i want to show you a few headlines. here is the hill newspaper. and finally, your story from about 1:00 a.m. last night, "how a campaign finance deal backfired." what is the campaign legislation that the . . is bill 5175, which is the disclose at. it casts light on spending elections. it is a response to a supreme court ruled in january that the high court struck down restrictions on corporations and unions being involved directly in campaigns. host: citizens united case. guest: exactly, and this is the congressional response to it. this bill will impose a new

disclosure requirements on corporations or outside groups that want to engage and express advocacy. host: would it turn -- return to the days of mccain/fine gold campaign refinance? guest: no, it would not. groups would be allowed to expressly run ads, but they would have to disclose their involvement in these ads. host: does this campaign finance law address the court's decision? guest: this is the response to the january ruling, to that ruling. it struck down decades of campaign finance law, which would have restricted corporations from being directly involved in campaigns. this is the congressional

response saying, okay, we cannot stop that they are doing it, but we want them to disclose that they are. host: in an earlier article that you wrote -- how did that language come to be? and is language often used like that, that is that specific? guest: no, it depends on the bill. it was marked up in committee in may and they were going to bring it to the floor several weeks ago. the national rifle association, which is a very powerful organization, was opposed to it. the democrats knew they could not pass the bill if the nra

was expressly against it. congressman chris van hollen, the lead author of the bill, he carved out this extent -- exemption. this was really aimed at the nra. it exempted the nra from disclosure requirements in this bill. and the nra did not oppose the new legislation. they just said they did not support it. at that point, it looks like the bill was going to come up for a vote this week. host: we want to get you involved. we are talking about campaign finance loans. -- campaign finance funds. the numbers are on the screen. please allow 30 days between

your calls. john bresnahan of politico is our guest. what about unions? do they fall into this language as well? guest: there would be covered by that. they would not be exempted. host: who is for it? who is again ist it? guest: the chamber of commerce and a number of other organizations feel this#ua is n infringement on their activity. they are opposing this bill. also, other progressive groups such as sierra club. what happened is that during the week, there were complaints about the exemption given for the nra. the democratic leadership decided to lower the limit on a

number of -- and lower the limit on a group. but the sierra club does not like the bill anyway and is opposed to it. they're going to oppose the bill anyway. it and different blocks of members -- and different blocks of members within the democratic caucus, blue dogs, they were opposed to the legislation. and the caucus was opposed as well. host: why? guest: they were concerned about the treatment of the naacp and tax treatments and whether they could jeopardize their step -- their tax status. and they also did not like the special treatment for the nra. here we are doing a bill to require disclosure in politics

and we are giving an exemption for one of the most powerful interest groups and there is. -- most powerful interest groups their resourcethere is. host: do they just have to disclose who founded an advocacy or an ad campaign? guest: it deals with a lectionary communication, which is an ad saying, vote for joe schmo, or against joe schmo. they would have to say, i mdot acencio x and i -- i am not cce and i approved this data. under current law, they do not have to reveal owners.

these nonprofits and the 501-c3 that covers them, they are saying, this is not public. why should we make it public now? host: they are afraid it will impact donations? guest: right. anyone who even funds to the data -- to even funds these advertisements would have to be disclosed. the democrats' argument is, look, you cannot stop corporations and unions and nonprofit advocacy groups from being involved. but what is the problem with disclosing? the public has the right to know who is involved in elections. the public likes it when they know who is the political -- was

behind the political clout. there is no reason not to know who is doing this. host: the supporters of the bill are saying that. guest: yes. host: who are the supporters? guest: nancy pelosi, congressman van hollen. there's also some bipartisan agreement. this is a first step for the democrats in -- imposing any kind of limits. host: how close is the vote? 433 members of congress. guest: it is unclear. they started whipping it out earlier in the week.

it looked like by yesterday they had gotten what they needed. it was going to be the two republican co-sponsors. and i'm not sure there will be any republican support. then you have these two factions within the democratic caucus, the congressional black caucus, and the blue dogs. host: that is 40 to 50 members. guest: exactly, so, you have these is significant blocks. and any legislation that nancy pelosi and van hollen were pushing would have to be almost entirely democratic votes. so, they have to hold onto their democrats. . .

