like haiti, the odds are very long. but the cost of nothing is far greater. a must except that the development model cannot be formulaic. what works in pakistan may not work in peru. the approach must be case by case and country by country, region by region, and across countries and regions. we have to analyze the needs and assess the opportunities and tailor the investments in ways that will maximize the impact of efforts and resources. dtw accord needed reviews of the development policy are under way. the development review that i have ordered is led by the officials from the state department.

the presidential study director on u.s. global development policy is led by the white house and includes representatives from more than 15 agencies intervened to the global development mission. the president, ne . in the meantime, i would like to share a few steps that we are already taking to make sure that development delivers lasting results for people at home and abroad. first, as president obama has said, we are adopting a model of development based on partnership, not patronage. partnership, not patronage. in the past, have sometimes dictated solutions from afar, often missing our mark on the ground. our new approach is to work in partnership with developing countries that take the lead in designing and implementing

evidence-based strategies with clear goals. development built on consultation rather than decree is more likely to engender the local leadership and ownership necessary to turn good ideas into lasting results. but true partnership is based on shared responsibility. we want partners who had demonstrated a commitment to development by practicing good governance, rooting out corruption, making the wrong financial contributions to their own development. we expect our partners to practice sound economic policies, including levying taxes on those who can afford them, just as we do -- or in countries rich in natural resources, managing those resources sustainably and devoting some of the profits to people's development. the american taxpayer cannot pick that -- pick up the tab for

those who are able but unwilling to help themselves. some might say it is risky to share control with countries that have not had much success developing on their own. but we know that many countries have the will to develop, but not the capacity. and that is something we can help them build. of the millennium challenge corp. focuses on countries that have met rigorous criteria, from upholding political rights and the rule of law to controlling inflation and investing in girls education. we provide funding and technical support and the country provides the plan and leads the way toward achieving it. there is a lot of work ahead, but early indications of mcc programs are promising. we're using our resources to help countries that are committed to building their own futures. this approach highlights the difference between aid and investment to read through aid,

we supply what is needed to the people who need it. be it sacks of rice or cartons of medicines. but through investment, we seek to break the cycle of dependence that aid can create by helping countries build their own institutions and their own capacity to deliver essential services. aid chases need. investment chases opportunity. now that is not to say that the united states is abandoning aid. it is still a vital tool, especially as an emergency response. but for strategic investment -- but through strategic investments, we hope to one day, far from now, to put ourselves out of the aid business except for emergencies. our commitment to partnership extends not only to countries where we work, but to other countries and organizations working there as well.

new countries are emerging as important contributors to global development, including china, brazil, and india -- nations with the opportunity to play a key role, and with the responsibility to support sustainable solutions. long time leaders like norway, sweden, denmark, the netherlands, the u.k., japan, and others continue to reach billions through their longstanding work in dozens of countries. multilateral organizations like the world bank, the imf, the undp, the global fund to fight aids, tuberculosis, and malaria have the reach and resources to do what countries working alone cannot, along with valuable expertise in infrastructure, health, and finance initiatives. nonprofits like the gates foundation, care, the clinton foundation, oxfam international, networks of ngos like

interaction, as well as smaller organizations like a sea on -- accion and transparency international bring their own resources, deep knowledge, and commitment to humanitarian missions that complement our work in critical ways. some foundations are combining philanthropy and capitalism in a very innovative approach, like the acumen fund. universities are engaging in critical research, but the so- called urgent problems like hundred and disease, and to improve the work of development, like the work of the poverty action lab at mit. even private businesses are able to reach large numbers of people away that is economically sustainable, because they bring to bear the power of markets. a company like starbucks, which is work to create supply chains from coffee-growing companies in the developing world that promote better environmental

practices and better prices for farmers, or unilever/hindustan which has created soap and hygiene products that the very poor, long overlooked by private business, can afford. i mention all of these because we wanted to a better job of both highlighting the multitude of partners and better coordinating among them. there should be an opportunity for us to strategically engage in a country with these other partners where we are not redundant or duplicative, but instead we are working together to produce better results. we believe that this will open up new opportunities and create sap -- and increase our impact. second, we are working to elevate diplomacy -- development and integrate it more closely with defense and diplomacy in the field. development must become an equal pillar of our foreign policy, alongside defense and diplomacy, led by robust and reinvigorated aid. i know that the word in a grayish -- integration sets off

