>> tonight our conversation with tennessee republican senator bob corker on his early career in business. >> i had, you know, started working like most folks when i was 13 doing all kinds offeds and ends. -- odds and ends. i migrated to being a construction laborer and rough carpenter. when i graduated from college, i ended up being a construction superintendent. so after four years i had built some regional malls and learned how to build projects, and i'd saved $8,000. so when i was 25 years old, i went in business. i started doing a lot of repeat work, small projects where i could be paid quickly, and the company grew about 80% a year the whole time, ended up building shopping centers around the country, retail projects in 18 states. so it was, it was an energizing, it was a great place to be. i mean, the energy when you come

into the front door, it'd almost knock you down. and, you know, i sold that when i was 37 to a young man who had worked with me for many, many years, and then, of course, have done several things since. i ended up acquiring a good deal of real estate through the years through portfolios and other companies. but anyway, i love being in business. matter of fact, i've loved everything i've ever done. >> and later we'll talk with democratic senator amy klobuchar of minnesota oning with in the senate and -- on being in the senate and the mother of a teenage daughter. >> she called me, and she's in tears right as i'm walking into the senate, and she said, mom, they said we can't wear a bikini at the pool party, but you can wear tankinin, and dad doesn't understand the difference between a bikini and a tankini. and i said get me -- get him on the phone right now! i practically knocked lindsey

graham over. and i thought i'm not doing this balance very well. for any moarks trying to balance the family and the work, you never do it perfectly, and anyone who says that they do is wrong. >> senators bob corker and amy klobuchar tonight starting at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> at the creation museum, we're only too willing to admit our beliefs based upon the bible, but we also teach the difference between beliefs and what one can observe and experiment with. i believe we're teaching people to teach critically and to think in right terms about science. i believe it's creationists that should be educating the kids out there, because we're teaching them right way to think. you know, we admit our origins are historical, science is based upon the bible, but i'm just challenging evolutionists to admit the belief aspects of evolution and be up front about the difference here. >> i encourage you to explain to

us why, why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed 4,000 years ago completely, and there's no record of it. you know, there are pyramids that are older than that. there are human populations that are far older than that with traditions that go back farther than that. ask it's just not reasonable to me that everything changed 4,000 years ago. by everything, i mean the species, the surface of the earth, the stars in the sky and the relationship of all the other living things on earth to humans. it's just not reasonable to me that everything changed like that. >> evolution versus creationism, the science guy, bill nye, working with darwin's origin of species and answers and genesis founder ken hamm with the bible debate wednesday night at 8 eastern on c-span. >> next, a look at

public/private partnerships and how they help u.s. foreign policy. with rajiv shah, he's the head of the u.s. agency for international development. he's joined by oregon representative earl blumenauer who serves on the house ways and means committee. from the wilson center in washington, d.c., this is an hour. >> 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 visiting politician, earl blumenauer, who heads the congressional bike caucus. and all of you and all of us think that this is a marvelous

thing to support. so, earl, thanks for the gifts. and to all of you, an extra brownie point for braving the weather to show up. i was predicting we would have ten people in the audience. it shows how valuable my predictions are. but it also shows how valuable this panel is. so we are delighted to see all of you and to 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 tag tee know of john soften and johnson are not here. obviously, they're not here because their trains were canceled. but roger mark desouza who directs our 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 raj shah who's a good friend of ours. aid has facilities in this tiny little building, and raj hasn't spoken here in two months -- no, 2012, not 2013. whoa. in 14 months. he then spoke on what then- secretary of state hillary clinton called the economic state craft, something that 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 ingenuity 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 2001 aid has formed more than 1600 public/private

partnerships with over 3500 partner organizations with an estimated value of more than $20 billion with a b in public and private funds. but the work of usaid and public/private partnerships doesn't just provide a bounce to our economy and to 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 pour diplomacy -- delivers life-saving help to desperate people and improves their image of america. it's an ip valuable 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 people. building this relationship played an important part in the ct effort, counterterrorism efforts with thai authorities which were led to a very successful outcome just a little bit later. segway 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 $380 million in humanitarian assistance in january brings our total commitment to $1.7 billion. that's good news. but we can and should to more. increased aid can thwart recruitment from terror groups like the nusra front and isis and change the situation on the ground. the wilson center is proud to be the leading forum through our

