's it. dr. shah will now speak and right after his remarks the panel begins. so welcome all of you and again, happy valentine's day. [applause] >> thank you, jane and thank you for your leadership here at the wilson center and certainly in congress. the topic of today's conversation with jane was describing as we walked in was really about defining america's role in the world and you've been doing that for quite some

time very effective live. earl blumenauer, great to be here with you. thank you for being here. i want to thank jason and roger mark, the ambassador, so many friends and colleagues. i too am glad folks are here. i, if you're walking through our offices which are right next door and in the building i think most of our folks folks are teleworking or got stuck in the snow. this is great to see people out today. you know it is true that this discussion should really be about what america stand for in the world and how we stand for it and the answer to that question can not only and just always be what our military is doing. it's got to be more comprehensive in a manner that captures certainly our diplomatic and development efforts in government but also captures the full range of american institutional partnerships around the world in business, science, innovation, and technology.

and it is true, that when you look across sectors and around the world, whether it is in colombia where we're helping to bring starbucks and small farmers together so that people can be reintegrated after a difficult war and guerrilla situation. or whether it is in syria whereof the four 1/2 million people inside of syria that get relief about 3 1/2 million people get relief because of american support. or whether it is in afghanistan where the eight million kids and 3 1/2 million girls who are now in school are not talked about much but are very much a part of whether that country succeed regardless of military presence over the long term. these efforts make a huge difference in shaping and defining the world in front of us. so i look forward to a discussion today about how to best execute that mission in a

modern way. and in that context i would like to sort of pose a question to you which is, how can we put the power of business, science, and info into the hand of those who serve this mission, whether it is serving on a humanitarian basis or working on the longer-term partnerships designed to end extreme poverty and build resilient, democratic societies around the world? now, it might be thought of as an unusual question, especially from someone in government leading an agency tasked with doing these things, but i think we have now learned and seen that the world is different than it used to be a few decades ago. a few decades ago, energy, investment and resource that is went into these parts of the world were in fact largely definedded by public resource flows, development aid, world bank loans, accounted for 60, 70, 80% of flows of capital into

the countries we're talking about. today we are a small fraction of that. despite having maintained our commitments and our level of economistments and even increased those commitments we are thankfully far outstripped by private investment and business relationships in nearly every country in which we work. and so when we think about the future of engaging the world through developmental activity we're not thinking anymore about just paying for infrastructure and services as important as those activities are. instead, we're now thinking about, as, earl blumenauer and suggested in other settings, how do we build the kind of partnerships really in results-oriented way wan reshape the vulnerability in the world in which we live? we can not pay our way out of extreme poverty but if we engage businesses and companies, if we

motivate scientists and technologists, if we use american innovation, whatever pocket of american society it comes from including the government, and apply it to live out the founding premise upon which jfk created usaid, which we tackle poverty abroad, we make our world safer and more secure, we believe we can end extreme poverty within the next two decades. that means any extreme poverty for the 1.25, for 1.1 billion people that live on a dollar and a quarter a day. it means ending widespread hunger for 860 million people that will go to bed hungry tonight. it means virtually eliminating the reality of high levels of preventable child deaths for the 6.6 million kid that will go, that will die this year before ever reaching their fifth birthday. now it is easy to step back and say, you know, that sound great

but those tasks are simply not achievable but in each case we've made huge progress. child survival, as the economist has previously noted is probably the single greatest developmental achievement in the last 20 years in what all this work has actually done. in 1990, 44% of the global economy of the world's population lived on the rough equivalent of a dollar, a dollar and a quarter a day. today it is 22%. if we do the right things it can be 20 years from today 3%. we will only get there if we do things a little bit differently. i would like to describe some of the efforts we put in place over the last few years how we reshape our work and motivate a greater degree of partnership to achieve those goals. first we restructured how we work in order to partner more fun finley with -- fundamentally with local institutions of all

kinds all around the world. in last few years we supported more than 1200 local institutions of 73 countries a 50% increase over 2010. and what that means is. we have direct partnerships with local banks investing in small scale agricultural businesses. it means we're funding and partnering with local civil society organization that is help women express their leadership capacity in rural villages in africa. what it means we fund and work with women's groups in new delhi, so when tragic things happen they're able to have a voice and be more active and engaged and partner with peer organizations here in america to carry out their task and their vision. we've also made a big pivot as jane mentioned to focus on partnerships with private organizations and companies in particular. today we have global relationship managers for our top 35 private sector partners. what that means is, we're