alarm bells in some people's head buried there is concern that integrating development means diluting it or politicizing it, giving up our long-term development goals to achieve short-term objectives or handing over more of the work of development to our diplomats or defense experts. that is not what we mean, nor what we will do. what we will do is leverage our expertise on behalf of development, and vice versa. the three d's must be mutually reinforcement. the experience and technical knowledge that our development experts bring to their work is absolutely irreplaceable.

whether trained in agriculture, public health, education, or economics, our experts are the face, brains, heart, and soul of u.s. development worldwide. they are the ones who take our ideas to turn them into real and lasting change in people's lives. some of the most transformative figures in the history of development represent that convergence between development and diplomacy. these development giants combined outstanding technical expertise with a passionate belief in the power of their ideas they did whatever it took to convince at times quite reluctant leaders to join them, and as a result help to build and lead national, regional, and international movements for change. today we have many such development diplomats working at usaid. they embody the integration between development and diplomacy that when allowed to flourish can amplify both disciplines.

for example, a lack of support from government leaders can be stalled or stymie development projects, particularly programs that target marginalized populations like people with hiv, women, or refugees. in these cases, our diplomats working hand-in-hand with our development experts can help make the difference. they have the access and leverage to convince government ministers to offer support. development also furthers a key goal of our diplomatic effort -- to advance democracy and human rights worldwide. i remember vividly visiting some years ago the village of saam and j -- saam njaay in senegal, where a former peace corps volunteer some of you may know, molly melching, set up a village-based ngo called tostan,

supported by usaid. women in the village began to speak out about the health consequences and the pain of female genital mutilation, an accepted practice in their culture. this collective wakening led to a discussion and soon the village voted, democratically voted, to end the practice. then men from that village traveled to other villages to explain what they had learned about why fgm was bad for women and girls, and by extension, their families and communities. and then other villages banned it as well. and a grassroots political movement grew and eventually the government passed a law banning the practice nationwide. now it takes a while for enforcement to catch up with all of their, as well as in our country. but the larger point is that the experience in this village demonstrates how development, democracy, and human rights can and must be mutually reinforcing.

democratic governance reinforces development, and development can help secure democratic gains. so those who care about making human rights a reality know that development is a interpol part of that agenda. development is also critical to our success -- the success of our defense missions, particularly where poverty and failed governments contribute to instability. there are many examples we could point to, but consider the situation in afghanistan. many people ask whether development can succeed there. well, my answer is yes. the united states supports a reconstruction and rural infrastructure initiative run by the world bank called the national solidarity program, which is made progress even in very challenging circumstances. through this program, more than 18,000 community development councils have been elected and more than 15,000 infrastructure projects have been completed. now progress is difficult. but it is possible. that is why, as we prepare to

send 30,000 new american troops along with thousands from our allied forces in nato and the international security force, we are tripling the number of civilians on the ground. they include agricultural experts who will help farmers develop new crops to to -- to replace opium poppies, education experts will -- who will help make schooling more sensible to girls so that they can have a chance that a better future. the work of these development experts helps to make future military action less -- less necessary. it is much cheaper to pay for development up front than to pay for war over the long term. but in afghanistan and elsewhere, u.s. troops are helping to provide the security that allows development to take root. in places torn apart by sectarianism or violent extremism, long-term development gains are more difficult. no in the past, coordination

among the so-called three d's has also been -- has often fallen short, and everyone has borne the consequences. secretary gates, administrator shah, and i are united in our commitment to change that. the united states will achieve our best results when we approach our foreign policy as an integrated whole, rather than just the sum of its parts. third, we are working to improve the coordination of development across washington. in the 21st century, many government agencies have to think and act globally. the treasury department leads and coordinates our nation's engagement with the international financial system. the justice department fights transnational crime. disease kroll -- control is a disease kroll -- control is a global cha so is the quality of air and

water way is something the epa has expertise in. a growing number of agencies broaden their scope internationally and an important expertise and capacity, even working on the same issue from different angles. coronation has lagged behind. the result is an array of programs that overlap or contradict. this is a source of growing frustration and concern. it is also an opportunity to create more forceful and effective programs. the challenge facing u.s. aid and the state department is to work with all the other agencies to coordinate need and support effective implementation of the administration's strategy. this is our core mission, to our permanent worldwide presence, our strategic vision and a charge to advance america's interests abroad, we can help allied overseas development efforts with our strategic objectives and national interest.