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 good insecurity and conflict, recommending that humanitarian and development partners work more closely together. so, raj, our friend raj 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 elected to congress in 1996 and how many i served with for many, many years. he is one -- earl is one of brains behind usaid's first global water strategy which was launched in may 2013. our moderator is jason, wonderful name. we've just been discussing this. npr's global health and development correspondent. and i'd also 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 kuicea. 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 which jane was describing as we walked in is really about defining america's role in the world, and you've been typing that for quite some time -- doing that for quite some time very effectively. earl blumenauer, thank you for being here, and i also want to

thank jason and rosmger mark, the ambassador and so many friends and colleagues. if you're walking through our offices which are right next door and in the building, i think most of our folks are tele-working or got stuck in the snow. so this is great to see people out today. you know, it is true that this discussion should really be about what america stands for in the world and how we stand for it. and the answer to that question cannot only and just always be with what our military is doing. it's got to be more comprehensive in manner that thattures, certainly -- captures, certainly, our diplomatic effort 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's 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's in syria where of the four and a half million people inside of syria that get relief, about three and a half million get relief because of american support, or whether it's in afghanistan where the eight million kids and three that have million girls who are now in school are not talked about much, but are very much a part of whether that country succeeds regardless of military presence over 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'd like to sort of pose a question to you. which is how can we put the power of business, science and

innovation into hands of those who serve the mission whether it's 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 ab agency tasked -- 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 resources that went into these parts of world were, in fact, largely defined by public resource flows; development aid, world bank loans accounted for of 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 commitments 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 any more about just services. as important as those activities are. instead, we're now thinking about, as earl blumenauer and is others have suggested in ore settings -- in other settings, how do we build the kinds of partnerships that really in a results-oriented way can reshape the vulnerability in the world in which we live? we cannot 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 was we tackle poverty abroad, we make our world safer and more secure, we believe we can end extreme poverty within the next two decades. and that means ending extreme poverty for the 1.1 billion people who live on $1.25 a day. it means ending widespread hunger for the 860 million people that will go to bed hungry tonight. and it means virtually eliminating the reality of high levels of preventable child deaths for the 6.6 million kids that will go, that will die this year before ever reaching their fifth birthday. now, it's easy to step back and say, you know, that sounds great, but those tasks are simply not achievable. but in each case we've made huge progress. child survival, as the economiest has previously noted,

is probably the single greatest developmental achievement of the last 20 years this terms of what all of this work has actually dope. done. 44% of the world's population in 1990 lived on the rough equivalent of $1, $1.25 a day. today it's 22%, and in 20 years if we do the right thing, it'll be 8%. but we're only going to get there the if we do things differently. so i'd like to describe some of the efforts we've put in place to reshape how we do our work and to motivate a greater degree of partnership to achieve those goals. first, we've restructured how we work in order to partner more fundamentally with local institutions of all kinds all around the world. and in the last few years, we've supported more than 1200 local institutions in 73 countries, a 50% increase over 2010. and what that means is we now

have direct partnerships with local banks that are investing in small scale agricultural businesses. it means we're funding and partnering with local civil society organizations that help women express their leadership capacity in rural villages in africa, and what it means is we fund and work with women's groups in new delhi so that 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 jean -- jane mentioned, to focus on private organizations and companies in particular. today we have global relationship managers for our top 35 private sector partners. and what that means is we're working with walmart in a dozen countries around the world to help reach hundreds of thousands of small scale farm pers 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 they have -- as they did -- the capacity to redirect a $7 million shipment of rice and put it quickly into the somali economy so 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 that we can do a better job of finding and vaccinating young kids to helping to invest in entrepreneurs, creating new businesses to tackle l extreme poverty and make a living for themselves by using private means. we've now sent a field, a cadre of field investment officers to our missions around the world.