>> when you bet against speaker pelosi, but i am not sure the bill as currently drawn, whether she will get the votes to pass it. host: chris, from san antonio, texas, republican line, you're first up. please go ahead with your comment. guest: john, i would like to ask you a question. which union do you find more upsetting, the n.r.a. or the a.f.t. or the american federation of teachers? host: when you talk about upsetting, what exactly do you mean? i don't think mr. bresnahan is going to give his political opinion on this anyway. do you want to rephrase your question? guest: yes, sir.

i live in south texas. i am a frequent caller. i own firearms, and my wife is a school teacher. of in-fighting among people who are confused with both. so i really would just like to ask your opinion. host: so it sounds like his wife is a member of a teacher's union and he is a member of the n.r.a. guest: i think it's important that people understand that groups like the n.r.a. and advocate groups is really important to the function of democracy and important for them to have a vote here. what the issue is, is money and politics, what we're getting down to. money and politics. and who is funding what? and how big a role money plays in elections. to many people the spring

court's ruling in january was a major setback and setback decades of campaign finance law. for others it was a victory for free speech and first amendment laws. that there's no reason individuals individually or collectively why they shouldn't have their voices heard. i think it's important to note that as a journalist, for me, disclosure is the important thing. i would like to know who is paying for ades -- ades. -- ads. why they are paying for it. to advocate for a governmental outcome for legislation for a bill, for an administration to take some action. so i think there's a lot of difficult issues here. >> when it comes to all the

bills in congress, the budget and tax extenders bill and financial regs, where does this rank in the priority list? >> well, i think president obama has made his views known on this. i think a lot of members take this very personally. they want to know who is going to be, you know, funding ads against them in an election. i think they are very concerned about way it is process can be manipulated under the citizens' united ruling. i think there's legitimate concerns about that. let me give you examples. what if a company -- there was a bill on the floor and the company was opposed to it and they sent their lobbyist in to see the chairman or chairwoman of a committee and said we're opposing this bill and by the way we reserve $2 million of ad

time in your district. that's a powerful message and one that would put the fear of god in a lot of congressmembers. we have to value the rights to be heard but protect our political classes and keep the integrity there as much as possible. host: barbra from pennsylvania, you're on the air. caller: thank you for c-span. you do a great job. i am really concerned about this passage through this. i thought it was planning. because -- and especially, the people that say, oh, the government owns this business, and the government's trying to take over this business. do they realize how they open the door for business to own government? and not even disclose it is so wrong.

guest: i think the caller raises an interesting point. i think one of the biggest concerns members have for folks who cover the federal office and work in politics is the amount of time spent fundraising. in the 2008 elections, candidates and incumbents and challengers spend over $5 million and that number keeps rising. it impacts the quality of our government. i think people outside of washington, i think this is the hardest thing for them to realize. there's a first amendment right. people should be involved in politics but the california senate race is going to cost $ 10 million-plus. t most an individual can contribute is $400,000 per person. that means they need to get

thousands of people on their side. if you have to see thousands of people are you doing an effective job now? and where are they going to go? special interest groups who raised it. and sometimes that's seen as giving a new impact on what happens legislatively. it's a very important issue and a difficult issue. a lot of journalists don't understand it as well. but you talk to members, they take this issue very highly. it can't be done in a 30-second sound bite. but it's a critically important one. host: jane from baltimore. you're on. please go ahead. caller: yes. hello. i was watching rachel meadow back during the debate, and i remember, like, almost every day they twonet town halls and where people were getting

crazy. and i remember when she was exposing not all of the stuff because we don't want to all call all the tea party people crazy, but she was exposing some of this stuff to be setups of the corporations. so i have two questions. my first question is would this legislation pretty much do what rachel mado was doing, and two, what do you think the chances are for a clean energy bill this year? >> there was the issue of arrest astro turfing where corporations or advocacy groups were kind of beginning up some of the protests -- gining up some of the protests. but frankly a lot of it was concern over the health care bill. this wouldn't address that. this goes specifically to election engineering questions.

