"philadelphia inquirer" from philip -- from walter eckman. london, kentucky, dean on the republican line. caller: i guess this is facetious, but possibly william henry harrison, because he did not get to serve long enough for maybe did not get to serve on a to screwed up as others have. host: thank you for your calls this morning. we hope you have a great presidents day. "washington journal" will be back tomorrow morning, as always, at 7:00 a.m. eastern. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] .

. >> the economic stimulus was signed into law one year ago this week. more than three and $30 billion have been committed for stimulus projects. you can read more on a website

at c-span.org/stimulus. this morning, officials discuss new ways to streamline -- to streamline government operations. you can see that discussion at 12:45 eastern here at c-span. coming up, madeleine albright will join leaders in talking about developing the next generation of leaders and diplomacy. >> it is the only collection of american portraits. see the entire collection of online & c spam's website. -- at c-span's website. now, we talk about president

bush's management style. this was in houston. president bush is a man, whether as an aviator or president of the united states, embodies the best and public spirit. having served our nation with distinction, president bush led the cold war to a peaceful conclusion. now with a bang but with a whimper and create international coalition that reversed saddam hussein's reversions of kuwait

in desert storm. he advanced the cause of arab- israeli peace. his administration skillful diplomacy brought arabs and israelis together in madrid. it was the first time the israelis and the arabs collectively met face-to-face to negotiate. the creation of a climate of trust that made possible the oslo accord and the treaty of peace between israel and jordan. there's no question that the professional and personal relationship facilitated the conduct of u.s. diplomacy in the most successful manner. on a personal notes, bush 41 and

president bush 43, and secretary baker worked together at this morning at the funeral of one of their closest friends, robert mosbacher sr.. i have mentioned a few of his many accomplishments. they stand the test of time two decades later. historians will undoubtably said the same. president bush represents patriotism and public service at their very best. those are themes our speakers will address. executive director of the president bush library foundation and a career member and served as the first in an states ambassador to the ukraine till 1993. prior to his appointment as ambassador, he succeeded maine

unfortunately as deputy assistant to president reagan and deputy press secretary for foreign affairs. i am roman than -- i am older than roman is. an aged gap there. with this say about the lone star state rings true. we were not born in texas but we came smart and came here. he is the recipient of numerous awards including and meritorious honor. it is a great pleasure to congratulate you on the publication of your book which is available to all of you after the talk tonight. please remit in welcoming the ambassador. [applause]

>> can you hear me? thank you for that kind introduction. it is a great honor to be here at the paper institute. i have the pleasure of working where secretary baker. jim baker is one of the finest secretaries of state this country has ever had. it is nice to be here. i succeeded ed during the reagan administration. he is a true patriot. it was a great pleasure working with him. so nice to see what he has done with the baker institute. congratulations on a job well done, ed. the three of us, baker, ed, and i all worked for george bush in

one capacity or another. i would like to outline some perspectives of my relationship with president bush and how george bush managed the world. it is 20 years since he was president of the united states. time flies by. to remind you, some of the accomplishments that took place on his watch -- the end of communism, the soviet union fell apart, all new independent states in the former soviet union, noriega was overthrown, the end of -- the restoration of democracy in nicaragua with free elections.

when you look back at it, there was quite a bit of accomplishments. at the time the president was undertaking these, he did not get much credit. there was some criticism. now there is a stern a stodgy for george bush 41. -- now there is nostalgia for george bush 41. the talk about the process and the people in this administration. the president had a process in place that was effective and congenial and the firm much successful. the people but surrounded him were key to the process to that success. some of those people were jim baker and brent scowcroft. people look at the accomplishments and the process. there is a nostalgia to say, why

cannot this be brought back now? when you look back 20 years ago, it wasn't so. we got criticized for being reactive. vision.s a guy for being noei- the vision thing. he has no ideas. he is just a caretaker. nothing was further from the truth. what of like to do is balance that view of 20 years ago with what he actually accomplished and kind of give you an idea, appealing the onion back, of what george bush was back as a man and a leader and how we interact with people and how he was able to succeed. if you look at the president's term in office, he came with two strong challenges to overcome. the first was the legacy of ronald reagan.

george bush was ron reagan's vice president. there were two challenges. the first was during his administration, george bush was a loyal vice president, as he should have been. he kept his advice to himself. he did not share with others and with the public, such as the press. the perception grew that the president was an individual who did not have any iideas. nothing is further from the truth. i would remind those of you who follow him that he took two trips in 1984 to europe and was instrumental in getting the allies to except the placement of pershing missiles in europe.

this buildup the atlantic alliance as one of the steps leading up to the solution of the soviet union. the military strength was being built up. george bush did it in a quiet and then unassuming manner. the second problem at the george bush faced in the wake of ronald reagan was communication. the gipper, he could give a speech. there was no doubt about it. george bush had a little bit of a hard time with speeches. his syntax, his inability to stop at an applause line, we were hoping for him to stop at an applause line, but he would keep on going. then he had a tendency at times

when he gave a speech to abolish everyone in the audience. it's in my queue was backing into a speech at times. he himself realize the problems he had in terms of speeches. there was a difference between him and president reagan in terms of how we addressed the public. ronald reagan gave many news conferences. a very formal, dignified atmosphere. president bush did the reverse. there was one formal news conference we had in the east room. everything else was held in the briefing room. the president would give it a short opening statement and then take questions. he did not like to be staged. he liked to be george bush, always on the go. that presentation suited him

nicely. his personality. as a result, he was never one to be a great speech maker. if you're not a great or tour, there is a perception you're not a great leader. nothing is further from the truth. his communication skills were leadinacking. those were some of the problems he had to deal with. the other was the press itself. the problem with the press was to fall. on an individual basis, the president had numerous individuals with whom he got along with very well. he considered them his personal friends. he posted the press at kennebunkport. very congenial. when it came to the give-and-

take, there were two issues he was concerned about. one was the gotcha politics. no matter what you did, the press is going to be critical and attack you. i could recollect two specific stores the president was upset about. you may remember these stories yourself. one had to do with the scana story. the president went down to a meeting, convention and there was a new scanner. you go and you spent and it goes. and it tells you the price. at that time, they developed a new scanner which was able to read a crumpled code. that was a revolutionary at the

time. you have to go five times. these scanners could read code bars. the president was amazed about that. north dakota rosenthal -- andy rosenthal wrote a story that the president is kind of out of touch in american society. this became a big story. the president wrote a letter to "the new york times" to correct the story. the original story stock. the president had a kind of nervous attitude towards the press. the second incident was on the berlin wall came down in 1989. a very important historic event in european history, during

history, and east-west relationships. it was decided the president had something to say to the press. we had to say something. a press pool of about 10 or 11 photographers, print journalists would be brought into the oval office and the president would address them. we did that. the press came in. the president had a lackadaisical attitude. he said, this is a nice event. i am paraphrasing here. there was not a lot of emotion. the big story was depressed criticized him because it was such a big event but he was not celebrating or declaring the cold war over. he got a lot of criticism for that.