and these are folks who i think it's the only time in the foreign service we've had that clone of officer. what it allows us to do is to 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 guarantees 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 $1 when a loan fails and we have to cover part of the loss. so it's 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've put in place to fight corruption and to prioritize the poor. but it's a model that also requires us to do things differently, to be more nimble and more flexible, to leech out to -- 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 soft. to solve. when i started, about 8% of our resources were programmed through this new way of working. today we think it's about 40%. and we hope to increase that over time. and what that effectively means is that when there are disasters, instead of simply providing aid and assistance, we're also laying the ground work for recovery and rehabilitation. i'm thrilled that our ambassador from the philippines is here, because that's a great example. my two with, the two most

important things that happened in the u.s. response to the philippines were far from the cameras. the first, as the ambassador knows, was a sharing of climate data and predictive 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 the death toll being far higher than what people ultimately found was the consequence. and it's 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. and, yes, it was our wonderful military and developmental humanitarian partners doing great work, but it was also pulling together a consortia 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 of ending preventable child deaths around the world. how are you going to do that? everyone should ask that question. well, one answer is we partnered just a month ago with ge in east africa to bring power and energy to hundreds of health clinics throughout east africa. that project is going to be outstanding and is supported by one of the loan guarantees i was talking about earlier. we do have an estimated loss related to that that we have to account for in terms of public funds. but in this case ge said is, you know what? this is such a good deal for us, we will pay for any loss you suffer using your credit guarantees. so at virtually no cost to the american taxpayer through creative partnership, we're essentially going to bring power, light and cold chain

capacity to hundreds of clinics throughout east africa which will help save lives and improve the delivery of health there. 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 into today. and i look forward to your ideas as to how we kind of get there going forward. thank you. [applause] >> well, thank you very much. that was very interesting. i'm hoping we can just have an open dialogue here. feel free to jump in on each other as we go along, and we'll get the questions from the audience right towards the end as well. first, i'd like to ask you, congressman, i think this question of what is the role of the private sector in the united

states' image abroad and its development abroad, what is the proper role? because on the one hand, it can do some amazing things, but i think there's 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, and there might be some cynicism from people in those places. and at the same time, you're dealing with, you know, 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's described being very encouraging. i think that the legitimate long-term interests of american business is very much like this, and t not some sort of misguided altruism. i mean, the history of ge, coke, walmart is not one of sort of

benevolent, you know, not worrying about the bottom line. i mean, it's -- these folks are serious about making a profit -- >> absolutely. >> but they've been able to identify, i think, areas where it just makes sense. if coke has a keen interest in sustainable supply of water around globe, the extent 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 markets. because if they are identified as part of the solution, as opposed to part of the problem, people who are making their own economic white houses will gravitate towards them. i think we have not always been

regarded, i mean, i think, you know, central america, united fruit. i mean, there are a whole host of things where we have not measured up to our standards, and short-term profit has sometimes 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's 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 is that some of the technologies that are being utilized internationally, being on ground immediately after the terrible earthquake in eighty and watch -- 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. may have applications here in our country. so simple, common sense technological advancement whether it's irrigation, bicycles -- [laughter] or mobile banking help internationally can make a difference here at home. >> and roger mark, in your research and work that you do, to you see an increasing role for the private sector in the fields that you're studying? >> thank you very much, jason. i think it's a very good point. when i was listening to both of you, what struck me was that the conversation around private/public sector collaboration and partnerships really has changed. it really has shifted now. and this is something that we at the woodrow wilson center have been looking at and have found globally that there have been really 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 is looking at population, how -- what's new about population variables, what does it mean, how do demographic trends have an impact? what does it mean in terms of consumption levels and vulnerability? 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've seen that the shocks reverberate more quickly and more widely than they have previously. and what's the role of technology in responding, and what is the corporate sector's role is and interests in looking at the bottom line, and what does it mean for rural development?