as far as an energy bill, it's not an issue i cover every day, but the senate is the challenge there. it doesn't seem to be a lot of con census commng together. the schedule is very tight. it's an election year. we've got the supreme court nomination coming. afghanistan, campaigning, there's a lot going on. i think right now the odds are against an energy. right now i would stay odds are kind of stacked against it. >> john bresnahan, a lot on capitol hill advocating or not advocating for this law? guest: there's a lot of interest in this for instance, some of the campaign finance reform groups want this bill. they are supporting it. campaign legal center. democracy 21, campaign watchdog

groups. their main focus is finance reform. they are advocating as a measure, you know, they like to see more. they were unhappy, very unhappy with a united citizen ruleling but at least this gives some disclosure and who is funding what, on the other hand you have some very powerful groups aligned with this bill. for instance, commerce, which is the largest bill association, association of manufacturers, association of real tores. very powerful organizations lined up against it. so there are -- may not get all the headlines a lot of time but there's a lot of interest going on here. host: will he grange, texas. caller: good morning, peter, john. guest: good morning. caller: you know, i really have a hard time with the supreme

court's ruling. from what i understand the main reason it was moved to d.c. was to keep everything out of politics. at the time it was swamp and they fwilt capital there to keep money out. how the court can today say a corporation, which, by the way, i understand they were formed during jackson's administrations and he wasn't a believer in them to start with. he knew where they were headed. so i don't know how the court can reach that kind of addition. of decision. another thing, i don't understand why these same corporations, if you're employed by them, and you accept a dinner for $125 to sway you, say you're selling something, and you cut the price by 25 cents because somebody spent $125 an meal,

you're no longer employed with them. >> well, -- guest: well, i read this when it came out. but it was very strong. there was very sharp opinions in the court on this. and, but it came down in the end was this censorship saying up until that decision, you could not have unions or -- this is general treasury, not a pact or -- could be funding ads within a window leading up to an election, the majority of the court felt strongly about this. they felt that this was an important principal, though it did overturn several decades of previous rulings by the court

when they ruled -- and of course, the minority felt just as strongly. they felt corporations should be treated like individuals on this issue. so there is a lot of controversy over this topic. it is -- it is one we will see before the supreme court again, during some point. there will be legislation not moving in this congress but future congresses. in my -- on capitol hill. congress has consistently tried to tweak this language. but now basically the rules are off. they can now use what we call soft money. not necessarily for their campaign but raise million-dollar contributions for other issues. for instance, a redistricting initiative back in their home state. they cannot benefit themselves with it. can't use it on their campaign, but it has an impact on the

politics of their state. so right now we're kind of in a netherworld, and nobody's really sure what's going to happen next. this was one step the house democratic leadership wants to address to -- wants to take to address campaign finance rules. at some point there's going to have to be -- one of my colleagues wrote a story about a month ago. from politico. for a long time republicans, say senator minority leader mitch mcconnell had opposed finance campaign saying the real thing is disclosure. it's not how much they give but who gives it. let them give anything they want but disclose it immediately. with the internet, we can have it out that day, we can find out who did what.

but the funny thing is now some of these folks who wanted immediate disclosure are not so big on disclosure saying this is a united ruling. didn't have anything to do with that. so now they are kind of hemming and hawing. so there are very strongly-held views and principaled views on the first amendment and it's an issue that draws a lot of emotion. and when you take time digging into the fascinating issue, it's one of the long in this country. we wrestled with money and politics. the powerful or well-resourced to influence our political process is not one that's going to go away. as long as we have elections, we're going to have this issue. hoot: have you ever seen a carveout such as the one that was created for the n.r.a.?