onal interests. this will not be easy, but it will make our government work more effective, efficient, and enduring. we are already emphasizing this kind of coordination with our new food security initiative, which brings together the department of agriculture's expertise on agricultural research, usaid's expertise with extension services, the u.s. trade representative's efforts on agricultural trade, and the contributions of many other agencies. we know that attracting investment and expanding trade are critical development. so we're looking to coordinate the foreign assistance programs at usaid, mcc, and other agencies with the trade and investment initiatives of the ustr, the u.s. export-import bank, and the overseas private investment corporation. and we need to seek to build -- and we seek to build on the success of regional models of coordination like the africa

growth and opportunity act. we need to ask hard questions about who should be doing what in the work of the bulk -- the work of development. for too long, we have relied on contractors for core contributions and we of diminished our own professional and institutional capacities. this must change. contractors are there to support, not supplant. usaid and the state department must have the staff, the expertise, and the resources to design, implement, and evaluate our programs. that is why we are increasing the number of foreign service officers at usaid and the state department, and developing a set of guidelines to the qddr for how we work with and oversee contractors come on to make sure we have the right people doing the right jobs under the right conditions. fourth, we are content -- we are concentrating our work in what development experts call sectors. we have invested many programs across many fields, often

spreading ourselves then and reducing our impact. going forward, we will target our -- we will target our investment and develop technical expertise in a few key areas, like health, agricultural, secretary -- security, education, energy, and local governance. rather than helping fewer people one project at time, we can help countries activate broad, sustainable change. to start, we are investing $3.5 billion of the next three years in partner countries where agriculture represents more than 30% of gdp and more than 60% of jobs, and where up to 70% of the families disposable income is spent on food. farming in these places plays such a large role that a weak agricultural sector often means a week after -- a weak country. small family farmers stay poor, people go hungry, economies

stagnate, and social unrest can ignite, as we've seen with the riots over food in more than 60 countries since 2007. by offering technical support and making strategic investments across the entire food system -- from the seeds that farmers plant to the markets where they sell their crops to the homes where people cook and store their food -- we can help countries create a ripple effect that extends beyond farming and strengthens the security and prosperity of whole regions. we are applying the same approach in the field of health. one of our country's most notable successes in development is pepfar, which is held more than 2.4 million people with hiv and aids receive life-saving antiretroviral medications. to our new global health initiative, we will build on our success with pepfar and other infectious diseases, and we will focus more attention on maternal, newborn, and child health, where there is still a long way to go. we will invest $63 billion of

the next six years to help our partners improve their own health systems, and provide the care that their own people need rather than relying on donors into the far foreseeable future to keep a fraction of their population healthy while the rest go with hardly any care at all. death, we are increasing our nation's investment in innovation. you technologies are allowing billions of people to leapfrog into the 21st century after missing out on the 20th century breakthroughs. farmers armed with cell phones can learn the latest local market prices and know when the advance when a drop -- when a drought or a flood is on the way. mobile banking allows people in remote corners of the world to use their phones to access savings accounts or send remittances home to their families. activists seeking to hold

governments accountable for how they use resources and treat their citizens can use blogs and social networking sites to shine the spotlight of transparency on the scourges of corruption and repression. there is no limit to the potential for technology to overcome obstacles to progress. and the united states has a proud tradition of producing game changers in the struggles of the poor. the green revolution was driven by american agricultural scientists. american medical scientists pioneered immunization techniques. american engineers designed laptop computers that run on solar energy so new technologies do not bypass people living without power. this innovation tradition is even more critical today. and we're pursuing several ways to a advance discovery and make sure useful innovations reach the people who need them. we are expanding our direct funding of new research, for