he basically instructed the staff that there will be no gloating. there is a lot of work to be done still. it did not mean germany was unified or east germany was free. it meant this was one step in a long process in how we reacted to that event of the berlin wall coming down can affect the unraveling of the rest of the process. the president was cognizant that there were reactionary forces present in the soviet union that would be detrimental to gorbachev in terms of moving perestroika forward if this all there was trying to take a finish of something that was taking place in germany and the might be a revolution.

there was an attempted coup against gorbachev two years later. the president showed good judgment in terms of holding back emotion. he knew when to be emotional and when not to be emotional. he got a lot of criticism at the time. when you look at george bush, and let me go into the man a little bit. when you meet george bush, the first thing you'll realize is he is an unassuming individual, self effacing. he doesn't like to take credit for events. he likes to give credit to the guy next to him. he does not like to boast. this comes from his upbringing. when he was young in school, he remembers that he had called

home to tell his mother that he had scored a number of goals in a soccer game. he was very proud of that. his mother interrupted him in his boastful manner and ask him, how did the team do? that drove home to him that his team work and not the individual that mattered. you have to work as a team. he is cognizance of the role of prayer in his life. barbara bush says now that george bush praised every night. he even praised for people that have hurt him. that is the type of individual he is. he does not howhere his face on his sleeve. he realizes he has been blessed. as a fighter pilot, he was shot down in the pacific and rescue.

his copilot's in the plane terrorisperished. he feels a duty to serve the country and his family. his family upbringing is one of being not assuming and not being self-be facing. to give you an idea, he has been a tendency to share. if he had anything, he would give half to a buddy or a new friend. his nickname when he was a youth was half-half. when you have something, he gave lfof it you're dealing with when you dealt with george bush. this kind of self-effacing

personnel it was dovetailed with a personality of dealing with people on a personal basis. george bush did not give a great speeches, as i mentioned. george bush wasn't a great communicator. but one on one, he was brilliant and very effective. he could communicate one-on-one or in small groups of very readily and in an articulate fashion. anyone who dealt with him in a small group always walked away with great respect for him. you may not agree with what he said. but you respect him for is open mindedness, his pleasant personality, and for his willingness to listen to everyone. george bush always stays in touch with everyone. if you shook his hand, chances are you've got a phone call or

letter from him. he is a consistent letter- writer and a telephone call. now he is a persistent e-mailer with several miss spellings. that played a great role in his success in foreign policy. when he was at the united nations, he had a tendency to walk the halls. he would meet the ambassadors of the delegates and get to know all these people. when he gave his first general assembly speech in 1989, he knew a lot of people in the audience that had now become foreign ministers or ambassadors to their countries on a bilateral basis. so did acknowledge a lot of people in the audience. he always kept ties and was part of the strength of his leadership.

people knew they could get a personal hearing from george bush. gorbachev said trust is the most important thing in international affairs. you could avoid trust george bush. he reached out and dealt with people. that was important in foreign policy. it was important in terms of him reaching into people with telephone diplomacy, but it was important for foreign leaders. they felt it important to call him. leading up to the gulf war, when president would call george bush when he heard something he thought was frightening. he called the president to talk about it. there was a comfort level. when gorbachev stopped in canada on which to the united states for a meeting with george bush, he had meetings with prime minister mulroney in canada.

afterward, they spoke. what does he expect when he comes to me with me? that is the kind of diplomacy he carried out. a very personal diplomacy. it kept the state department very much on its toes. there were times the president will be talking with brent scowcroft or reading the paper and colorado brands in and say, let's call this leader and get more information. whenever heads of states with talk to each other, there will be briefing papers, translators, no takers. the president would just want to pick up the phone and call. that is the kind of diplomacy he carried on. it was effective in establishing a good relationship with other leaders.

the other thing i would point to is his management style. george bush, based on his personality and his unassuming nature, when he ran a meeting, he did not have to be the center of the meeting. he very seldom said much in meetings. he had a tendency to sit back and listen to what people were saying. he was cognizant of the fact that you would get more information if they didn't know what you thought. there was the fear that if you spoke up, people will try to cater their thoughts to meeting the thoughts of the president. he wanted the unvarnished truth, he would say. the best way would be to sit back and listen to what people had to say. after a meeting, he would call a person of side and have more of

an in-depth conversation on an issue. he had a tendency to reach out to people. i remember three issue. -- china, the middle east, and the soviet union. he would have professors, and and he would meet in informal matters at kennebunkport or camp david to have these faculty people discuss their expertise. he had a tendency to touch base with government officials throughout the bureaucracy. he did not realize solely on the briefing papers or the advice or that scowcroft brother individuals would give him. he had many areas of information he was able to pick from. this gave him a broad knowledge of foreign affairs.

he was very prudent, as i'm sure you've heard that word before. he had a systematic approach, which at the time lead to some criticism. when we came into office, he instituted a 90-day review of u.s. foreign policy from a to z. there have been a friendly takeover from the reagan administration. he wanted to get a fresh look. this review when gone. we got a lot of criticism from the press as to why the president had no new initiatives. february, march, nothing happened. the only thing he would say is, we are reviewing it and we will get to you.

the point i'm trying to make is he would not be stampeded into a statement if the time wasn't right. he was in self control and in control of the foreign policy. once we got into april, there were two key speeches. one was in michigan about polish reform and the united states reaching out to poland. what they could expect from the united states if reform kept moving forward. and the speech at texas a&m university outlining the threshold that the soviet union needed to pass in order to have better relations with the west. at the end of may and the beginning of june, at the nato summit, he unveiled the cfe proposal. -- the lowering of conventional

forces. he had policies that came from the policy review. he would not be stampeded into it. he got a lot negative criticism from the press. people now start to realize the benefits of that kind of approach. i but like to mention teamwork. the president had a great team. -- i would like to mention the teamwork. he had two key advisors, jim baker and brent scowcroft. i do not think he could have had any better advisors. the president would never take credit for anything. he would. to jim baker and brent scowcroft as being key in terms of advising him. baker and scowcroft brought

something to the table that made the chemistry very strongly. those who know jim baker know he is a skilled negotiator, he is hard as nails, backbone of steel, pragmatic. if you want something done, you say jim, can you get it done? jim would get it done. brent scowcroft is more of a strategic thinker, a conceptual, has a ph.d. also very unassuming individual. conceptual thinker. he is the kind of guy who says, what will the world brookline 20 years from now? how do we want it to look? -- while the world look like 20 years from now? you have the conceptual vision

