so to ignore the emergence of the capabilities of missile defense and ignore emergence of capabilities and defenses associated with cyber and to do everything else the same way we did it in the past, doesn't make a lot of sense. i don't know that there's a one for one offset mind approach here. what you're trying to understand is where does it fit? it's calls fires. all of the things that you have in your quiver to be able to use, where is utility and for me, i only speak for myself, having defensive systems on alert rather than offensive systems gives senior decision makers time to make decisions rather than to react and recover from an attack. that's point number one. point number two, the things that we have against the threats we see in future and capabilities that we have need to be more diverse in transition

from nuclear, which is at the very high end of warfare to general conventional forces so in other words if the best we can do is we have an airplane that can drop a bomb and then the next thing the president has for a choice is to launch a nuclear weapon. that's not enough choices. we have to have enough choices. that's why areas like defensive capabilities from standpoint of offense, we need more offensive capabilities. we don't have to discuss exactly what they are but elements we have to have for them to be useful are number one that we are actually building. number two, that we are in fact reviewing them, testing them and understanding them and number three, we're practicing with them. that's what builds credibility which is essence of deterrence. if you can do those things, you don't have to necessarily disclose the secret sauce but people have to understand that you are actually willing and

capable to use these things as alternatives in your case, two nuclear weapons. >> senator, would you like to finish our thoughts with your thoughts on cyber? >> it's a huge growing concern. it's taking up very properly a lot of time in terms of committees that are involved in this issue. i think your question is could a leak have a deterrent effect? i think that was your question. it could. that could not justify a leak. it could justify a speech. administration decides that they want to declassify and make a statement about certain activity which previously had been classified, that's a policy decision, which i hope people would understand and support

because obviously that decision was made in one of the instances here that is in the press. in the case of iran, this was not a policy speech which was made here. as far as i'm concerned, people who either leak that classified information or who confirm those leaks need to be appropriately dealt with. >> i would like to thank our guests for joining us here at the national press club for this news maker session. national security on a shoe string. do we dare. thank you. [ applause ]

>> we will hear more about defense spending during a hearing tomorrow looking into the department's 2013 budget request to congress. defense secretary leon panetta and joint chiefs of staff chair general martin dempsey will testify. you can watch live coverage here on c-span3 getting under way at 10:00 a.m. eastern. also tomorrow, jpmorgan ceo jamie dimon is testifying about his bank's multibillion dollar trading loss and implications it

should have on dodd-frank. c-span3 plans live coverage. nancy pelosi began her career in the u.s. house in 1987. >> mr. speaker, as you know, eight years ago this month the soviet union invaded afghanistan. to no one's surprise, the occupation of afghanistan has turned into a bloody war with no victors. a group of human rights lawyers from the united states, britain, swed sweden, documents countless acts of terror perpetrated against the afghan people. >> 25 years later the former speaker was honored on the house floor by republican and democratic leaders. watch those tributes or any part of her career in the house online at the c-span video library. up next, a three-part forum hosted by usa i.d. on u.s.

foreign assistance and development. first we'll hear remarks from outgoing republican senator dick luger. that's outgoing republican senator dick luger. during his 20 minutes remarks he talks that u.s. foreign aid money is going to climate change programs over traditional education or food assistance programs. after that, we'll hear from the presidents of liberia, malawi and kosovo on developing their countries and a discussion on relief work in afghanistan, haiti, somalia and iran. dick luger is introduced by ravij shah. >> thank you for that introduction and hosting us for these next few days but for the deep and meaningful relationship that georgetown has displayed in

partnering to produce frontiers in development. it's been a team effort with the georgetown team and development experts so thank you very much. i also want to take a moment to recognize that this really is an example of a wonderful public/private partnership with partners like the gates foundation, hewlett foundation and macarthur foundation coming together to recognize the changes and we have a chance to be more creative in our efforts going forward. we didn't try this morning and set out to produce an opening panel with five females heads of states. that happened coincidentally as a signal of the way the world is

evolving and changing. we're thrilled to be the presence of the president of ma malawi and president mary robinson, former president of ireland and currently a global leader in so many regards. and prime minister helen clark, former prime minister of new zealand and head of the u.n. development program. those are the guests on the next panel. this is going to be an amazing few days if we take the approach that we are here to listen and learn from many experts and here to celebrate the ideas that we have to share with us and know we will hear from talented leaders. i want to take a moment to thank steve radilett. he has helped us instill a

culture of discipline around a economic growth oriented approach to development. and is responsible really for pulling this together. when steve came to me about a year ago with the idea, it was rooted in a simple concept and the concept is, that never before have we had the opportunity to achieve so much together in global development global health and protecting the world's most vulnerable and contributing to our own national security and economic prosperity along the way. and in order to live up to the promise we have articulated by president obama and secretary clinton when they talk of and take actions to elevate development as part of our foreign policy, in order to take advantage of that, we do have to do some things differently. we need a new partnership model where we recognize that those abroad whether they are wealthy