example, into biofortified sweet potatoes that prevent vitamin a deficiency in children, and african maize that can be drawn in drop -- grown in drought conditions. we are exploring venture funds, credit guarantees, and other tools to encourage private companies to develop and market products and services that improve the lives of the poor. we are seeking more innovative ways to use our considerable buying power, for example, through advanced market commitments to help create markets for these products so entrepreneurs can be sure that breakthroughs made on behalf of the poor will successfully reach them. here again, there is such potential for fruitful partnership between our government and the dozens of american universities, laboratories, private companies, and charitable foundations that chase and fund democracy -- discovery. for example, with help from the state department u.s. tech

companies are working with the mexican government, telecom companies, and ngos to reduce narco violence, so citizens can easily and anonymously report gang activity in their neighborhoods. we brought three tech delegations to iraq, including a recent visit by eric schmidt, the ceo of google, who announced that his company will launch an iraqi government youtube channel to promote transparency and good governance. and we're sending a team of experts to the democratic republic of congo this spring to begin the process of bringing mobile banking technology to that country. in addition is not only the invention of new technologies -- innovation is not only the invention of new technologies. it is also any breakthrough idea that transforms lives and reshapes our thinking. but one person's belief that poor women armed with credit could become drivers of

economic and social progress. homeless women in south africa who refused to be deterred by their circumstances and organized themselves to gain access to loans and materials that enable them to build their own houses and eventually whole communities that they now help lead. or the insight between conditional cash transfer programs, which integrate efforts to fight poverty and promote education and health. these innovations have now traveled the world. new york city launched a conditional cash transfer program modeled after mexico's. grameen bank has opened to bring -- opened a branch in queens. we have got to ensure that extraordinary innovations are on a two-way street that we learn as well as we offer. and we need to discover and disseminate as many of these as possible. sixth, we're focusing more of our investment on women and girls who are critical to the advancing social, economic, and

political progress. women and girls are one of the world's greatest untapped resources. investing in the potential of women to lift and lead their societies is one of the best investments we can make. you all know the studies that have shown that when a woman receives even just one year of schooling, her children are less likely to die in infancy or suffer from illness or hunger, and more likely to go to school themselves. one reason that microfinance is employed around the world is because women have proven to be such a safe and reliable credit risk. the money they borrow is not only invested and reinvested and turned into a profit, it is used to improve conditions for their families. and it is almost always repaid. i have seen for myself what micro lending in women's lives and their families and communities means from bangladesh to costa rica to

south are for it to vietnam and dozens of countries in between. -- to south africa to vietnam and dozens of countries in between three you know the proverb -- give the man a fish and he will leave for a day, but teach a man to fish and he will leave for a lifetime. well, if you teach a woman to fish, she will feed the whole village. the united states is taking steps to put women front and center in our development work. we are beginning to disaggregate by gender the data we collect on our programs, to measure how well our work is helping improve women's health, income, and access to education and food. we're starting to design programs with the needs of women in mind by hiring more women as extension workers to reach women farmers, or women health educators to improve outreach to women and girls. and we are training more women in our partner countries to

carry aboard the work of development themselves -- for example, through scholarships to women agricultural scientists in kenya. this is not only a strategic interest of the united states. it is an issue of great personal meaning and importance to me, and one that i have worked on for almost four decades. i will not accept words without deeds when it comes to women's progress. i will hold our agencies accountable for ensuring that our government and our farm policy support the world's women and a pop -- and a chat -- and achieve lasting, meaningful results on these issues. so as we apply these six approaches, more will follow -- some new, some variations on the past, all reflecting our commitment to find, test, and embrace ideas that work and to learn from our work at every step along the way. a half century ago president kennedy outlined a new vision for the role of development in promoting american values and

advancing global security. he called for a new commitment and a new approach that would match the realities of the post- war world. and his administration created the united states agency for international development to lead that effort and to make the united states the world leader. in the decades since, our nation's development efforts have helped eradicate smallpox and reduce polio and river blindness. we have helped save millions of lives through immunizations and made oral rehydration therapy available globally, greatly reducing infant deaths. we have helped educate millions of young people. we have provided significant support to countries that have flourished in a number of sectors, including economic growth, health, and good governance -- countries like south korea, thailand, mozambique, botswana, rwanda, and gone up. -- ghana.