of a brent scowcroft and mash that with the president, that was a dynamic team -- and mash tesh that with the president, that was a dynamic team. what was the foreign-policy? the president was unassuming and had a good team. he overcame some of the early obstacles with the press. what was the foreign policy? it was simple. he started with the same premise that all presidents start with. the nine states is a special country. in order -- the united states is a special country. it needs to have a strong edge over the competitors. there were a number of points. the president was a firm believer in multilateralism. the united states was the

strongest state in the world at the time, he believed the united states had to act in a multilateral fashion. reason is simple. if you acted that way, you have increased your own strength in a moral and militarily. you have allies like in the gulf war who can help out. it shows you're working with the rest of the world community. not acting in an arrogant manner. you have increased your stress. another point of their foreign policy was transparency. he believed in carrying out as many steps in a public way as possible to show the rest of the international community and the american public's that he had done everything possible before a final decision had to be made.

this was a classic case in the situation with the gulf war, where jim baker traveled anywhere at any time to talk with anyone to try to solve the iraqi invasion in a peaceful manner. president always said the phone calls talks to try to solve this in a peaceful manner. when the time came for the invasion, the president felt certain the world community would understand. there was a coalition of about 30 states that supported us. the president built up a strong coalition through its transparency and forrest multilateral approach through foreign policy. the third point i wanted to mention about his policy is that is inclusive. he tried to get every state to have a stake in a policy as much

as possible. this goes back to my example of the berlin wall. if you had isolated the soviet union by poking a finger in gorbachev's eye, negative ramifications would have been great. he believed that by including everyone, making sure every state had some kind of stake in an individual decision -- in other words, no isolating a state to make it feel it has been pushed aside, make every state feel as important as possible because every state is important to functioning of the international community. this concept of transparency, inclusiveness and the multilateral diplomacy came together in what was called

back 10 a problem for gun, the new world order. the president spoke of a new world order. the united states would lead as a power in conjunction with the rest of the world. the united nations and have been created for the purpose of social and economic reform but also peace and justice. the president felt the reforms and duties of the united nations had been met successfully. the problem had been the peacekeeping role had not been met and that was a result of the conflict of the cold war between the united states and the soviet union. with the crumbling of the soviet union, there was an opportunity to get the united nations to act in a manner to act as within the original charter.

there were economic opportunities and the peace and justice for all states through multilateral diplomacy. that is what he brought to the table. he outlined this in a number of speeches. he spoke to the congress and then again in 1991 he gave a speech and there were references to the new world order. it went away. when you look at what i have outlined here -- i am alone favorable towards them. if you look at his personal approaches and philosophy he brought to the table in terms of dealing with the international community, it is probably a good yardstick for any administration to follow. there is some nostalgia looking back to try to get the process and philosophy in place that

george bush had followed. i think i will stop here and think all of you for being kind of you to listen and thank you again for having me. [applause] thank you para much. >> we will have some time for questions brigitte thank you very much. i have an anecdote. when i was ambassador to syria, were negotiating the release of the american hostages from beirut. i sent a telegram that the hostages were going to be released. i get word back to that the president wants to talk to me. he will call. i was sitting down in the residence in damascus and i have these papers. i wanted to make sure i have all the information. i had all these papers. the telephone rang.

a young voice saying, is this the ambassador? i said yes. he said, the next voice you are going to hear is that of the president of the united states of america. i was so damned impressed that i stood up. all of my briefing papers fell. i was talking. the president got on the line. he said, do we know who it is? he said, just let us know whoever it is as soon as you know. i would like to call him. but ask him if he is up to speaking with me. and then let me know before i call. which is really -- the last thing he said bothered me. beset by the way, i will be

watching you on -- he set by the way, i will be watching you on cnn tonight. that says a lot about his personal touch in diplomacy. >> in the gulf war when the troops were close to baghdad and we could have gone all the way, though i know the mandate was only to baghdad or whatever it was. was any opportunity looking back or perhaps countries could have come together? >> that thought never crossed his mind. we got a lot of criticism at that time for not going into baghdad. people said we should have gone into baghdad. we did not for a number of reasons. feel free to join in.

number one, there was a great fear that we could break the mandate of the un, to upset the arab countries and maybe create a greater war in the middle east and undermine the u.s. credibility of what we promised. the other issue was a strong sense that given the type of shock that some of hussein's republican guard had taken, that there was no way he would be able to extend that. we kind of guessed wrongly. we thought he would fall of his own weight of the loss of the war. it turned out to be a lot stronger than we realize. the other problem was if you went into baghdad, you owned it. the would of credit problems and i do not think the united states

-- that never crossed our mind because of the other issues are just mentioned. a lot of people asked us that question. no one asks us that question now. [laughter] >> i would just remind you this story president told secretary baker about being in the white house with gorbachev and scowcroft. they talk about the reunification of germany. >> it goes beyond the white house. there were a lot of meetings. there were so many. you're probably referring to

when the president asked gorbachev about the unified germany being able to join nato? gorbachev said yes. there was a lot of surprise on our side. i think jim passed a note to say say it again. we could not believe that. gorbachev kind of reaffirmed its that the soviet union would be open to whatever the germans wanted to do. the hearts of the story is what is set at the outset, the trust that had developed between the individuals. gorbachev said othere was a trut factor that develop between himself and george bush and was able to pave the way toward that kind of relationship where neither one would take advantage of the other.

that went to the hearts of the matter. [unintelligible] >> you are absolutely right. you think when you read your history books, 40 pages outlining this and that. it all happened in 12 seconds in terms of two or three senses. >> i was going to ask you when you did not go into baghdad. then the helicopters took off and did not dump on the kurds in the north. there were all these decisions that have to be made after word spirit or the may by the secretary of defense? >> the president was involved. i think it was operation hope. i forget the exact man.