and the last p in pep talk for me is around partnership and recognizing that there's a changing development ecosystem that really we're looking more at the corporate sector as a role, having a very keen role in this development ecosystem. so these lee trends are very -- three trends are very important and significant in changing this dialogue about corporate engagement and its role in overall development. >> dr. shah, do you hear when you're going out to other countries concern from people in those countries that the interests of ge and being part of this project might not be aligned directly with the people this india, for instance, or whatever? and how do you respond when you're in a country and 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, you know, it's appropriate. there's or certainly a history in development -- there's certainly a history in

development of some pretty prominent companies having a very poor track record of community impacts, and that, i think, has lingered for decades. but, you know, if you actually rook at what's going on, it is pretty easy to get to the conclusion that this approach works. so, you know, we work in ethiopia with dupont. we've asked the ethiopian government to make some reforms to its seed sector so that they can get ethiopian scientists and varieties they're testing on the soils there to be effective and then work with a whole host of seed companies to commercialize, in this case, hybrid maize and get it to farmers. and today dupont is reaching 35,000 additional farmers, and we're in dialogue about how do we get to three million through partnerships with us and local partners there. the most important part of that, of course, has nothing to do with -- it's all about what's going on at the farm household

level. these are farmers who, you know, are usually barely subsistence producers. maybe they'll sell a little bit of extra food on the market if they have produced it. and often have a two to three-month period during the year that everyone refers to as the hungry season when kids and mothers and fathers go without food or without adequate nutrition. the bottom line is for these 35,000 households, they've now beaten that. they're producing significantly more food, they're selling it in commercial markets, reinvesting their profits and increasing their food production, and this is the path to end widespread hunger without giving out food but, rather, relying on the industry and enterprise of small businessmen and women which is who these small farmers are. so in my view, this approach works, and it's a reason to do more of this, not an excuse to cut back on our public budgets or to cut back on our other necessary and critical

complimentary commitments. >> congressman, do you think, however, that there maybe an interest in congress given budget constraints to have almost everything get outsourced to private sectors in terms of aid and development? be. >> there are some, perhaps of. but the fact is that these partnerships actually do require significant investment. the notion of your 35 managers who are working with these relationships. the more people understand that these are transformative. sitting in the coffee exchange for ethiopia just watching these folks developing the capacity to be able to market or their own product -- market their own product. building skills not just marketing coffee, but other economic be infrastructure and that it is good for american businesses.

i don't think we should look at this as a shortcut that is necessarily any easier or requires less investment. i mean, it's embarrassing how little we invest now, and we just had a budget that gave me heart burn with an 8% reduction. but part of that budget which was interesting, and the reference was made to our work with international water. we've developed, i think, an understanding in congress that by investing strategically in water, focusing our attention better, getting more out of it and building partnerships with the community of faith, environmental groups, other ng os that it is money extraordinarily well spent. so that budget line increased over a third in this tough climate. and i think the partnerships

that are being described here with the private sector, with business, if we manage them right, i think congress will go along with more. of -- i couldn't resist today. i thought it might come up. [laughter] you know, anytime jane throws -- i'm not surprised everybody's here. i'm surprised there's an empty seat. but i brought the latest copy of "the national journal" which talks about the most polarizedded congress ever. polarized congress ever. and then i pulled the special issue from two years ago that talked about the most polarized congress ever. [laughter] >> which you had saved. >> with i did. i mean, there's a lesson here. [laughter] the subtext ever is the most polarized congress ever until next year. [laughter] but what we are talking about here has the potential of bringing people together. it stretches resources.

jane fought for years in terms of the national security space. i mean, we spill more in a weekend than you spend in a month. this is the best money that we invest in that it is something that brings people together. if we do the dive you're talking about and it's walmart and it's ge and it's coke, it's nike, we've got a little shoe store in my neighborhood, that is doing a lot of work in terms of trying to protect labor and environmental standards. and i don't mean to single out four or five companies. there are lots of them that are there. congress needs to get onboard, understand it. and when they do, i think the evidence is that it makes a difference, and we can fund this. you do a lot of work with maternal health and