and we have supplied humanitarian aid to countries on every confidence in the wake of hurricanes, earthquakes, famines, floods, and other disasters. americans can and do take pride in these achievements which have not only helped humanity but also helped our nation project our values and strengthen our leadership in the world. these efforts have not been the work of government alone. most people do not realize that we contribute less than 1% of our budget to foreign assistance. assistance. over the years the american people have opened their hearts and their wallets to causes ranging from eradicating polio in latin america to saving the people of darfur, helping people in asia purchase livestock to investing in micro enterprise.

to this private giving exceeds the amount our government spends on foreign assistance. today we call on that same american spirit of giving to meet the challenges of a new century. not only giving materially but giving time and talent. those of you who care deeply about development and cared deeply about the future of our country and our world, help us in list more americans in this effort, help us recruit technology experts, business leaders, engineers, farmers, teachers, doctors, lawyers. help us to happen to the talents of the first global generation of americans, the young men and women graduating from our colleges and universities. encourage them to volunteer, to enter, to work not only for ngo's, but to lend their energy and skill to the state department and particularly to

you as a idf. i promise that we will do more on our end to make sure that our doors are open to this emerging pool of thinkers and doers. development work is never easy, but it is essential. it is the worked that america is so in tune with. it reflects so clearly our own values, our spirit of cooperation. trucksville noticed it years ago. we work all the time to help others as well as ourselves. we have an opportunity in the 21st century to not only do it but to do it better than it has ever been done before. the opportunity to live up to his or her god-given potential, and to help create a world that is more equitable,

democratic, prosperous, and peaceful. we can succeed, and when we do, our children and grandchildren will tell the story that american know-how, american pop -- american dollars, american caring, and american values helped meet the challenges of the 21st century. thank you all very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> madame secretary, that was an extraordinary speech in its

ambition and its reach, and i salute you and your colleagues for the many thoughtful ideas. the secretary has agreed to take a limited number of questions. i am not -- i am going to try to insert one that will not count in the -- [laughter] >> it is called the birdsall exception. >> the birdsall exception. with my breath somewhat taken away, you know, so many ideas, so many ambitions, i thought it would be interesting to ask you, what do you see as the key constraints on this administration, this state department, this revitalized usaid meeting those constraints? are they political, bureaucratic, organizational? are they lack of understanding in the congress?

are they issues and problems in place already, constraints because of contracting in the case of foreign assistance? eighth thing you want to say that would give us a sense, if we want to be equally ambitious from outside, in how to help and how to porsche, how to monitor, how to make sure that this long- term development agenda is indeed realized in the way that you expressed it? >> as to the obstacles, i say all of the above and probably some that you did not list. i think that there is a great commitment to development in this administration. the president's budget is extraordinarily supportive of what we are attempting to do, and we appreciate that.

so it will be important for those of you in the larger development community to make sure that foreign aid is a priority when the budget gets to the congress, that we get the resources both in terms of dollars and people that are needed to begin to realize this long-term vision. we have to do our own work inside the government. we have to do a better job of coordinating. we have to try to look at what works and what does not work in our own backyard. there are lots of changes that were done either deliberately or inadvertently in usaid that i think need to be undone, that have really undermined the capacity for the united states government to really drive the development agenda. we also have to have better coordination on the whole of

government front. i had been in countries where i have asked to see everybody doing any development, and the ambassador nicely invites people that run a list given to him or her. he or she has never met the people, has no idea who they are or what they do, and even more, the people themselves have never met each other. you have different programs from usaid or mcc or pepfar, and you have the other agencies who are providing assistance of some sort or another. it is not coordinated at the country level and it is certainly not coordinated at the national level or the international level. so we need your support in making some of the tough decisions internally to try to break through some of the bureaucratic and organizational obstacles that exist. we need to tell a better story on the hill. there are many people in the congress who care deeply about development, but who rather than

supporting this broader vision go for a small piece of the pike, a program that is their earmark or their particular concern, which may or may not contribute to the larger need that we have. we also have to be smarter about the story we tell about america's development effort. it is discouraging to travel around the world and meet people in countries who are very supportive of america's efforts, particularly supportive of our new president, who say the "i did not us know what you spend money on. i never see it. nobody ever tells us." and then i look at the budget and we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars and nobody knows. and then what is deeply discouraging is that they say, we know what the chinese do. we know what the japanese do. we can point to the buildings they build and the roads that they have laid.