she is referring to saddam hussein was attacking the kurds in northern iraq and so there were no-fly zones. they were preventing the attacks of the kurds in that situation. we were not going to get involved in internal politics of baghdad. yes sir. crack there has been a lot written about afghanistan -- >> there has been a lot written about afghanistan. [unintelligible] after the soviets in afghanistan. i know it was in the reagan

administration. was there a thought about maybe doing something more in afghanistan after the soviets left? >> i cannot recall anything of a substantial nature we thought about doing their. the soviets pulled out following in the wake of the british tradition. the brits were unable to accomplish anything. they took a hard loss in afghanistan. afghanistan was not on our radar screen like the other parts of the world were at the time. >> subsequent to having the iraqis out of kuwait, there was an indication that folks in the south of iraq would rise up against saddam hussein with

illegal weapons. can you comment on that? >> we expected people -- i cannot recollect to rise up. there was an expectation given the big loss that some had undertaken in terms of the military power -- given the loss that saddam hussein had undertaken. that assumption proved erroneous on airport. >> ok, i think it is time to sign some books. -- that assumption proved erroneous on our part. >> president obama returns today

from president day's day weeken. former president clinton will join several members of congress for the funeral service of john murtha. he was chairman of the house subcommittee which allocated defense spending. we will have a wide coverage beginning at 11:00 eastern. private-sector officials take part in a white house forum to streamline government operations. executives from microsoft and monster.com will take part. that gets under way at all of a clock 45 this morning. madame albright will join academic leaders in talking about developing the next generation of leaders. coming up tonight, the future of guantanamo and its detention

facility. lieutenant-colonel steven abraham will join legal experts and members of the september 11 families. updated and released just in time for presidents day. suspen"who is buried in grant'sb ?" the concept behind the book. >> it is a wonderful way to personalize the past, to take events and movements that might seem impossibly remote. there's something universal about the fact we will all be on our deathbed, we will all face growing old. we all hve to wrestle with questions of immortality and mortality. those are some of the themes

that run through all of this. it is also frankly and entertaining book. there are lots of stories and anecdotes designed to humanize all of these people. >> available now at your favorite book seller or ordered directly from the publisher. >> a discussion now on world hunger in davos, switzerland with bill gates and heads of state from tanzania and the vietnam. they talk about how to eliminate hunger from the world. " good afternoon. we will talk about how to feed

the world. we know that a billion people today suffer from malnutrition. 80% of those are in the agriculture sector. it is probably the single most important issue that faces the world today. it is probably the single most neglected issue at forums like this. is good to see the world economic forum pay so much attention to food production and organizing a special world food program. it is a big change and i think it is about time that happened. we have a panel of experts who can guide us towards first stating the problem, what exactly is it? then we plan to do, what are possible solutions like

innovation, technology, trade, etc.. then plan to end with what are certain goals that we stood and with, been two or three big goals. the format of the next one hour will be that each stage where we take up a topic, after we have talked about that, i will ask four questions from the floor on a particular topic. it will not be -- all of the questions will not be at the end. the program -- half the program will be devoted to questions. let's get a first introductory remarks of what the problem that we're facing. we will start with the prime minister of the tanzanian.

>> in india, the prime minister -- >> it is a daunting challenge in defining the problem. what i can say is that indeed there is a huge challenge of a feeding the world today. people are undernourished. we have 6.3 billion people now and in 2015, will be 9.2 billion. it is a big challenge. we can feed ourselves.

the present levels of population by 2015. i say so because there's plenty of land for agriculture. despite the odds, the climactic conditions are permissive. there is plenty of water and resources for agriculture. third, technology. and skills. there are available. on the basis of this, i believe we can feed the population. what needs to be done is to overcome the constraints that production and productivity -- once we succeed, we're on our way.

after the prime minister of the vietnam -- >> ladies and gentleman, i like to discuss the topics -- i would like to discuss the topic -- latest and tillman, a light to discuss the topic of how -- i would like to discuss the topic of hot -- ladies and gentleman, we have the three conditions with availability to ensure stability, supply, to ensure -- [unintelligible]

i would discuss these topics. thank you. >> thank you very much. if i can ask now patricia woods from the world economic forum and also the chairman and chief c.e.o. >> thank you. from my perspective as a global leader in agriculture as well as the ceo of adm, that we see the growing demand that the president described as a key issue longer-term. it is not only population will grow by 50% by the middle of this country but the demand for agricultural products will double. as people become more prosperous, they have a better diets. i am optimistic that agriculture can fulfill those needs and in

the short term, i think agriculture has a key role to play in the economic recovery. agriculture, and we eat food. agriculture contributes to the reduction of poverty twice as much. some people think four times as much as investment in other sectors. agriculture with its effects across the chain has the ability to alleviate poverty. in defining the problem, it is not only the longer-term of feeding a population, but in the short term, the need for economic recovery and infrastructure in technology will help provide some of these solutions to that immediate problem as well.

>> we have the issue which is 1 billion people. back in 2007, was so middle class diets demanding more food. the price spiked up. we have terrible availability problems. the responses made it worse. the alum one problem is the population increased times the food intensity. to achieve that will require a lot of innovation. even the way things are done across the world play, that alone will not do it. you have to avoid a one of pathogens that will come along and go after these crops. i am optimistic in funding in the world as a whole and a lot of donor funding for the developing countries. that is the only way we will meet this challenge.

>> and the bill and melinda gates foundation is committing a lot and working for the world food program corporate i was interviewing bill gates some time ago and said, -- to a sound chip, said it won, 2, 3 per he said the 1 billion, 2 billion, up 3 billion. it's just great. [applause] >> hello. i am the chairman and ceo of the dupont company. technology is certainly going to be a key element in filling that gap and doubling the production of food between now and 2015. technology alone will not be enough. it has to, education and cooperation.

his industry can produce great seateds. and so we cannot figure out how to educate the farmers so they are using the right combination in their weather conditions, until we can get corpse, research alliances, market access -- until we get collaborations and in a real grass roots way, it has to occur farmer by former. i think innovation and cooperation of the major elements of bridging that gap. . .

it means we have to think perhaps bigger, because you have sources of competition. you also have to think about the impact of climate change on food production. the ability of -- the stability of food prices going forward and what it means. does the world changes and as incomes grow, we also have a shift in terms of the demand for food. people are demanding higher value food products even in developing countries. you have to think of how to work with small farmers to meet that kind of demand. then we have to think of the dynamics of rural-urban movements that are happening and

how to manage that as more people migrate to the urban areas. these are some of the challenges in thinking on how to feed the world, so we must focus on these as well. >> let's start with the problem of yields, that we must increase productivity. we've already seen one green revolution. some countries have not gone through that yet. there can be an intercept change. companies that have not been through that the green revolution, to go through it now. those that have already been through it, what are the innovations we need now such as genetically modified foods, whether that's a good or bad thing. bill gates, innovations that we need to have another big jump in productivity and yieldsçó?