or less wealthy than our nation are partners with ideas that must and will lead the way to the future. a recognition that partnership requires involving a much broader slice of american society, whether it's entrepreneurs or students who are tinkering with development projects and ideas in their garages, or major corporate partners that can bring scale and impact in a fundamentally and transformational way across the dploeb. it is a recognition that we need to innovate more in an age when technology is transforming what's possible. we have to be on the cutting edge trying things that are new and different and ultimately it is about delivering results. the results we see today are profound. african growth rate of more than 6% nearly three times the growth rate experienced in many of the

major industrialized economies. the spread of democracy and freedom and human rights is embodied in the leaders that we have here this morning. what the economists just two weeks ago called the largest success story in development recently which is rapid decline in unnecessary child death around the world at levels and with a focus that has been previously unheard of and with an aspiration across our country of people who want to commit themselves to this mission including students at georgetown and around this country. so our mission isn't to have all the answers over the next few days, it is to start asking the questions. and we at u.s. aid on behalf of a community of development experts are eager to listen and learn and change based on what we hear. that leads me to an introduction of this morning's keynote speaker.

everyone knows senator lugar. and what he has accomplished through his career. he has long been a champion of what is possible when we project america's leadership around the world in the right way. when we tackle the tough problems whether it's nuclear threat, food insecurity, threats to health and human welfare, or dealing with national security challenges in their broadest and most effective context. in his 36 years of committed service in the senate, he has helped focus the world's attention on these challenging problems that many people thought were not solvable, he goes out and creates both the political basis and operational mod toll solve them. he has never been afraid of the world's gravest threats and has lead the charge on many of them. he has always realized on the nation's strength lies not just

on its ability to wage war but in our capacity to create peace. for that reason, we are deeply honored to have senator lugar here. but there's another reason as well. as many people perhaps in my generation would recognize, when you aspire to be in the field of contributing on the international stage and to international affairs, senator lugar has been one of the most powerful role models of suck sess. i know this campus and our administration is packed -- administrations on both sides of the aisle are packed with people who have come to this place of service looking to senator richard lugar as a role model. a role model whose efforts will be deeply felt for decades and decades to come. senator, we're very personally grateful that you're here this morning. we welcome you to address us. senator richard lugar. [ applause ]

>> thank you very much. thank you. well, it is certainly a great pleasure and a great honor to join you here today in the frontiers and development conference. i appreciate especially being on this magnificent campus this morning with those for whom i have such a very, very high regard. i want to thank especially ron

sha for his kind invitation and introduction. we must recognize economic challenges that cast a shadow over development opportunities. let me get my glasses then i can -- these economic challenges cast a shadow over development opportunities investments and practices about which you would liberate. the united states continues to struggle with anemic growth, unemployment rate of more than 8%, our national debt today is approaching $16 trillion. efforts to contain and reverse our budget spiral are complicated. by financial pressures from an ageing population, lengthening military engagements, and

sometimes partisan politics. many other countries including some who have been important partners in global development face even more stringent economic circumstances. amid these financial threats and budgetary realities, it's inevitable that some will question the role of the united states in global development. a few members of congress argue that all foreign assistance should be eliminated. larger number will preserve the assistance to israel and other popular elements but would sharply downsize most development aid. almost everyone expects that the united states foreign assistance funding will be constrained for the foreseeable future. this may be true. certainly planners must be

engaged in efforts to squeeze the maximum value out of every dollar available. i would assert this morning that development assistance when properly administered remains bargain for national economic security and for our moral standing in the world. even in the worst of times the united states remains a wealthy nation with interests in every corner of the globe. foreign assistance is a key component of the united states national security strategy. especially since the tragic events of september 11th, 2001, it'se it's evident that poorly governed states with impoverished nations can pose grave threats to our national security.