i want the world to know what the american people are doing to try to fight poverty and provide education and healthcare. we've got to bring this to scale, which is why i talked about sectors and areas of convergence. so there is a lot of work that raj is going to be facing, that we need the help of the larger community. let me say a word about contractors. some of the best people in development are doing contract work. i know people. people used to be at usaid or somewhere else who are now doing contract worke. it is not financially sustainable. we cannot continue to send so many >> out -- we cannot continue this in so many dollars out the door with no monitoring, no evaluation, no accountability. i want to bring some of those contract employees back inside as full-time american government development experts. that will be controversial and people will say that we did it for a reason. yes, but i don't think the

reasons stand scrutiny. there will always be the need for contract workers. i think it is down to four engineers in all of usaid. that makes sense at all. when you look at the added costs, we just have to break this in order to bring people inside to do the work they love to do and that they are experts in doing, and we will get more results for our investment. there are many problems that we know we are going to confront, but we're willing to take them all on. we're not into business as usual. the situation is too pressing. the problems with people are too visible. we have to do better and we will. >> ok, thank you very much. question. let's take one back there and maybe we have one appeared. let's start with the former ambassador to the oas? >> i think i speak for all of this audience in saying what a thrill it is to have someone -- to have a secretary who has both

the understanding and the commitment to the development agenda, so we are all here. this is a very crowded room for a reason and thank you. my question is a little bit of a narrower one, and you talk a little bit about energy but not much about copenhagen again or climate change and the development agenda with regard to adaptation and mitigation. >> thank you, hattie. has you know, we are very committed to a program of supporting adaptation and mitigation and technology transfer in the developing world. i went to copenhagen and announced that the united states would commit to do our part of $100 billion by 2020. we worked very hard to get the building blocks of an agreement that would enable us to do so. the accord that we finally hammered out did have requirements for verification

and transparency which have to be adhered to in order for us to be able and, frankly, willing to make these investments. but i think that for many of the developing countries, this is a lifeline that they are desperate to have and that they will work with us as we try to sort out how best to deliver on that commitment. this is going to be an ongoing challenge and that is why i mention we have to do a better job of getting some of the other countries that have a role to play more committed and more involved. i mean, china is fast on its way to being the principal manufacturer of solar technology and probably windmill technology as well. how are they going to distribute that, under what conditions, at what price -- it is going to be a huge issue because they are going and have the capacity and eat is going to be really a market that they unfortunately

are going to, if not control, have a major say in how it is accessed. so we have a lot of work to do. we're trying to come up with some follow-on actions to the copenhagen meeting. it was not obviously what people had hoped for, but it did give us a starting point to make the case that we have to make. and transferring and mitigating and technology are all part of that. .

two questions come to mind. the amounts are daunting. 100 billion a year a decade later. then there's current development assistance. what is the process for making that assistance truly additional so it does not rob peter to pay paul? also, what are your plans for implementation within the u.s. government? would this be within usaid? how would it be a coordinated? >> some will be through usaid and the state department. some will be through the contributions to multilateral institutions like the world back. we are just beginning to look at how best to deliver on this commitment. it is a fair question, fred.