working with walmart, in a dozen countries around the world to help reach hundred of thousands of small scale farmers providing technical assistance and support but also connecting them to a real market, in this case, walmart, that is going to be there for the long haul and sustain their gains. it means when we tackle a famine in somalia, we're able to reach out to our partners at cargill and if they have, as they did, the capacity to redirect a $7 million shipment of rice and put it quickly into the somali economy so that it can get to famine-affected areas we can be more responsive and save more lives. and it means that we partner with our colleagues at google to do everything from mapping communities around lahore so we can do a better job of finding and vaccinating young kids to helping to invest in entrepreneurs creating new businesses to tackle extreme poverty and make a living for themselves by using private

means. we've now sent a field, cadre of field investment officers to our missions around the world and these are folks who, i think it is only time in the for rip service we've had that clone of officer. what it allows us to do is identify private investment opportunities and connect those investment opportunities to partners and investors here in the united states and around the world. so we're bolstering our traditional aid programs by in the last year alone using our capacity to provide loan guaranties to 26 new partners, mobilizing $500 million in 19 countries and for every dollar we mobilize through our development credit authority, for every $28 of private investment we mobilize, we end up spending about one dollar when a loan fails and we have to cover part of the loss. so it is an extraordinary deal and in these budget environments

these days we're always looking for good deals to advance our mission. we call this approach, a new model of development. a model that relies on asking governments to reform the policies and programs that they have put in place. to fight corruption and to prioritize the poor. but it is a model that also requires us to do things differently, to be more nimble and more flexible, to reach out to private sector partners at home and abroad and to bring more engagement, to tackle the kinds of problems we want to solve. when i started at usaid about 8% of our resources were programmed through this new way of working. today we think it is about 40% and we hope to increase that over time. and what that effectively means when there are disasters, instead of simply providing aid

and assistance we're also laying the groundwork for recovery and rehabilitation. i'm thrilled that our ambassador from the philippines is here because that's a great example. my, the two most important things that happened in the u.s. response to the philippines were far from the cameras. the first is the ambassador knows was a sharing of the climate data and predisk tiff data that allowed the philippines government to evacuate 700,000 people before the typhoon hit. and, you know, we all saw those early estimates of death to being far higher what ultimately found was the consequence and it was in large part because in partnership we were able to get that done. the second part, also not seen on tv, was how we stood up energy systems and food systems and got health clinics back in operation. yes, it was our wonderful military and developmental humanitarian partners doing great work but it was also

pulling together a consortium of companies, mostly local, that got those systems back up and running and did so quickly. and i think that's telling because today it is those kinds of partnerships that give us the confidence to think that we can achieve extraordinary things. i mentioned the possibility much ending preventable child deaths around the world. how are you going to do that? everyone should ask that question. we partnered a month ago with ge in east africa to bring power and energy to hundreds of health clinics throughout east africa. that project will be outstanding and is supported by one of the loan guaranties i was talking about earlier. we do have an estimated loss related to that that we have to account for on, in terms of public fund. but in this case ge said, you know what? this is such a good deal for us, we'll pay for any loss you suffer using your credit

guaranties. at virtually no cost to the american tax pay, through creative partnership we're essentially going to bring power, light and cold chain capacity to hundreds of health clinics throughout east africa which will help save lives and improve the delivery of health care. opportunities to do this are endless, from colombia to syria to afghanistan to africa. so i'm eager to join the panel here because i believe that america has much greater capacity to do this work in this manner than we're tapping in today and i look forward to your ideas how we get there going forward. thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you very much. that was very interesting. i hope we have open dialogue here. feel free to jump in on each other as we go along and we'll get questions from the audience right towards the end as well.

first i would like to ask you, congressman, i think the question of what is the role of the private sector in the united states's image abroad and its development abroad, what is the proper role? because on one hand it can do some amazing things but i think there is also probably some concern that the interests of the private sector, the u.s. private sector may not always be aligned with the best interests of the people in some of these developing countries. there might be some cynicism from people in those places. and at the same time, you're dealing with budgets in congress which are shrinking. what do you see as the proper role and constraints of the private sector? >> well i find what administrator shah has described being very encouraging. i think that the legitimate, long-term interests of american business is very much like this and it's not some sort of

misguided altruism. the history of ge, coke, walmart, is not one of sort of ben negative lept -- benevolent, not worrying about the bottom line. it's, these folks are serious about making a profit. >> absolutely. >> but they have been able to identify, i think, areas where it just makes sense. if coke has a keen interest in sustainable supply of water around the globe. the. >> tent to which they're able to partner with usaid, other ngos, it helps meet this objective which deals with their ability to actually function in these companies. and it also helps them deal with market, because if they are identified as part of the solution, as opposed to part of the problem, people who are

making their own economic choices will gravitate toward them. i think we have not always been regarded, i think of, you know, central america, united food, there are a whole host of things where we have not measured up to our standards and short-term profit moved in directions that have not shown necessarily a favorable light, nor in the best interests of the company in the long term. but this, i think we've turned a corner. i think people are realizing that it is in their best interests and we as a country are going to be well-served if we can figure out how to identify, promote. the last thing i would say that some of the technologies that are being utilized internationally, being on the ground immediately after the