>> sure. guest: sure. tax bills. they won't name it but there are -- there will be only certain organizations that can qualify for a language. ear marks. they may not necessarily name a company or the -- that gets an ear mark but the language will be structured in such a way. what was interesting on this is that you have very progressive liberal leadership, speaker plosey, these are progressive liberals, not right wingers. this is the second time in months they've had to acknowledge the real power of the n.r.a. to swing votes. it was on the d.c. voting bill. and they ended up pulling that bill because there was language in there the n.r.a. opposed. i had one say to me 260. that means the n.r.a. can

mobilize 260 votes in the house so if the n.r.a. wants to come in on an issue, that's an issue that is something that the leadership is going to watch. also if you remember back to the membership in 1994 and they swept away 40 years of democratic rule, one of the groups behind the rep can takeover was the n.r.a. they were upset with the assault gun ban. they mobilized their voters, one of the democrats learned after the elections, don't mess with the n.r.a. they can bring a lot of pressure to bear on any issue that they choose to focus on. >> carol in reston. on our rep can line thank you for holding. you're on with john bresnahan. caller: yes, i think this is

the most corrupt government we've had since i don't remember when. being a member of the n.r.a. we eat the deer meat we shoot and i'm also a member of the tea party. i went to the first tea party rally in little rock, arkansas. and it wasn't just white people. and there wasn't a lot of people there. but the second time i went, it grew and drew and it's continuing to grow in my small town, because people are tired of this spending. the ear marks, the pork. and it's out of control. and -- host: two points to address with what carol had to say. corruption and government are the perception of government and also would this affect the tea party movement at all? guest: corruption is part of government. there's always going to be corrupt government officials.

i think something like this, what happened in this -- on kind of jockeying around -- i think will feed some people's distrust of got to the. here you have a special interest group getting an exemption carved out. a special interest group. that is kind of what people are looking at here. in this case it was the n.r.a. but in health care it was different groups and tax bills, other things. that is a legitimate issue. but then you go back to the folks pushing, what they are saying, saying this is what they are trying to address. if we don't do something about would youing special interest groups to run elections without any disclosure of who they are, how are they ever going to get to the issue of addressing some of the topics that or some of

the crises that face america, across the board in terms of the economy, environment, and what not. so it's a have difficult issue to balance. host: does this affect the tea parties at all if the finance bill is passed? guest: well, the tea party as a group, primarily engage in express advocacy, if they were -- they wouldn't be affected by this. this is outside groups. this is not groups primarily involved in politics. host: jane from new jersey, democrat. hi. caller: yes. hi. good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i, you know, with all the believeuating from the right about activist judges, the finding by the supreme court on citizens united, all that was -- i mean, the issue at hand was can they make this

prop demand is movie or can they? and the answer was simple. yes, they could. but this court. the roberts court, used this opportunity have this finding that's further pushing us towards an olgarky. the right has been doing whatever they could to weak at any working class and put the power in the hands of the corporations. and now our entire congress will, with this finding, the congress have become the employees or the puppets of the corporations. and the tea partiers in all their screaming about the government. government is here to protect us. and it worked just fine after the new deal. but little-by-little, the corporations have taken away our right to speak, and i'm sorry. corporations are not people. they are given privileges that we don't have. they have limited liability

when they are found criminally culpable when found guilty of murder by -- they get a slap on the hand that wouldn't be worth a pimple on an elephant's butt. we would be put in the prison. guest: i think the caller read the book where he makes somewhat of a similar line. corporations are not individuals. they are treated under the law by the terms of those the right to cast a vote and in terms of their involvement in the political debate, they hadn't been seen in the same light as an individual, but again, this is, you know, this is an issue. this is an issue the supreme court has wrestled with. this is an issue that legislatures, democratic and

rep can, different congresses and the president, this is not going to go away. we are going to have this debate as long as we have elections. who is paying for what and who is running for offices? and are they being helped by powerful, rich interests? i mean, until early in the to the century we didn't have any disclosure requirements at al or whose campaign -- at all, or whose campaign was funded by who. the system is a lot better than it was. it is not perfect. people are going to continue to work on it. politicians, advocates on both sides of the debate will keep covering it. it is a debate that will continue. host: about five minutes left with our guest. milton is a guest in bowling green. caller: hello.