environmental security. are there some place where is the private sector doesn't really fit properly? that was the question i was going to ask you. i'm wondering whether, you know, certainly in terms of infrastructure, building electric plants, things like that, where the private sector is doing that, but how about ma term health which is normally a government function? are there places where the private sector isn't really the appropriate way to go? >> i think that's a very good question, jason, and i actually want to go back to a point that you made about this being an opportunity to bring us together and bring these communities together. you know, jane harman very often describes us at the wilson center as an intellectual candy shop where you don't get fat on spin. and what's important about that is that concern. [laughter] we bring analysis to the table. in fact, we have been just recognized as one of the top global think tanks in the world, and the number one u.s. think tank to watch. and this is very important for

corporations and for congress. they need the analysis that we bring to the table to answer exactly the question that you're asking, jason. and one of the most innovative and exciting things about this analysis that we wring to the -- we bring to the table is we bring the model and the analysis that the public sector ordinarily could not find on its own. so, yes, there are areas where with a corporate/private partnership would mis, but that's where you have a think tank or nonprofit sector coming in to bridge that role. and this is what is exciting about the opportunity of these partnerships right now. >> jason, could i just make one -- >> sure. >> -- small comment, because i think, ultimately, what's going to make the difference whether it's child health or it's if you're one of those 99% of the scientists who think we've got a climate problem or --

[laughter] what's going to save the world is where we align these interests so that the billions of decisions that are made every day have the right environmental, economic, humanitarian interests that move them so 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 or they're private sector decisions about where we shop, where we live, how we move, that's what's going on transformational. and they are doing this on a scale that i think is truly unprecedented, and it's extraordinarily i exciting. >> well, dr. shah, do you think there are some areas where the private sector shouldn't be involved in this part of of the development package that we are putting out as the u.s. government? >> no. [laughter] you know, i just don't. i mean, look at maternal and

child health is a good example. of course you need a lot of public investment to make it work and deliver results. but, you know, our partnership with j&j in uganda and zambia has brought down maternal death rates by more than 50% in 18 months with strong, validated measurement. because, you know, of technology, of measurement capability, of logistics partnerships that make that work. the massive global hiv/aids treatment program is underpinned by a logistics system that is in part run with ups and a number of other partners that know logistics. so les really no respect -- there's really no element of any of this that i think you could just say with confidence there's no role for the private sector. but that's not to discount the fact that, as earl points out, this is a reason to do more in terms of public investment and engagement, not less. you know, you were talking about bringing people together.

i've seen myself how these partnerships have brought together conservative republicans and liberals, democrats and everybody else in the mix because when you show that you can achieve these kinds of results in such a highly leveraged and clearly measured manner, it's very compelling. it's very compelling. i think people from all walks of life got into this business of public service to deliver results in some form, and this is a very compelling vision that people can get their arms around. the last thing i'd just say is, you know, if you ask most americans how much do we spend on foreign aid and assistance, the answer is 20%. [laughter] even today or yesterday i was reading by, you know, a well educated consumer and author in the post a reference to $100 billion of aid, development aid we've invested in afghanistan. that couldn't be farther from the truth. the reality is we spend 1%, knotts 20% -- not 20% of our federal budget on developmental

assistance, less than 1%. and in afghanistan we spend about two weeks of the total cost of our civilian/military enterprise, two weeks of one year's costs on developmental investments that have led to 1800 miles of new road and eight million can kids in school and the fastest reductions in maternal and child health anywhere in the world and a 30% -- a 300% improvement in local revenue collection so they can stand on their own two feet after our aid and assistance goes away. so i just think it's important to keep it all many perspective and to see this not in any respect as a rationale to do less, but it gives us an opportunity to do more. >> what is being done to make sure that these american companies, all of these are very large company, aren't coming in and bigfooting a local company that's based in africa, that's based in southeast asia? what's being done to make sure that we're not just allowing this american power, commercial power to sort of be monopolized and move across the globe?