terrible earthquake in haiti and watching what a little oregon ngo had been able to do partnering with mobile banking. whoa, this is, this is now spread dramatically. it may have applications here in our country. so simple, common sense technological advancement, whether it is irrigation, bicycles, or mobile banking, help internationally to make a difference here at home. >> and roger mark, in your research and work that you do, do you see an increasing role for the private sector in the field that is you're studying? >> thank you very much. i think it's a very good point. when i was listening to both of them, both of you, what struck me the conversation around private, public sector collaboration and partnerships really has changed, it has

really shifted now. we at the wilson center have been looking at and found globally there have been three driving trends that have helped change the dialogue and perspective on this new development approach as you call it, this new model of development. and i think of it somewhat as a pep talk and that pep talk, really it is looking at population. what's new about population variables? what does it mean? how do demographic trend have an impact? what does it mean in terms of consumption levels and volumer inability. you talk about the philippines. you talk about east africa. the second is looking at what we call, event speed-up. when this kind of catastrophe happens, we're seeing that the shocks reverberate more quickly and more widely than they have previously. what is the role of technology

in responding? what is the corporate sector's role? and the interests in looking at the bottom line? and what does it mean for overall development? the last p in this pep talk to me is around partnership and recognizing there is changing development ecosystem that really, we're looking more at the corporate sector as a role, having a very key role in this development ecosystem. so these three trend are very important and significant in changing this dialogue about corporate engagement and its role in overall development. >> do you hear when you're going out to other countries concern from people in those country that is the interests of ge being part of this project might not be aligned directly with the people in india, for instance, or whatever? and how do you respond when you're in a country you're trying to pitch a project like this? >> well you know i do hear that and unfortunately i think i hear

it more often than it's appropriate. there's certainly a history in development of some pretty prominent companies having a very poor track record of community impacts and, and that, i think has lingered for decades. but you know, if you actually look at what is going on, it is pretty easy to get to a conclusion that this approach works. so, you know, we work in ethiopia. we asking the ethiopian government to make some reforms to the seed sector so they can get ethiopian scientists and varieties tested on soil there to be effective and then work with a whole host of seed companies to commercialize, in this case hybrid maze and get it to farmers. . .

who are these 35,000 households they are producing more food and assembling it in commercial markets and reinvesting their process and improving their food production and this is the widespread hunger without giving up food but relying on the industry and enterprise of small businessmen which is who these small farmers

are. so in my view this approach works and if they present to do more of this, not an excuse to cut back on our other necessary and critical complementary commitments. >> do you think they should have the budget constraints for everything to get outsourced in terms of the development. >> the fact is that these partnerships actually do require a significant investment with 35 managers who are working with these relationships. the more people understand that these are transforming, sitting in the coffee exchange, just watching these folks developing the capacity to be able to

market their own product not just marketing copy in that it is good for american businesses i don't think i should look at this as a shortcut that is necessarily any easier or requires less investment. it's embarrassing how little we invest now. we have a budget that gave me heart burn within 8% reduction. but part of that budget which was interesting to work with international weather. we've developed an understanding in congress by investing strategically in what are, focusing our attention and getting partnerships in the community of faith and environmental groups and ngos

that budget line increased over a third in this climate and i think the partnerships that are being described with the private sector and business if we manage them right i couldn't resist today. i thought that it might come up. i'm not surprised everybody is here. i'm surprised there's an empty seat. i brought the latest copy of the national journal which talks about the most polarized congress ever. and then i pulled up a special issue from two years ago to talk about the most polarized congress ever. there is a lesson.

the subtext is the most polarized until next year. [laughter] but what we are talking about has the potential to bring people together. it stretches resources. jane fought for years in terms of the national security space we still more in a weekend than you spend in a month. this is the best money that we invest hands up. it brings people together. if it is wal-mart and ge. giving a lot of work in trying to protect the labor and environmental standards with four or five companies there are lots of them that are there.

when they do i think the evidence is that it makes a difference and we can find this. >> we work with maternal health and environmental security. are there places the private sector doesn't fit properly. with infrastructure building electric plans i and things like that where they are doing that the maternal health which is a government function and clinics into the private sector is into the appropriate way to go. >> i want to go back to the point about this being an opportunity to bring us togeth together. jane harmon describes us as a shock that they don't get the fact on the span and what's important about that is that we

bring in ... to the table in fact we have been just recognized as one of the top global end-to-end in the world and the number one u.s. think tank to watch and this is important for the corporation and for congress. the most innovative and exciting things in the analysis that we bring to the table is we bring the models and analysts is that the corporate center ordinarily couldn't find on its own. so there are areas where the corporate sector and private partnership with ms. but that's where you have a think tank or the sector coming into bridge that will and this is where it's exciting about the opportunity of the partnerships right now.