wars and extended military operations are enormously expensive in lives and in dollars. we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in recent years fighting wars and preparing for military scenarios in underdeveloped regions of the world. if properly targeted, foreign assistance programs can mitigate national security risks and improve the united states connections to peoples and governments. they may well save huge military expenditures down the road. this is one of the reasons why the defense department has been a strong advocate of a robust foreign affairs budget in the united states. beyond the national security imperative, i strongly believe that no global superpower that claims to possess the moral high

ground can afford to relinquish itsline in preventing global disease, hunger and ignorance. more than any other nation, the united states possesses a traditional moral identity and that identity is clearly associated with religious tolerance. democratic governance, freedom of the individual, promotion of economic opportunity andry si y resistance to oppression. this set of ideals was reaffirmed through the sacrifice of our civil war. it was amplified during two world wars in which the united states opposed the forces of aggression and conquest. it was reinvigorated through the struggle of our own civil rights movement. our moral identity glows from thomas jefferson and abraham

lincoln through wilson and ronald reagan to the present day. and rarely do we take a major foreign policy initiative without some attempt to justify it on moral grounds. rarely are failed foreign policies spared morally based criticism. in making this observation, i'm not claiming the united states is the undisputed moral compass of the world. rather i say no nation is more closely associated with a set of historic moral precipes and no nation is judged more meticulously according to its own articulated values. as an observer of global affairs for many decades, i believe this is a good thing, and i believe our moral identity is an essential source of national power. despite missteps, the united states has been and still is a force for good in the world.

this is indisputable from any objective point of view. in many respects we have been incredibly generous nation. we have rehabilitated former enemies like germany and japan and continued to help the former soviet union protect and then destroy the very nuclear weapons that were once pointed at us. we have helped countries such as south korea and taiwan move from extreme poverty to impressive prosperity through our assistance and our protection our democratic institutions and political and social freedoms have been models for the world and we have actively helped to nurture democracy in numerous nations. even americans themselves do for the fully appreciate the international impact of the examples set by our transparent political debate and

extraordinary degree of self-examination that accompa accompanying american policy decisions. our advocacy has been one of the prime influences for human rights improvements throughout the world. it is telling that china and other nations often cite their indifference to human rights issues relative to the united states when seeking to establish economic or security ties with a problematic nation. the united states makes sacrifices every day on behalf of human rights and our state department devotes enormous time and energy to producing country reports on human rights and religious freedom that are studied around the world. i would assert that as a moral nation, founded on moral principles, we diminish ourselves and our national reputation if we turn our backs on the obvious plight of

hundreds of millions of people who are living on less than a dollar a day and facing severe risk from hunger and disease. this is not to say that every human being or every country in a desperate circumstance is our responsibility. but the united states must be a leader in forging the global partnerships and developing the most effective practices to achieve development goals. beyond our own programs, the efforts of other nations and many nongovernmental groups depend on the united states for direction, support, and even validation. as we move forward, and as critical for each of us to make these arguments, we should not be hesitant even in this budgetary environment in the united states, to make the national security and moral cases for pure development assistance.

further, we should be forthright in explaining that diplomacy and developments are two distinct disciplines. although diplomacy and development can be mutually reinforcing at their core, they have different priorities. resource requirements. and time horizons. most obviously diplomacy is far more concerned with solving immediate problems usually associated with countries of strategic interest. although we hope that our development efforts will sometimes yield short-term strategic benefits, this is not their primary purpose. in a developed context, we are willing to take a much larger view of the world and devote resources to countries of less or even minimal strategic impact

for the moment. this underscores why development must be a goal that is independent of diplomacy and not merely a servant. to maximize our development efforts we will need robust partnerships. while historically nongovernmental organizations and contractors have been natural partners with usa i.d. as implementers, we must go beyond these traditional relationships. we should be expanding coordination with other governments, foundations, corporations and small businesses and invertors and others who can contribute value with partnerships built from the ground up at the earliest stages of program development and sound

financial structures for sustaining them. we can leverage scarce resources for maximum results. we also must embrace transparency in foreign assistance programs. we should be forthcoming about where precious taxpayer dollars are spent. what goals they are meant to accomplish and whether these goals are achieved. secretary clinton and ambassador shaw made an important commitment to transparency with the development of the foreign assistance dashboard and announcement that the u.s. would join the international aid transparency initiative. but implementation of these efforts is lagging in my judgment and should be accelerated to demonstrate our full commitment to transparency. this is vital not only to provide taxpayers a clear picture of how the money is being used, but also to

reinforce the united states leadership in transparent economic development. transparency helps level the playing field for the united states companies, counters of countries toward wasteful spending and combats the corruption that the world bank has identified as the single biggest obstacle to economic and social development. toward this end, the united states government should be moving forward with full implementation of the 2010 amendment, which requires all companies listed on the new york stock exchange to accomplish their payments to foreign governments for oil, natural gas and mineral development. [ applause ]

failure to implement the language would squander an opportunity to transform the development scenarios, a resource rich countries now mired in poverty. while foreign assistance investments often require significant time before demonstrating impact funding should flow to programs that demonstrate results. our programs can only produce results when developed with results in mind. i raise this point because a percentage of foreign assistance funding to some countries is moving away from traditional purposes including education, food security and disease prevention toward climate change. i've expressed concerns about individual usaid climate change projects and growing share of these projects within our development budget.