>> africa is the main place where the benefits of the green revolution have not been felt yet. partly they have a variety of crops, partly the variety of weather conditions and the issue of getting the education and input, including fertilizer in there. those are big challenges. so there has been a new group that was headed by kofi annan that is getting money, bringing together expertise, working with the dealers, working with the seed makers to get those things out there. there is some hope we can get quite a bit. in the meantime, they have to invent things that go even beyond and it comes down to the yields. the yields will have to be dramatically higher than they are today to process the large

number of crops. are you for or against genetically modified foods? are foundation is working with some new things and cocoa products. some of these are traditional breeding and some are not. we are also funding scientific expertise in africa. when three or four years from now when it goes as expected, there are some crops with big benefits, drought resistance, the transgenic approach can probably do better than any other. each country will decide what are the risks like safety and licensing that would make them hesitant. then on their own those countries would be able to make that decision. the likelihood that the safety

profile would be okay and that would be contrived, that works out, because it is a tool, particularly for disease resistance, where you can put in a new gene, and interference gene for a particular crop problem, it would be a real help. you are on the verge of starvation all the time, so every tool is -- every tool that is safe and appropriate, you want to go into at least. >> dupont is doing genetically modified foods as well as other varieties. are you facing a lot of resistance such as a little knowledge is a dangerous thing kind of approach? are you confident genetically modified is the future? >> if you are going to resolve the problem like drug resistance, we are going to have to use genetic modification. i cannot think of a product in terms of genetically modified

that has been more tested -- genetically modified beef, in the currentñiñ:&"ñr countries ag it to grow. we surpassed 2 billion acres globally in 2008 where the biotech crops are grown. there's a lot of data out there, a lot of information and a lot of benefits. if each country, if they set a science-based transparent regulatory framework, then the industry can work with those countries in order toñixd take e of the productivity needed to fill the food gap. >> what is your approach to increasing productivity in yields with genetically modified foods? there is genetically modified foods and genetically modified other crops. >> before a couple of years

[unintelligible] i would like to touch on how to ensure a global food security. it's humanitarian and economic issues. in keeping political stability of each country and the entire world. [unintelligible] to get this done across the globe in a more sustainable manner.

the availability and sustainability and accessibility. >> in vietnam you have been very successful in increasing productivity. how did you do that without using any sort of genetically modified foods? >> i think that food security in my state, we need to ensure availability and to have a food distribution channel. then we measure the accessibility of people to that food.

together with international assistance to ensure food security for the community. productivity and to increase the output and technology is very important in productivity and output. >> you are not against genetically modified foods? çó>> we do not oppose the genetically modified foods. [unintelligible]

we are still self-sufficient in production without genetically modified foods. >> i want to ask the audience, those against and in favor of genetically modified foods and those that say as long as i know, i'm ok. how many people are against genetically modified foods? that is only about 5%. how many are in favor of eating genetically modified foods? that is about 40% or 45%. those who want information? >> another 40% or so. thank you very much. there are other things besides

genetically modified foods, different ways about teaching productivity in yields, which is a big problem. what would they be? >> maybe i will comment on that by sharing that within the community in davos, but spent time in the last seven months working on what we call the future vision about agriculture. part of that discussion this morning, we had a lively discussion that included the president and some critical ways from that was that the increasing productivity is very necessary but not sufficient purity also spoke about investment in the entire agricultural chain, particularly infrastructure. transportation, storage, getting even the basics of the roads and trucks and getting crops to market or getting them to the people that need to eat

them. so the idea of not just productivity but things beyond increasing yields, such as the been reducing post harvest waste, which is something we could take on today. as we have heard in several sessions, the crops that are grown and are wasted or are left to its oil because there is not an investment infrastructure, because they don't have an ability to get to market, is as much as 20% in some areas. we talk about that in your country. investment to make more efficient use of the crops we have today as well as not to waste what is grown is an important part in closing the gap. >> very important, food harvest wastage. do we have pictures -- we have pictures in india of children suffering from malnutrition. 50 million tons of food with rats eating 10 million a year.

the malnutrition and fat rats, it is a stark picture. >> maybe one more point to the investment in innovation related to production. production of agriculture, production of crops is about 95%. only 5% goes to the post harvest innovation idea. there's more work to be done there. we are working with the university of california-davis with this. again, more emphasis on that. >> president, how is tanzania looking at increasing yields? what states of the agricultural cycle are you right now? a host of interventions. one of the things they're looking at is changing the technology. our agriculture is

predominately the hand hoe. we are trying to see how to recognize -- to mechanize the. this is typical for ecker frafr. 10% is by tractor. in thailand, thailand has more tractors then the whole of sub- saharan africa put together. what we are doing is looking at how to mechanized agriculture. the second phase that we are engaged with sub-saharan africa is to increase the proportion of gdp from agriculture. only 4% of agriculture in sub- saharan africa is irrigation. [unintelligible] we need to get there.

this is another challenge. the other is the use of high yielding seeds. we're not talking about the genetically modified one spirit actually getting to the seeds that they use in vietnam and get tons per hectare. this is a question of investing in agricultural research, which we are not doing. besides that, using modification so that there are -- so that as many farmers as possible get high-yielding seeds. >> irrigation and hybrid seeds. >> and fertilizer. intensity of its 9 kilos per hectare. in south africa its 50 kilos. in the netherlands it is more than 500 kilos.

these and other combinations, herbicides and pesticides, the challenge of post harvest losses. it's a combination and looking at the cropp market system, which farmers get discouraged. the farmers produce crops to market. the prices are not favorable. perhaps increasing productivity of the combination of mechanization, irrigation, high- yielding seeds, getting the fertilizer and herbicides and pesticides, organizing. the biggest challenge we had is getting to farmers. training them, livestock officers to impact skills and knowledge to the farmers. it's a combination. then, looking at infrastructure. but a lot of countries have been through this.

so you have something you can follow. including we talked about yields increasing. we talked about food stocks being wasted on the world. before i go to the audience, another big issue, and of the solution we need to -- and other problem we need to solve? >> there's one problem i want to talk about in terms of production. that is addressing the rights of the people. its studies done at the world bank find that often women are not the ones -- women to the bulk of the production. we must put that on the table. very often the target of new ideas should go to them. make sure that those who are actually growing the crops are the ones receiving those incentives. you can get 20% more yields in some cases by working with them. we have to put that on the

table. women must be at the center of this, at least as far as the african countries. >> highest return of investment in human capital is from women. >> in addition, i don't think we should get focused on the production alone. i want to come back to something that was set in terms of distribution. what we talk about this morning. if you can find in the same country that there is enough food, but you cannot get it from one part of the country to another, so we must -- most of the thomas talked about output, but many farmers are producing, but they cannot -- the country cannot get it from one part to the other. then worldwide sometimes it's not that there's a shortage, but trade barriers and protectionism and a feeling of insecurity in a population also stops one country from sending food. look at what happened during the food crisis. we found food markets were very

thin. you could not get food -- some countries had excess rain and said bring as 5 million tons of excess wheat and then the prices became -- began to come down. >> let me have a question from the audience. one at the back on the left. and at the microphone, please? introduce yourself and a quick question. >> i am directed at the ritz science center at the university of michigan. we hear a lot of talk about challenges requiring solutions and a lot of talk about innovation. what we don't hear much about is how to get from one point to another. the question is, how do you get those innovations out of the hands of innovators out to the people in the field that need to use them? >> would you like to answer that? >> i would give an example where the pieces came together.