>> one small comment because i think alternately what's going to make the difference is if you are one of the 99% of the scientists who think we have a climate problem. what's going to save the world is where we align these so that the billions of decisions that are made every day have the right environmental, economic, humanitarian interest that people do things that will make a difference, and i think what is being described here is a way to align those individual decisions whether they are government programs were private sector decisions about where we shop and how we move. that's what's going to be transformational and if w we are doing this on a scale that i think is unprecedented and exciting.

the sector shouldn't be involved in this part of the development package that we are putting out as the u.s. government. of course you need a public investment to make it work and deliver results, but our partnerships have brought down maternal rates more than 50% in about 18 months with strong validated measurement because of technology measurement capability and logistics partnerships to make that work. the massive program is underpinned by a logistics system that is run with a number of other partners but no logistics. there is no element of any of this that i think you could say with confidence there is no role

for the private sector but that isn't to discount the fact that as it points out this is a reason to do more in terms of public investment not less. i have seen how these partnerships have brought together conservative republicans and liberal democrats and everybody else in the mix because when you show that you can achieve these in such a highly leveraged and clearly measured manner it's very compelling. it's very compelling. people with all walks of life got into this business a public service to deliver results and this is a very compelling vision people can get their arms around. if you ask most americans how much do we spend on foreign aid the answer is 20%. i was reading by a well-educated consumer and author in the post a reference to a hundred billion

dollars of aid t development tht we have invested in afghanistan. that couldn't be further than the truth. the reality is we spend 1%, not 20% of the federal budget on the development was and, less than 1% rate in afghanistan we spend about two weeks of the total cost of the military enterprise, two weeks of one years cost of development of investments that have led to 1800 miles of new road anywhere in the world and a 30%, 300% improvement in local revenue so they could stand on their own 2 feet. to keep it all perspective and to not see this in any respect at the rationale that it gives us an opportunity to do more. >> what is being done to make sure all of these large companies are not coming in and

putting a local company based in africa that is based in southeast asia so we are not just allowing this american commercial power to sort of be monopolized across the board. >> let me say two things about that. >> i think in the opening to 1600 private partners and more than 11 or 1200 of those are with local companies and they are thrilled to work with us because they believe that we can sursurface issues, fight corrupn and help motivate reform that improve the business environment for everybody. i would point out that in the current world, the places we are talking about are the fastest growing economies anywhere on the planet so companies all over the world are seeking a foothold in the six of the ten fastest growing economies in the world in sub-saharan africa and if we can offer a platform for

american companies to engage chance. we any right way i'm proud of the ability to offer that platform and not shy about engaging in those engagements. >> we should do more in a direct fashion. >> one of the things i like with some of our partners, the assistants are putting cash in the hands of people who for example have suffered from an earthquake or from a tsunami. i would hope that we give you more cash and less surplus food for instance. it's an embarrassment to me that too often it takes months for the food to arrive and when it arrives, it has the perverse effect of discouraging local production, local markets.

the administration requested a tiny amount of money to be able to balance that out and demonstrate the power of direct investment and i'm hopeful that we are able to do more of that. >> for example, the president's budget last year called for a shift in about 45% of the program so we could reach 4 million additional children every year without spending an additional penny. and it seems like an uphill battle and it will continue to be. but in the bill that was signed at the flexibility to reach 800,000 additional children. >> you are such a diplomat. >> we are going to open up to some questions. >> once again, the new development in the system there is a newness called 2020 which

is a global initiative to meet the needs for 120 million globally to access reproductive health services. this is a partnership with the british government, with the corporations, with local governments to work collaboratively to meet an urgent and key developments right now. so going after the framing of your question it's not only about the big u.s. corporate interest and global interest. there is a shift in the partnership model that's more inclusive and bringing in both governments and local corporations. >> i know this is being taped. do we have questions from the audience that you would like to ask? just wait for the microphone.