appreciate you taking my call. first time on the air. host: welcome. caller: i just feel deeply about campaign finance laws. i feel like it's the key to all our problems in government today. you know? can't have a government for the people, by the people with the current laws we have. when you look at the current laws that they just put in place with health care, i mean, who does it benefit? it benefits whoever paid those people and who gave them the noun be elected. i mean, -- them the money to be elected. i mean, we need to take our government back. and this is the way to do it. it's the only way to do it. guest: and milton, i think you made an excellent point. i have been covering congress. this is my 16th year covering congress. i cannot tell you how important this issue is.

it is one that in my time up on capitol hill, races have become exponentially more expense i, which means members and senators and challengers have to spend more time raising money unless her she can write a big check out of the pocket. when urp spending that much time raising money, it -- as hard as they work and they work very, very hard and have excellent staff, fur spending that much time raising money, it's going to cut into other duties as a legislature. meeting with constituents, hearing their concerns, drafting bills, writing bills. it's just a very difficult balance they have to make. if you go around washington every night there's fundraisers, lob yippists, attended by lobbyists. and corporate folks, or those

well-connected people. because members have to get money in order tore run for office. the first thing you're going to do. the people don't understand once a member gets elected, he or she wants to get re-elected. that sort of what drives everything they do. in order to get elected, they need money. to have money they have to meet money. as great as it was to see president barack obama raise $800 million. even he stepped outside the campaign finance system and raised a lot of money in small doe makes nations but wanted -- raised a money -- a lot of money from people who wanted to see things happen. 3w he went to special interest groups, because that is where the money is and what's going to give these powerful organizations time with the conditions congress. some would make an argument

that's a case for public financing right there. but how do you do that and balance it with the rights people have to participate in the political process and spend their own money out of their own podget. it's a very difficult issue and a nail hit on the head. a fundamental issue. who is paying for our campaign and how? >> and even after the spill, lobbyists for b.p. kept fundraising hopping. they hosted 53 parties for law makeers and candidates and four skins the explosion and oil spill. lobbyists -- the numbers are based on fundraisers data compiled by sun light foundation. nine of the 11 known fundraisers this year were

hosted by lobbyist tony podesta or other lobbyists for his firm. >> b.p. has a right to lobby the government. they have a right to express their views to the government around participate in fundraising. there's clearly politically -- clearly politically sensitive issues taking money around b.p. at this moment. but some may have been in the works beforehand and they carried through with it. but listen, every night in washington there are dozens of these events. challengers, they go to them, because that's where the money is. they go to pack events. they can raise a lot of money at wivepbt that may take them much longer to do it over the internet or smaller events back home. you know, the folks who want things from government. they knew this is a big business. politics is a big business.

running for office. campaigning is a big business. it's a multi billion-dollar industry. host: last call comes from al fr caller:, hi. i would like to say that actually if you carve out and exempt disclosure from the n.r.a. actually would inhibit or prohibit my free speech if i had a position that was against the n.r.a. in the sense that before you have free speech, you have to be able to have disclosure and free thought. it actually seems to be unconstitutional for someone to be able to hide and not come through with open disclosure, and that prevents me from even having an opinion to incorporate and use my free speech. >> right now as the law stands in the wake of citizens united