>> el, let me -- well, let me say two things about that, and then i'm eager to hear there ores. the bulk of our public/private partnerships are with local companies, and i think jane said 1600. i'll bet more than 1100 or 1200 of those are with local companies. and they are thrilled to work with us because they believe we can surface issues, help fight corruption, help motivate certain kinds of reforms that improve the business environment for everybody. and second, i would just point out that, you know, in our current world the places we're talking about are the fastest growing economies anywhere on the planet. so companies from all over the world are seeking a foothold in the six of the ten fast growing economies in the world which are in sub-saharan africa. and if we can offer a platform to, for american companies to engage transparently and in the right way, i'm proud of the ability to offer that platform, not shy about engaging in those engagements. >> and we should, and we should do more in a direct fashion.

we, one of the things i like with some of our ngo partners, their assistance is putting cash on, in the hands of people who, for example, have suffered from an earthquake or from a tsunami. the -- i would hope that we'd give you more cash and less [lghter]food, for instance. i mean, it is, it is 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 asked a tiny -- requested a tiny amount of money to balance that out and demonstrate the power of direct investment. and i'm hopeful that we're able

to do more of that. >> on that, for example, we -- the president's budget last year called for a shift in about 45% of our food aid program. so we could reach four million additional children every year without spending an additional penny. and it seemed like an uphill battle, and it will continue to be. but in the farm bill that was signed, we got the flexibility to reach about 800,000 additional children. and, you know, that's incremental, but it's real progress. and for those 800,000 kids -- >> you're such a diplomat. [laughter] >> jason, i wondered if i could just give another example -- >> and then we're going to open it up to questions, so be thinking about questions. go ahead. >> i think once again illustrates this new development ecosystem, and there's a new initiative called family planning 2020 which is a global initiative to really meet the needs for 120 million women globally to access reproductive health services. ..

and local cooperation. >> notice the tapes and film, there are might max out there, yes? to we have some questions of the audience. someone in the back. >> just wait for the microphone. >> mike mcdonald, health initiatives foundation. thank you very much for the presentation. you've done a fair amount of work with public-private partnerships at a large-scale.

but as i reflect on 80 over the last 20 years, i get more and more concerned that the kind of public partnerships that are been described so far really would not set up a positive ecosystem in haiti, where he is failing is at the very base level of communities. i'm just wondering with big data and social networks, can't we approach getting some resources directly into these communities to enable them to emerge with her own ideas of how they want to live, rather than for example, in africa where large corporations are driving people off a glance into the cities, into places that have no infrastructure. >> dr. shah, do you want to drive that? >> sure. let me set the context a little bit because haiti is very, very important part of the country for us, and for many of us.

it's important to i think recognize that there's been tremendous progress in haiti. if you look at the three years prior to the earthquake compared to the last three years, private investment is up 300% if you compare those two time friends. the economy is growing at 4.3%. one and half million additional kids in school, and of the 1.7 been people who have been displaced during the earthquake, all but about 150,000 of them are back in some kind of improved housing you know, and most of those housing units are build back to rehire a quick standard than before. so that i think is important context. in terms of whether a model works in haiti, i might speak more about it but one of our partnerships was with mobilephone companies and providers and the gates foundation to use that as a

platform to get mobile money to rural women throughout haiti. that made huge difference and reached lots of palaces otherwise wouldn't have been connected to a modern cash economy in an effective and transparent -- transparent manner. similarly, i do think that the coupling of business investment and new hotels going up, 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 child death and malnutrition and making sure kids get to school, school meals and take on food packages, those things all have to work in concert to see progress. i think the model works better as well. but the model we're talking about is not just giving companies kind of 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 defense of -- public developmental gains. >> make no mistake, i don't mean to suggest that we have all of a sudden a lot of benign relationships now with all businesses. we are watching large investments being made in developing countries, buying up farmland for large commercial applications so they can export their water. that are oftentimes international, multilateral pressures to invest in infrastructure projects on a scale that pose risks for the environment and don't have much trickle-down benefits. i am concerned that in most of these situations we need to

develop an infrastructure that includes the political infrastructure. i mean, the dysfunctionality in haiti for a whole host of reasons is mindnumbing and frustrating, and the progress that has been referenced has been really hard-fought. it shouldn't be this hard but it is. we have places where there are, there isn't that political infrastructure, where there are people who will take shortcuts. we've been fighting against illegal logging, for instance, which he take poor people, you come in, you circumvent the law, you put cash on the table for them and others profit down the line. further destabilizing civil society and eroding the long-term environment, the ecosystem that they face. so these are hard to unwind, but