>> health initiatives foundation. thank you very much for the presentation. i've done a fair amount of work with the partnerships on a large scale. but as i reflected on over the last 20 years, i gets more and more concerned that the kind of partnerships that have been described so far really want him twhatinto setup a positive ecosm where it is failing is that the base level of communities and i am just wondering with the data into social networks can't we approach getting some resources to wreck lee into the communities to enable them to emerge with their own ideas of how they want to live rather than through example in africa where the corporations are driving people off of their land and into the cities and into places that have no infrastructure.

let me set the context of little but because haiti is an important country for us. it's important i think to recognize that there has been tremendous progress. if you look at the three years prior and compared to the last three years, private investment is up 300% if you compare those and the economy is growing at 4.3%: .5 million kids in school and of the 1.7 million people who are displaced during the earthquake all but 150,000 of them are back in some kind of improved housing unit and most of them are billed back to a higher earthquake standard and before. so that if i thin is i think ant context. in terms of whether the model

works, i might speak more about it but one of our partnerships is with the local phone companies and providers in the foundation to help use that as a platform to get mobile money and that made a huge difference and reached lots of families that otherwise wouldn't have been connected to a modern cash economy in an effective and transparent manner. similarly, i do think that the coupling of business investment and new hotels going up and in the park where there are jobs being created in the textile industry, coupling that with effective public investment that is bringing down the rate of the malnutrition and having the certificate get school meals and take home food packages have to work in concert. the model we are talking about

isn't just giving companies broad access to land and title in a way that is nontransparent. the model we are talking about is engaging in specific partnerships where you measure results, track outcomes, report on them and hopefully create both private enterprise and public developmental gains. >> make no mistake i don't mean to suggest that we have all of a sudden a lot of denying relationships with our businesses. we are watching large investments being made in developing countries buying up farmland so they can export their water. there are often times international multilateral pressures to invest in infrastructure projects on a scale that pose risks for the environment and don't have much

trickle-down benefit. i am concerned that in most of the situations we need to develop an infrastructure that includes the political infrastructure. but this functionality for a host of reasons is mindnumbing and frustrating as the progress that has been referendums has been really hard fought. it shouldn't be this hard but it is. and we have places where there isn't about political infrastructure where there are people who will take shortcuts. we have been fighting against illegal lobbying for instance which you take for people coming to circumvent the law and put cash on the table for them and others profit down the line.

further destabilizing the civil society and a routing the long-term environment ecosystem so these are hard to unwind, but it is i think our responsibility to put in place infrastructures to help people enforce their own wall and the then into countries like the united states who respect them so we don't turn a blind eye when the people are importing the harvested timber or in dangerous pcs or whatever. there's more that we all can do to try to provide that structure that enables people not to have to choose between feeding their family and killing some rare animal. it's hard work but we are moving. >> and that is what this is all

about. aided by ita divided self isn'te completely transformative and cannot control everything in the conditions on the ground but it's about setting up a framework that is quickly moving in that direction and is optimizing the u.s. dollars but we are investing into it. wait for the microphone please. >> good afternoon i want to thank the wilson center. i work for a management systems international but i had the privilege of working for 25 years. you mentioned american innovation and there's a lot of innovation in the country that's something that we could really share but my experience illustrated there's a lot of innovation overseas as well and i think about the sector in the west bank which is my last post it there. what is the agency doing in

terms of the venture capital and other means to take advantage in leveraging and supporting that. >> thanks for that and your service. we have actually done an i thinn interesting set of things including partnering with private equity venture funds in afghanistan, pakistan, the middle east and parts of africa and that has created the capacity to support this kind of entrepreneurial business starts. i saw a business plan competition with all of these young programmers basically pitching to the capitalists in the region their business ideas. they were good idea and half of them were services we use tailored to the local context and half of them were completely novel. it was great to see that there must have been 400 on a friday

night, young entrepreneurs that were pitching their business ideas and trying to raise funds. you see that dynamic all over the world. so i think our system should be used to encourage that and engage with it and it's not just with those guys and women have so much value we brought over a vice president from google and someone from intel. they speak volumes in the communities all around the world so it's not to imply all innovation comes from here but people do what they think of successful innovation and successful entrepreneurship. they think usually of american entrepreneurship. >> we are going to have time for one more question >> i'm going to d. for my spots

to his excellency. >> a very interesting presentation. also the great job the u.s. military dead in the aftermath of the tie soon and i've expressed an appreciation to the government and the american people for the overwhelming generosity in terms of the assistance that we got. my question to the congressman, if i may -- [laughter] reducing foreign aid and the great job that was it u.s. congress to consider providing a great or larger budget for the institutions like those that only provide humanitarian

assistance are able to also develop the attractive business opportunities for the firms in the experience of ge, starbucks and so on. of course i am concerned in terms of the foreign aid but i think it also deprives the institutions to do much more for the u.s. business. [laughter] >> you are right. the reference that was made to the united states military, watching in the aftermath of the tsunami, watching our military swing into action and providing water. i think bear was more good done in that region not just for the

hundreds of thousands of people whose lives were turned upside down, but candidly the perception people had about the united states. we are going to spend over the next decade approximately $700 billion on a nuclear arsenal that we have been used in 69 years that has a thousand times more than we needed to destroy any country on the glo globe. the news is about to be discovered cheating in the missile silos. we've got 450 missiles on alert with people's fingers on the button. they discovered that when they were investigating the alleged drug abuse. it's insane. so if we are able to have people

do a deep dive, look at just that one area, we could reprogram a half trillion dollars. to give you 1%. [laughter] america would be safer. the world would be better off than we would save the taxpayers a lot of money. but i can't back to the power of the concepts where people come together and see practical stuff on the ground and these partnerships because that is what is going to make a difference in the divided congress, and more important for the divided country to have the support that we need to go forward. >> unfortunately we have run out of time. it's been a fascinating discussion and an important question about how does the u.s. use this form of its power author in the world.