how much is additive and how much is out of the current budget. we don't know that yet because we don't know what congress will do. we believe this is a critical point. we would hope that with the stimulus money that we will be competitive on some of the technology, american technology, which we would like to see used , because i know that that will be of particular concern to members of congress, but i think we are just starting to try to figure out how we're going to lament this. th -- to implement this. the accord will be subject of meetings through the year. we are looking at what is the best format to realize this. the meeting in copenhagen was not a particularly well- organized effort in part

because there were many countries that wanted to avoid any kind of commitment and made their voices loud. so we have an enormous amount of worko but the commitment is real. we intend to follow through. state, usaid, and treasury will probably be the primary vehicles. there will be work done through usaid. there was a big agricultural peace that the secretary lead on. there will be a piece out of energy. there will be a whole government effort, but the bulk of the work will come through us. >> i was very encouraged to hear your efforts to advance market commitment, the idea spending money at home that could help people abroad. and on medication and adaptation, i hope usaid and policy people there will take the position that 90% or 100% of the investments our development

investments. we have an excellent paper by my colleague david wheeler that points out that looking back at how resilience countries are to floods and natural disasters, the single most effective investment has been girl's education. >> i am not surprised. >> i have several other distinguished board members. brown. susan levine. and former board members. anyone want to take the floor? mark? please introduce yourself. >> mark brown, board member of cdd. >> lord. >> for the non-americans in the room, your message today, madam secretary, your team, this vision will be hugely well- received all over the world. let me ask two quick questions.

you spoke about the need sometimes to do things for strategic reasons even if development returns are not as high as they would be somewhere else. that means how much for afghanistan compared with how much for africa. i would be fascinated by your comments on how you will manage that important balance. second, as someone who has admired u.s. aid for years, one of its biggest difficulties is not so much just the things you have referred to but the fact that its political masters have shied away when it comes under attack because of development projects somewhere has gone wrong. development projects do go wrong because it's a risky difficult business. i would urge you to recognize, because i think you did in the speech, you will have to fight very hard very often with the congress and others to defend u.s. aid because it gets into

risk averse challenge, wondering what it dared do for fear one day there will be a congressional investigation. that has led to a lack of imagination and risk taking in development, not just u.s. development but multilateral. i hope with your leadership it will be corrected. >> hopefully, we will avoid making a lot of mistakes, but that is inevitable in any human undertaking. we will certainly support well thought out but unsuccessful efforts. but we want to avoid the i could have told you so. we want to avoid that. there are certain things that -- that is why we are focused on the country-led partnership. we want to avoid doing something that makes sense in washington but that makes no sense on the ground in a country. as much as we can, avoiding

that. if we are all on the same team. we are going to defend our teammates. i think the question about money for afghanistan compared with africa, it is a little difficult to answer because we have many interests in both places. i went to africa on a long trip in august and in part to try to see what we could do and do better but also to try to prod countries, resource rich countries, to invest in their own people. the oil occurs is alive and well in countries. the fa-- the oil curse. there's so much that could be done, but we are having to change the minds of both government and private-sector leaders in order to achieve the

kind of objectives we are looking for. and i saw byron. susan and then byron. >> hi, susan. >> hi there. such an honor to be here today, what a wonderful speech. you mentioned in your speech the idea, i thought it was really important what you said about people in this country not understanding how their tax dollars are being used, why they're being used outside the country. you talked about transparency. i wonder if you could ewill be rate a bit on what you mean. that's been an issue that we've all felt, any of us who have been in the government at some time have known it's very hard to go to my home constituent of north dakota and talk about, you know, what we're doing in countries far away when farmers are having their issues. how are you going to be transsnarnte >> first we have to eliminate some of the myths. you've seen the same surveys i have, when people complain about how much money we spend on foreign aid, and when you ask,

how much money do you think we spend? and they say 10% or 20% of our budget and we say, no, we spend less than 1%, we have to sort of set the table so people know what we're spending and what we're spending it on and how it actually benefits our country and the people of our country, but that's why i included this in the speech, because i think that's a major part of our responsibility. i don't think that raj or i or anybody else can expect to have the support we're looking for unless we make the case and i'm more than happy to make the case. i think, too, when it comes to transparency, that's why we've got to do a better job of explaining what we do, how we do it and what the results are. it's not enough for people, no matter how passionately they feel in the development world, to say, it's the right thing to do, we have a moral obligation to do it, that's all true.