there's a lot of these institutes, the cjir institute that does basic crop research. the green revolution worked largely -- came out of the fact that they got funding and worked with the organizations. recently one of those based in the philippines, it's the rights organization, had found a gene that if the rice was flooded, allowed to stay there, the rights would keep growing. normally the rights would not grow after flooding. they were able to take the gene and put it into the different pric rices. now the poorest farmers are getting huge benefits from that. it used the latest technology, the sequencing, in order to

understand they were taking just this one characteristic from this one rice it could withstand submergence and putting it into very high-yielding varieties until you were just getting the good coming from that. so it is a great model. whether it's disease resistant or drug-resistant or salt tolerance, almost a dozen things we need to go after on how to move quickly and get it into the research, get it through the national organizations, and promoted to the farmers, which is the extension service government excellence. this one did a great job and it's now being done in africa as well. >> what's important is these examples of success, everybody gets to know them and they are disseminated. the question [unintelligible] >> a majority of the world's

farmers don't have secure legal rights to the land they farm. without that, they don't have the appropriate incentive and cannot access credit easily. this is especially true for women farmers. what role does getting those rights have been feeding the world? >> anybody want to take that? >> there are people that -- we find a couple of organizations that are completely focused on that issue. there is some regional progress being made. it varies country by country. i don't know -- in vietnam is that an issue or not? >> it that people don't have rights to their land in vietnam and are insecure and don't want to invest as much as they would otherwise or produce as much? >> in vietnam every farmer

produces on their own land. they have the right to produce on their land. and to develop agricultural production. >> what -- first, if people don't have rights, its is important for them to get bank loans. that's true. what we are doing is trying to make it easy for people to get land rights. when you use the normal system of land surveys, it's expensive to take surveyors to the farms, so what we've been trying to do through the model that has been

developed, we -- in the villages there is the land registry. we have been training people in the villages, those who have gone to primary or secondary school, how to use a gps. somebody comes to my farm and writes the cornet and gets to one corner and the other one and the other one. through this process we have been doing mapping. it's done by the villagers, themselves. then they use the corniche and they have a complete map of their location. the things that we've done now, the villages are being empowered to issue land certificates. these certificates issued by the villages are recognizing -- recognized by the government. then they are transferred nationally. >> are you computerizing a lot

of this? >> yes, now we are moving at this stage of computerization. at the village level, and they computerize, it's a question of capacity for a poor country like ours. we have nine southern villages. almost 3000. we are doing this. in some of the villages -- in some of the district's where they have land certificates, they use it to get loans from banks. a member of the district was issued a certificate and a former art got $5 million in bank loans for activity. to us it has helped to do it much easier at the village level. >> can we move on to the prices,

which is the second-biggest issue we find farmers really don't get rewarding prices? it's not a profitable area to begin, so there's less investment. something we see in developing countries is urban middle class is still vocal and politically strong and food prices are kept low to keep them happy. the farmers lose out. in india, since we have elections often and 65% of the voters live on farms, they have to consider them. the other issue is what the west is doing. this huge -- these huge subsidies in europe and america to farmers keeping world prices down, which means developing countries, the farmers cannot get a decent price for their produce. if those subsidies were removed, prices went up, farmers got a

good return to their investment, wouldn't that help productivity? how do weñi insure farmers get better prices? >> something somebody said earlier is that when it comes to food productivity and supporting one's rural communities and economies associated with food production, countries tend to look inwards. sometimes that flies in the face of world trade issues. one will believe in global trade, it does not mean you always find open trade even though you may believe in it. one thing about pricing that may help in this perspective is that even when yousw6 see high price, the corrections for high prices is generally a high price, because it drives more supply. what we saw with the recent high prices and may be the answer is that we are in a period of volatility which will be with us forever, so that means dips and

highs. high prices drove farmers in the most productive regions in the world to plant more, so supplies are increasing. agriculture renews itself every harvest, every cycle. >> to the west stop subsidizing? >> i think there will be continued discussion with open trade. >> you have an opinion on everything else. >> i still believe in it. i believe countries will continue -- >> we raised the issue of the risk of farming, the risk of the weather and the risk of prices, both out of control of the farmers. how do you combat that double problem of low prices and high risk in farming?

>> i think we have to think of agriculture differently. the bill gates says we should think innovation. i agree. innovation is not only in the area of production but also innovation in the area of financial instruments that could be used to help farmers and countries manage their liabilities. i think we need to think about that. we have been working at the world bank and did a small scheme in malawi to help them manage the risk of drought and floods. whereby there is an authority. they can get some pavement back, which they can then use to help the farmers. we must think of those kinds of instruments. even in haiti today we should have something. an assurance that can be used to help farmers. >> how do you compensate farmers for the high risk for the bad

monsoon or drought? the riskiness of farming? >> in vietnam the farmers are given the land certificate and they can use that to secure a bank loan. when we suffer losses in the crops, they will then get subsidies from the government. assistance from the government. to increase the yield of the food in the world, one important issue is international community's to commit to a maximum, to eliminate barriers,

eliminate the huge subsidies for farmers. only then can we encourage countries to produce our culture and enhance productivity and we call on developing countries and others to put aside differences so that they work together. [unintelligible] we want to promote our cultural yield in the world. >> the prime minister has said, can you stop subsidies and open up trade in agricultural products. do you see that happening in five years or 10 years? something that the the west, particularly america, huge subsidies?