thank you all for coming and maybe a quick round of applause. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> one of the things we worry about obviously our cyber attacks but physical dangers and what i always think is what keeps me up at night when i think about what can happen

next. i wonder what your greatest fear is. a general? >> i would answer with two things. on the cyber side, an attack against our vertical infrastructure that would have potential damaging effects on the health care, it's an area that we have to be very close attention to. there is a range of things that keep me up at night that have been in nairobi and what happened during the boston marathon. they worked together in the community to make sure that we are working as seamlessly as possible to share everything we have not only with the defense side and national side but also on the federal, state, local and tribal level and i think that is an important aspect to work on

integration over the intelligence system she brings financial resources to the marriage as well as her managerial skills to make mount vernon a successful operation and makes it possible

for washington to b be a way for eight years fighting a war. there's something about abraham lincoln that she saw the potential and encouraged it and helped develop it and it helped kind of polish him up for the washington society and the political parties that they had where they invited a lot of important people. the parties were talking with the lives of those important in gentleman. the involvement in the political career of franklin roosevelt is right from the beginning. she becomes much more active in her role after 1921 when franklin roosevelt contracted polio. she would encourage them to continue on the political ambition.

massachusetts senator elizabeth warren recently called on president obama to nominate people to the federal judiciary with diverse professional backgrounds. she was a keynote speaker for the poor from examining the issue. the alliance for justice released a report on nominees looking at the personal life experience and education to achieve diversity on the bench in addition to considerations of race, gender and sexual orientation. this is about an hour. please come in and take your seats. we are ready to go. i am the president of the alliance for justice and we thank all of you for coming. in addition to all of you in the room, we are joined by people all over the country participating by lifestream.

i should say i've gotten a few people complaining from phoenix and los angeles, san diego who have had to get up a little early to watch but all i can say is from east coast we say to the west coast that's the price you pay for good weather. welcome everyone. we are here today because we understand the judges just like all of us are the product of life experiences can't history and professional. we believe the courts and the nation benefit when the fullest possible range of legal and life experience or represented on the bench. not only are the decisions of the court rendered more fairly and knowledgeable he, but of those that come before the court can have a confidence their cases will be heard in a

courtroom where no single point of view dominates. that's why we think there might be room for what judges have been public defenders, labor lawyers, academics, civil right litigators or any host of specialties that deal with a public interest. the recent changes in the rules which disabled the filibuster for judicial nominations have opened the door to significant changes. now is the time to bring energy to the discussion of the kind of when men and men who should sit in the judges in the courtroom. the opportunity for better balance on the federal court has arrived. alliance for justice has been in the forefront of accessing justice for over 30 years and the subject is near and dear to

our hearts. but today's event is one of the exciting because of our very special guest, senator elizabeth warren, one of the nation's most energetic, create full leaders in the united states senate and a courageous champion of everyday americans. she's not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom or direct attention to the many ways the national institutions have been captured by special interests and those who believe the government should serve only those at the top of the economic ladder. the courts and the people who were chosen to lead them to need to be part of that broader discussion about the growing threat to the democratic institutions, and we are

thrilled senator warren has agreed to join us this morning. thank you so much. [applause] it's good to be here this morning. i appreciate the invitation. i am very pleased to be here on the alliance for justice doing remarkable work and i'm glad to be able to add my voice to that and all the organizations that help put this together and for those of you on the west coast. but you are still in your slippers, right clicks so there are pluses and minuses. i'm also pleased to be here this morning with the judge because she is not only a distinguished, has had a distinguished career both as a lawyer and as a federal judge. but also because she serves as the chair of the advisory committee on the judicial

nomination and she has already helped bring three very illustrious candidates to the bench and i want to thank you for your efforts on its behalf. and i know it will be a traffic panel to follow so i'm so glad to be here this morning to talk about something that is so important and very glad that you are having this conference to talk about professional diversity on the bench. there is an intense fight going on right now about what our federal bench will look like. will it be a natura neutral fort interprets the law and dispenses fair and impartial justice or will we see the corporate capture with the courts transformed into just one more game?