it is i think i'll responsibility to put in place infrastructures to help people enforce their own local laws or create them in the first place. and in countries like the united states to respect them so we don't turn a blind eye when people are importing illegally harvested timber or endangered species or whatever. there's more that we all continue to try and 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 i think we're moving. >> clearly that's what this is all about, yes. aid lie itself is not going to be completely transformative and can't control everything in the conditions on the ground, but it's about setting a framework that is hopefully moving in that

direction and is optimizing the use of dollars that we are investing into it. will have about five or six minutes left. so maybe in the front here. wait for the mic phone, please. >> good afternoon. i want to thank the wilson center for this very important topic. high, roche. i work for a management systems international now but i had the privilege of working for usaid for 25 years. raj, you mentioned american innovation. there's a lot of innovation in the country. that's something we can really share. but my friends overseas illustrated there's a lot of innovation overseas as well. and i think about the i.t. sector in the west bank which was my last post. it's there. which the agency doing in terms of like venture capital and other means to take advantage and leverage to support that? >> well, thanks for that, and for your service.

we've actually done i think a really interesting set of things that are now maturing, including partnering with private equity and venture funds in afghanistan, pakistan, the middle east, parts of africa, latin america. that has created the capacity to support those kinds of entrepreneurial business start. i was in the west bank and saw a business plan competition where all of these young programmers having, basically pitching to venture capitalist in the region, their business ideas. they were good ideas. i would say half of them were services we'll use as online services tailored to the local content, and half were completely novel. it was just great to see them. there must have been 400 in ramallah on a friday night in a big tent, young entrepreneurs that were pitching their sort of business ideas and trying to raise funds. you see that dynamic all over

the world. and so i think our aid and assistance should be used to encourage that and engage with it. and it's not just with those guys and women have so much value, who brought over a vice president from google, someone from intel. those brands just speak volumes in these communities all around the world. so it's not to imply that all innovation comes from here, but people do, when you think of successful innovation and successful entrepreneurship, they think usually of american entrepreneurship. and the more we can represent that a broad, i think the better off we are. >> i think we'll have time for just one more question. so maybe the woman in the red there. >> actually i'm going to defer my spot to his excellency from the philippines because he raised his hand for a question as well. >> okay. >> thank you.

first of all i wanted to thank doctodr. shah for a very intereg presentation. and also to publicly of knowledge the great job that usaid and the u.s. military did in the aftermath of-i am, -- typhoon high and. express my appreciation for the overwhelming generosity in terms of the assistance we got. my question to the congressman, if i may -- las [laughter] reducing foreign aid, the kind of great job that usaid, u.s. congress consider providing a greater or larger budget for institutions like usaid. not only provide you mentioned the system but also are able to develop very i guess very attractive business opportunities for u.s. firms as

mentioned, the experience of ge, starbucks, wal-mart and so on. i of course am concerned about reduction in terms of foreign aid but it think it also deprives the institutions of usaid to do much more for u.s. business. thank you. >> i want to hear the answer. [laughter] spent you are of course right. and the reference that was made not just usaid it to the united states military, watching any aftermath of the tsunami, watching our military going into action and providing water. i mean, it's i think that there 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 not used in 69 years, but as a thousand times more than we need to destroy any country on the globe. the news is about, they 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 alleged drug abuse. i mean, it's insane. so if we are able to have people do a deep dive, look at just that one area, we could reprogram, conservatively, a half trillion dollars.

give you 1%. [laughter] america would be safer. the world would be better off, and we would save the taxpayers a lot of money. but that i come back to the power of these concepts were people come together and they see the practical stuff on the ground and these partnerships. because that's what's going to i think make a difference for a divided congress. and more importantly, for a 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 really important question about how does the u.s. use this form of its power out there in the world. and thank all of you for coming, and maybe a quick round of applause. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]