>> these issues have been with us quite a while. i figure there's no easy answer, that it's going to take a while. if that's what i go back to productivity andñi technology. i think part of the issue is getting more equalization in terms of output around the world in certain crops. we have a huge disparity right now if you right nowcron in sub- saharan -- right now if you look at corn in sub-saharan africa. working on equalizing that disparity is one of the areas that can help in stabilizing from the standpoint of countries turning inward and looking to protect themselves. >> looking from this end of the telescope, look at the west with huge subsidies, we're giving you subsidies and messing up the system, running the markets, reducing prices. give us some other solution on how to solve agriculture?

we are not going to undo this mess. >> to the west, the subsidies of the west, there is some of that which distorts prices and reducing developing country opportunities. mostly it is just a waste of money. some small percentage of that, if that went to give aid to bootstrap the investments the partners need to make, that would pay off in terms of nutrition and livelihoods and getting rid of starvation. one group that we've reached out to is the private-sector. i think almost all the companies involved in food in any way to the world economic forum, we have some type of partnership with them. we're working with cocoa farmers along with adm. what they are making could be put onto the international market, the quality and storage was not right off. we are working on coffee.

africans can make very good coffee but it's not sorted in the right way. nigeria could be growing its own rice. coca-cola, we have a food effort we're in kenya and tanzania they're taking passion fruit, mangrove roots and getting them to store it and do it in the right way where they can access the market. fitting up further up the value chain and making sure the prices get down to them and is at a much higher percentage. there's going to have to be some funding. but the returns on this funding is really quite phenomenal. >> any questions on pricing? the gentle man at the backed? -- the gentleman at the back? >> in the short term, the likelihood of withdrawal of subsidies is not something on which we can expect, and

considering the fact that the present food prices will remain for a while, what other tips can we consider to get countries out of a mindset in terms of self- reliance that can allow what global powers can affect the present spike in prices we have currently? >> one of the big food buyers in the world, the world food program, they do a great job. donors have often force them to take food from the rich countries instead of donating money and allowing the crops thain nearby african countries to be purchased and increase the capacity there and have lower transport costs. there's been some progress in

reforming this so that countries give more money. there have been some efforts -- we have given a lot of money to world food programs, so they are working with local farmers if so they can qualify for those purchase programs. africa needs to open up trade within africa. there is still quite a few barriers, whether it's quality or infrastructure that prevents that from working well. >> i think, in addition to all that, we have to look beyond aid. i don't think aid can solve these problems. we have to really encourage investment. ok? if we cannot get the subsidies down, and it's going to take time to complete the doha arounround. when they create the right environment to invest, then many

countries have enough room for enough commercial agriculture and smaller agriculture to be side by side. they can work in such a way that benefits -- dennis miller one can benefit from a private sector that sets up and -- the smaller ones can benefit from the private-sector. it can work. we need that investment. so enough talk already. those wanting to help, how many? [applause] >> from vietnam, a question. with all the innovation and efficiency, i don't see by 2050 we will not have enough food. do you see this as a conflict between countries that will be

created as a result? >> there are technologies today that we and others in the industry are working on that can increase the yield in soy 40% over the next 8-10 years. that is the focus of research programs that continue? in many of these areas. not only on just the general yield but the conditions in which they operate and are able to grow in drought conditions and being able to use less nitrogen and create less more efficiency. investments in industry is making will continue to produce results, i think. the question then is how do you get to the markets? as we go into countries in africa and we are working on a local basis, you can create real progress, but how do you leverage that across a larger area faster? we have been working in west

africa with africa harvest, west african seed association. we have worked to create four local seed companies, locally owned. they have trained close to 2000 farmers. how did you take better one small area? and area? that is an issue we are coming up against. how you get effects quickly? >> going up the value chain is something we talked about. apart from normal tariffs, there are barriers like standards. what kind of standards do you use in producing your food? we have seen a lot of private standards. there is a walmart standard and so on. it prevents economies of scale. if you have a lot of private parties setting the ron standards. is it time for more of a global party that sets basic standards so that you can export? >> perhaps a quick description,

adm is neither retailer neither a retail food manufacturer or producer. we work in the space between picking the global harvest -- taking the global harvest to the food producers. not only standards by particular retailers but even standards by compacountries. the need to segregate crops and different aspects to get them to market because of the differences across countries or regions is probably the first process that falls. >> some unification in standards is needed. >> then we think through the consumer side. that is probably where you want some choices, some differences, people having the opportunity to choose. >> lot of innovations have come from the private sector. >> they have. >> can we have a global basic standard and then relate privately about that?

because at the moment it is chaos. >> i would not say there is chaos. there are a lot more problems we've been talking about solving. >> for next order, it is a big issue. they say, you did not meet this particular standard. >> from canada. the opening question seems to be how to feed the population? the entire focus has been on production. seems to me what we have missed in the conversation was the issue of obesity and the fact there are more and more people obies in the world than there is malnutrition. if you combine the fact we produce enough food globally right now to feed the world. if we deal with our white problems and the issue of obesity, we might solve the problem. >> either the right kind of food. right there. >> thank you very much.

steve schneider, a climate scientist from stanford university. how could i not ask a climate question that has to do with price? since we cannot predict the details and only the general trend, there could be a further increase in volatility, not just year to year but also in the distribution of where it's produced, especially north to south, with the south being more disadvantaged. one way to ensure against that volatility is to read through food reserves. i wrote a book -- i read a book in 1976. joseph in egypt say to the grains. it was finally opposviolently oe midwest. it provides a measure of security. how do you deal with production incentives and having a safe set of storage and who should have storage and what should the

rules before its release? >> good question. everybody seems to be thinking about this. would you like to answer that? >> i am trying to think of how you could think of various ways of dealing with this. we have an expert on this issue in this audience. i think we should call on him to answer. he is sitting right there. he's done a lot of work thinking about the issue of grain reserves. instead of quoting him, let him speak for itself. -- for himself. >> thank you. remember the situation in 2008, production problems led to nervousness in markets.

prices increased. speculation said set in, borders were closed, markets failed. the countries tried to build their own stocks country by country. very inefficient. so what we have been arguing for is a system of shared global reserves combined with virtual reserve. not a pile of grain but a pot of money, which can be mobilized through where it's a properly regulated commodity exchanges, to engage in preventing price spike. not general speculation schemes. price spikes, schemes that prevent spikes. >> what about in the event of droughts, could you draw on those reserves as well? >> if it is relatively large.

if international regional prices go through the roof, yes, of course. >> we only have a few minutes left. let's get to the final stage. let's ask each panel member to talk about the goals that should be set. this morning we talk about setting some big goals like, i think, something suggested was there should be no child with malnutrition by 2025. some particular year. is that feasible? or any other big goals each one of you could set as an agenda? >> actually, i was not the one on that question. >someone said and i picked up on it and i said we should have some big goals and work toward that. i agree with that. >> give us one goal that we should have. >> that is a good one. why not?