that is what is at issue and we should put this in context. we are here in washington and power is not balanced. instead power is becoming more and more concentrated on one side. well-financed corporate interests line up to fight for their own privileges and to resist any changes that would limit corporate excess. i saw one of these examples up close and personal following the 2008 financial crash where all of the large financial institutions came in and fought vigorously to protect themselves, not the public but themselves in an ongoing battle and in an effort to try to re- regulated financial institution. on and on through the system

they make sure that they get protected and to get the opportunity to tilt the playing field. in a democracy that we write the law we have an opportunity to get back in and have some debate to get the public involved in the debate and to get some public awareness and to fight for something that allen says the playing field in the other direction. it's an example of that. the banks resisted it but in the democratic process we at least had a shot to be able to get through something that was there for the people. if the big businesses losing the democratic for him or in the

legislative forum, then if they can raid the courts they get a second bite at the apple. it's part of the reason it is so important that we maintain the courts that are independent and the courts that represent a diversity view from around this country in order to be neutral arbiters rather than the system they just have a second bite at capturing the legal system again. so this is one of the reasons i believe professional diversity matters so much in the court system. professional diversity is one way to insulate the court from the corporate capture. now, however, we face a federal bench that has a striking lack

of diversity. the american constitution society that has studied in 2008 where they looked at the federal bench into the biography of those that serve on the federal bench. it was dominated by the judges whose previous experience is generally the corporate or prosecutorial. the judges in almanac of the federal judiciary 85% came out of private practice. they said their conclusion was that is clear from the judges biography that a sizable number of them worked for well-known firms that tend to represent corporations. president obama supported some notable exceptions. but as the report that will be

discussed today on the alliance for justice shows the president's nominees have been largely in line with the prior statistic. 71% of the president judicial nominees practiced primarily for corporate or business clients while only 25% are not corporate attorneys. that means corporate attorneys outnumber all other kinds of attorneys by three to one in the president's nominees in the federal bench. a district court nominees and two circuit court nominees have been attorneys in the public interest, and only 3.6% of president obama's appointees have a background in public interest organizations.

now to be clear about this, there are some talented judges who came from the private sector to be at i worked with private clients and i understand their views may not be the same as those of his or her clients. but i believe that diversity of experience matters. it matters that someone has represented people other than corporate clients, that they have had experience with people who cannot afford lawyers and that they have had experience trying to fight for the public interest and that they have real experience doing something other than representing the corporate clients. in the professional diversity that thurgood marshall brought to the supreme court noting that he brought to the conference table years of experience in an area that was of the vital

importance to the work and experience that none of us could claim to match. justice right was right it matters where you come from. until the judicial nominations process was largely held hostage to an intransigent republican minority that looked for any excuse to block president obama's efforts to nominate federal judges. in the circumstances the president and a majority of the senate who gravitated towards nominating the corporate lawyers and prosecutors that even the most conservative senators could not object to. but that has changed. all of the refusals do not confirm any judge to the dc circuit of appeals. anyone regardless of classification or professional

experiences led the senate to eliminate the filibuster is on the judicial nominations and with this change comes in opportunity to build a federal bench that reflects the best and the brightest from every corner of the legal profession. an opportunity to ensure that the next judges will be fair, evenhanded, and will have the broad experience to fairly consider all sides of the dispute in the issues that come before them. one of president obama's nominees was the judge worked for many years as a staff attorney for the aclu. he had to re- nominate him three times over three years between

the senate finally confirm him. when he was sworn in, the judge said despite the abstraction she faced during this time i ever even considered withdrawing from considerations. why? because the federal bench isn't just for people from large corporate law firms or to only represent the wealthy or never speak out or play it safe in their career. he is right. we must fight to make his words a reality if we are to ensure that there will be professional diversity on the bench and that our federal courts will be a forum that consider all sides of an issue in every dispute that comes before them.

this is the opportunity that we have. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much, senator. it was wonderful. what a great way to kick off this morning's discussion on the importance of the professional diversity on the bench. before we begin the panel discussion, i would like to thank the organizations who were cosponsors of this program. they included the american associations for justice, the constitution society, the center for justice, the defenders of wildlife, legal progress at the center for american progress,

the naacp, legal defense and educational fund, leadership conference on the civil and human rights, the national employment lawyers association, national council of jewish women, and last but definitely not least the people in the american way foundation. they are -- their presence is a reflection of the importance of this issue as we head into a critical period in the obama second term. we share a belief that the makeup of the debate should be as richly diverse as the cases brought before. and now is the time to make professional diversity a priority. to get this important national conversation started, alliance for justice has issued a report called broadening the bench which describes the current state of professional diversity

and shows that opportunities exist for a new approach to federal judges. the report is available on the website at afj.org. our analyst has found that only ten or fewer than 4% of the president's nominees have worked as lawyers in the organizations. state and federal prosecutors outnumber public defenders by more than three to one. only 11 have been full-time academics. and of those that work in private practice, over seven out of ten were for the corporate law firms. in the aggregate, 85% of the