but you've got to go the next step and say, here's how we're doing it, here's the results we're getting, it's not just because it is the moral and right thing to do, albeit that is right, but because it is smart and important and here's why. especially in this tight economic time, there are a lot of americans who feel that they are far more deserving of their government's help and you know, you've got to recognize that. if you don't recognize that, you'll never build a constituency that deals with the political challenges but withstands them and keeps going and avoids what happens now, particularly on the hill, where people want to earmark and slice up so they can protect one piece, because they are not sure the whole thing can be protected. we want a holistic approach to development, that can have a constituency in both the congress as well as the country that can enable us to, you know, keep making the case

effectively. and we intend to to that. >> all right, i'm going to sneak in two more. byron and then ed. >> good to see you again. so i want to commend many things in the speech, particularly the emphasis of building the capacity of governments to deliver, governments and broader delivery system, outside of government, that's so important. but i also want to ask you about a bit of a tension, perhaps, between local ownership, genuine local ownership, and you said almost in the next sentence, sort of evidence-based approaches. so take water, for example. mckenzie did some work with the i.f.c. that looked at water scarcity across the river basins. on a business as usual basis, you have a 40% gap. also maps the marginal costs of those interventions to close

that gap. but of course once you start getting down on the ground, it's a very political thing, it's not just about the technicalities or the evidence. how do you square that circle, as a matter of principle in our development work? >> water is a great example. water is going to be the source of increasing conflict and i think it's a perfect example of combining diplomacy and development. i would hope that sometime in the near future, we're able to have an international effort focused on water that takes some of the politics not out of it, but diminishes it, because it's not just about what this country is doing to that country but about what all countries are doing to themselves and that we try by using technical expertise and political efforts to begin to make the case that if we don't have a 21st century international water compact, for

example, millions and millions of countries are going to not only be deprived of water, but you'll have more and more conflicts because of it. so i think you have to move on both fronts as the same time. you need the evidence-based technical exexpertise because what will we do in order to deal with the melting snow in the himalayas and the failure to replenish the major rivers of asia, or what will we do about the continuing struggles and conflicts between pastoralists and herders in much of north africa. there's lots of consequences. but i think we have to try to take it out of the finger pointing and bilateral or regional context and try to put it into a broader one. i'm very concerned about it and i will welcome, you know, the advice of the study group that you referred to from mckinsey,

but i think it's something we've got to get on and get on it quickly. there are going to be wars fought over water in the next 10 years if we don't try to get ahead of this and look for ways to come up with as many win-win strategies as possible. not easy, but i think that, let's try to eliminate as many of theable aspects of this problem, leave -- as many of the solveable aspects of this problem leaving the hard core ones for the end game where we have to use leverage to force countries to make the decisions. >> sounds like a great diplomatic. ed, very, very quickly. >> we want to thank you for coming here, it's an organization, i know you are aware, made up of very high quality people ready to support you and administrator shaw in this effort. when i'm asked to talk about these issues, i'm asked, if you

were to do one or two issues, what would you do? i say, increase the effectiveness and status of women in the society. there's nothing that would be highly impactful than that. then i go on to say something you didn't mention in your speech that is free trade. there's a study by one of our fellows that -- on trade, which basically postulates that 500 million people would be lifted immediately out of poverty if we had unfettered free trade. what are you thoughts about that issue? >> i mentioned trade because i do think trade is an important tool, but obviously didn't have the opportunity to go into it. i believe that we've got to resume a trade agenda and the political circumstances are challenging, but we have to try. i do, however, believe, you know, we talk about unfettered

free trade. i do believe we have learned some things about the benefits from trade and we've learned some of the challenges we face, that, you know, in some of the sort of free trade agreements we've entered into the last several years, the benefits have not been broadly distributed. in fact, in several countries, the benefits of the free trade advantages have not only gone to a very small group, but they've gone to people who were imported in to do the work instead of the people from the country itself. i think we need to enter into a new trade agenda with as many lessons learned as possible. and that is, you know, my view, we're working on that in the state department and we have to make the case to our friends on the hill that the right kind of trade agreements are really in

america's interest as well. we're going to -- we're going to revisit that and see if we can't be, you know, moving that up the agenda in this coming year. >> secretary clinton, for your ambition and your passion, on this issue in particular, we thank you. join me in thanking her. >> thank you so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by hostc-span[captioning performedy national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]