by 2020 we should not have any child hungry or malnourished. then we can go for diseased children and obese people. then there are those too skinny. but those that don't have enough to eat. we have to solve this problem of distribution of food. not just production. >> you have a goal and a lot of things fall into place. >> a lot of things. that's a good one, that children should not be hundred. >> you have to break it down. i would suggest a goal in sub- saharan africa of why not double the production in africa through productivity. to do it in a reasonable amount of time, in 10 years. >> bill gates, a goal you would like to see? >> one way to look at this is from the point of view of the farmer. the majority of the two impoverished our small farmers. if you have a goal of doubling their income so that they have

enough to feed themselves, enough to sell some to make some money and therefore break the cycle where they cannot afford fertilizer so they cannot purchase the fertilizer, so they don't get the yield, so they don't have the money in the future, there's a real bootstrap that had to take place there. i'm a broken record on this. this is very effective aid, helping the small landowners get out of this. we have to start with a spirit by with doubling the incomes should be a goal. >> doubling the income of small farmers in the next 10 years? >> exactly. >> president? >> let me say that, let the world have a goal of looking at africa as the place or the continent that can feed the

world. right now, as i said, the land is theire, the climate is conducive, water is available. what is required is technology, for that to be made available. make financial resources available to the farmers in africa so that they can increase productivity to production, they would be able to feed themselves and be able to feed the world. a farmer in africa right now produces four two people, while the farmer in your produces to feed 150 people. if you can also have that capacity in africa, to be able to feed 150 people, this world would have no problems. no problems with hunger or

malnutrition. the greatest potential for change. the potential if it's there. that is why i am saying i'm confident we can feed ourselves now and for many years in the future. >> patricia? >> and also optimistic. i believe that the bigger goals are the great ones, but breaking it down, to build on a point, since we've talked about productivity, we talked about the small holer pharma, i would like to see a doubling of investment in agricultural infrastructure -- the small holder farmer. investment in infrastructure is needed. on the other side, i would like to see cut in half the amount of post agricultural waste. if the average is 10% up to 20%, we should be able to take that down by half. >> post harvest waste being cut

down to 10%, that would keep a huge amount of food and double the investment in agriculture. two goals for the price of one. >> i believe that's ñi[speaking through a translator] cutting the post harvests waste in the next 10 years is plausible in vietnam. 20 years earlier the post of this benefit is 20%. now it's only 10%. that means it is feasible. i would like to repeat that to ensure enough food for the world, there are many solutions that many of you have spoken of. but i would like to emphasize

that only when we can eliminate trade barriers and protectionism and eliminate large subsidies, only then can we ensure food for the world. thank you. >> eliminate subsidies. i think that's a wonderful idea. the panel deserves a round of applause. thank you all very much. and the thank-y you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> these are live pictures of the u.s. capitol building with the flag flying at half staff for the late congressman john murtha of pennsylvania parity passed away at the age of 77. if congress and president obama

will attend his funeral tomorrow. live coverage beginning at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. media reports say democratic senator al evan bayh of indiana has decided not to seek reelection. he attributes his decision to excessive partisanship, as the motivation for the decision. he scheduled an afternoon news conference in indianapolis. former secretary of state madeleine albright recently joined economic leaders to talk about developing the next generation of leaders for international affairs diplomacy. see that conversation beginning at 4:40 eastern on c-span. tonight at 8:00, the future of guantanamo bay and its detention facility. army intelligence corps lieutenant-colonel steven abraham will join legal experts and members of the september 11 families. also, tonight, brad smith of

microsoft on the future of what is called a cloud computing, dealing with for access of data over the internet instead of local computer service. that is tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span to. --c-span 2. >> shopping for everything on c- span is at c-span.org/store. there's nearly every c-span program plus a collection of books, all prints, coffee mugs, and other c-span accessories. look for these and other gift ideas at the website on the screen. >> a group of business executives and technology specialists gathered at the white house recently to talk about how to modernize the government. president obama if and budget director peter orszag spoke at the beginning of this event. some of those attending the forum presented their ideas following the meeting. it was about 45 minutes.

>> to low . on the chief's performance officer and deputy director from the institute of office management and budget. i want to welcome everyone. we appreciate you coming to washington. until seven months ago i spent all of my 20-year career in the private sector, including as a ceo and chairman of both public and private companies. i know firsthand how the best ideas, the best practices combined with the right technologies can really transform business performance. now that i am in government, i strongly believe that the exchange of powerful ideas that make companies better can improve government productivity and service quality. the president and administration are committed to improving the efficiency and quality of government services. we really need your help. based on my thorough review of your homework, i am convinced

you can really help us achieve better results for the american people. after the president speaks, we will go to breakout groups. in those groups you will have the opportunity to work together to highlight the key lessons that government can learn from the private sector and to implement. we will then convene for our closing session. it's my honor to introduce someone i had the privilege of working with every day and is the leader of our team that is so engaged. the director of the office of management and budget, peter orakzazag. >> thank you, jeff and thanks all of you for coming to participate in today's forum. as we close out work on the 20 11 budget, we are wrapping up a process on the difficult to assess where to invest the nation's resources.

today we are focusing not on how much we spend but rather on how well we spend it. are the programs in which we are making investments delivering on what they promised? is an initiative in one department being duplicated in another? are we delivering services in the most efficient and effective manner possible? in evaluating these questions, the president made it very clear from the first cabinet meeting on it, that the traditional way of doing things in washington would not be tolerated and that government must be modernized. in response, we have taken a variety of steps. we launched an ambitious effort to reform government contracts, increasing competition in bulk purchasing, and reducing no bid contracts. we are on track to save $17 billion this year through this and $40 billion by the end of

next year. we have put forward an aggressive effort to reduce the $100 billion in improper payments made every year. we have initiated a rigorous new process of program evaluation so we can find out which programs work and which ones do not and thereby streamline the successes and eliminate the failures. in last year's budget we put forward to more than 120 cuts and reductions, totaling more than $17 billion in programs that were duplicative or ineffective. many people in washington thought we never would succeed in obtaining these reductions because the programs all had powerful backers. yet this morning in evaluating the final results from the 2010 budget process, the washington times not widely known as an administration-from the newspaper, concluded, "president

obama had substantial success is in spending cuts last year. this type of effective management is not only administrative commitment but also an obligation we owe to the american public." that is why all of you are here today. if the productivity gap between the public and private sectors is substantial. the longer we allow it to persist, larger it becomes. thatñi is why we areñrçó commito a new business model for efficiency, where funds are invested in initiatives that work and not on programs that don't work and where customers service does not take a backseat to bureaucracy. i know that i speak for jeff and his team when i say that we want to learn from you during this work and work with you over the coming weeks and months so we can leverage technology to close the productivity gap and give the american people a

government that is more efficient and effective. with that, ladies and gentlemen, it's my great honor to introduce the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. please have a seat, everybody. thank you so much. good afternoon, everyone. thanks for all of you -- for being here today paradigm alike to recognize the deputy and cabinet secretary members with us here today for their leadership and our agency. it is exciting to see the leaders at some of the most innovative, cutting edge tech savvy companies in the world in the city where i had to fight just to get a blackberry. there may be a cultural clash, but that is exactly why we want you