president's nominees have been either corporate lawyers or prosecutors and in some cases, both. clearly president obama's remarkable, historic progress in advancing personal diversity has not yet been matched in the area of professional diversity. the rampant abstraction of the judicial body by the senate republican nominees have the effect of narrowing the field of potential candidates who could potentially expect to be confirmed. but let's hope those days are over. whatever constraints the president, senators, nominating commission and even potential nominees felt as a result of the debilitating effort of obstructionist tactics can now

be set aside. they mean new opportunities for diversity for all kinds. the outlook is bright. in the first judicial nominations of the year, president obama has already taken a positive step towards increasing professional diversity. on january 16, president obama nominated for lawyers for the vacancies in illinois, washington, missouri and nevada. all four have professional backgrounds that are currently underrepresented among the federal judges. the two have substantial trioval experience, one is a former public defender, and one is a state court judge who was previously a solo practitioner focused on criminal defense. with now more than 50 vacancies

without a nominee and with more vacancies to emerge, there will be ample opportunity to turn these promising nominations into the norm rather than the exception. as we move forward there are three things we would like to see happen. number one, now that the senate rules have changed we call on a variety of backgrounds to put themselves forward received on the bench. we often fault our political leaders for the lack of professional diversity but it also the responsibility of those of us that would make great judges to make themselves available and for those of us that care about this, to encourage them to do so. second, senators can't state nominating commission should make a serious concerted effort

to advance professionally diverse nominees. americans consumed over the country large groups, legal groups should insist that they do so. and finally, of course, president obama should let it be known that he expects to see nominees with a wide range of backgrounds put forth by senators. the reform has opened a path to a more exclusive bench, and we should take it. that's where alliance for justice stands but we are going to get the perspective of two brilliant legal minds who've written and spoken extensively about the topic of judicial nominations, selection, and the courts. judge nancy was a judge for massachusetts appointed by president clinton back in 1994.

she teaches at harvard and she lectures and writes on a host of issues including civil rights and civil liberties criminal justice women's issues and is the author of an autobiography with a fantastic title in the event that one in and of an unrepentant advocate. we are thrilled she's here today to offer the insight of someone who's actually served on the bench and sees this issue from a unique perspective. we hope to also be joined by cheryl who is stuck on a train from baltimore. thank you amtrak. but we hope she will be here. she is the wonderful president d director counsel of the naacp legal defense and educational

fund and one of the strongest advocates i've ever met her civil rights, civil liberties, rights of everyday americans and diversity in every walk of life including the judiciary. when we think of people in the legal profession have decoded themselves to the public interest, cheryl is one of the top people on the list. so let's get started. we would love for you to share some initial thoughts and then we will have questions of our own. thanks for joining us. [applause] it's wonderful to be here. i have no sympathy for people on the west coast. i got up at 4 a.m. in boston to make the plane. so as she e-mailed me on the plane and i said i am here although i'm not awake.

it's wonderful to be here. the issue of judicial selection has been dominated over the past couple of years not inappropriately by the notion of having gender and race diversity and ethnic diversity on the bench and that made sense. when you are telling young women that this guy is the limit if matters that there are women on the bench. when you tell the minorities in fact the sky is the limit there are people on the bench so that was in terribly important. but what we haven't looked at, which i felt personally when i went on the bench is the concept of professional diversity which people have been talking about now. i was a civil rights lawyer and a criminal defense lawyer. my book begins -- i don't want to take away the first question but a wonderful panel with me and justice sonya sotomayor who

is a good friend of mine and the panel wanted to know how does one become a judge. she was in on the second circuit. first you go to the wonderful law school and do very well. then you work in private practice and have opinions that you care deeply about you are cautious in how you reflect them and you become a judge. and then it was my turn. i said you represent the first accused of killing a police officer you could find. [laughter] that would be your first case on prime time. you go to this law school and clerked for a judge and take every case in the commonwealth of massachusetts and give speeches on the boston common. to the final you marry the legal

director of the civil liberties unit of massachusetts and become a judge. [laughter] so it was -- i came to the bench looking very different than my colleagues. how does that make a difference? it makes a difference in so many ways that you don't understand this assertively until you have become a judge. it makes a difference in terms of the docket and which you put in the afternoon when no one is paying attention. for me, the cases and employment discrimination cases they place on the docket that was as important as any other. iand the sentencing case, if matters how much information you are going to allow the parties to bring out. the only important information is what was he charged with and what was the criminal record. if you care about the meaningful

senses you want to find out about the defendant and you gave him the opportunity to find out about it. .. without a trial. the judges write an opinion, and each opinion is only in terms of losing cases because those are building timestamp