ruling, there is no requirement for sthrour at all. i am not -- disclosure at all. i am not sure that would infringe on someone else's first amendment rights. they felt strongly it did on theirs, and they felt strongly that part of the language on this exemption, one of the requirements was the group had to be around for at least 10 years. into it. the idea was you couldn't just set up some front group before an election, dump $10 million into it and use it to run ads against congressman joe-schmo

and defeat him. disclosure, as a journalist, is a good thing. the more, the better. i think there are a lot of folks in the press who would like to see at least some way to tell who is funding what kind of ads. host: please come back. >> thanks for having me. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," retired lieutenant general, russell honore, talks about bp's response to the gulf coast oil spoil. ylan mui look at new credit card rules and what they need for consumers, and joan lowy has details about a defense department request to the f.a.a. to open up u.s. air space for unmanned drones.

"washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on cradge. up next, the usaid administrator talks about relief efforts in haiti. after that, a senate judiciary confirmation hearing for the attorney general. after that, a member of the afghan parliament talks about the future of his country. on wednesday, bp announceded that $20 billion will be placeded in an escrow account to compensate people and businesses affected by the oil spill, and that bp will not pay shareholders a dividend this year. tone hayward testified before a house committee. we will show you that testimony sunday starting at 10:45 eastern on c-span. >> supreme court justice clarence thomas on the prospect of a new justice. >> bringing in a family member,

and it changes the whole family. it's different today than what it was when i first got here. i have to admit, you grow very fond of the court that you suspend a lot time on. >> with the confirmation hearings for elena kagan starting, june 28. read the supreme court, available now in hard cover as also as an everyone-book. >> dr. shaw is the head of the u.s. agency for international development or usaid. he talks about reconstruction and recovery efforts nearly six months after the earthquake in haiti. from the national press club, this is about an hour. >> exactly. >> just wanting to give you that heads up.

>> good afternoon and welcome to the national press club. i am a reporter for bloomberg news and the president of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalist, and we are committed to the future through our program and for hisering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, visit our website. to donate to our professional development program, please advice www.press.original/library. on behalf of our members, i would like to welcome our speakers and ten's, which includes guests of our speaker as well as working journal ises. i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. after the speech concludes, i will ask as many audience questions as time permits. here had your head table

guests. bob keefe. atlanta journal constitution. josh reubin staff writer for foreign policy. lisa friedman, a deputy director and editor of wired, andrea stone senior washington correspondent for aol news. paul weiss and fall, courtenay iraqi usaid haiti task team and guest of the speaker. andy alexander for the "washington post" mrs. sah, the wife of dr. rajiv shah for improvement for the best part of education. andrew snyder, associate editor to plunder and chairman of the speaker's committee. donna leinwand, speaker committee member who organized this event. >> sean carroll chief of staff for usaid and guest of the

speaker. kathy bunk of communications consortium, and skip, and in a writer for the international bar association among others. he's a member of the press club foreign corresponddnts and photography committee. thank you. [applause] two weeks after today's speaker was sworn in to lead the u.s. agency for international development a devastating earthquake struck eda. president obama instructed dr. rajiv shah to take charge of the u.s. response to this disaster just a few hundred miles away from the u.s. mainland. since then the u.s. government has committed more than $1 billion toward relief efforts in haiti and pledged another $1.15 billion at the donor's conference in april. of this funding usaid contributions total more than $500 million. as the six month anniversary of

the earthquake approaches, conditions and haiti remain donner and in addition to that nation, dr. rajiv shah has managed programs in more than 100 other countries. shah has said that usaid's goal is to create the conditions where it is no longer needed so that communities thrive, government is strong and schools and other institutions continue to operate long after we leave. before leaving usaid, shah served as used part of the agriculture chief scientist to the he spent seven years with the bill and melinda gates foundation where he directed agricultural development programs and established an international financing program for childhood immunizations. he served as health care policy adviser on the hour core 2002 presidential campaign and policy aide in the british parliament. he was a medical degree from the university of pennsylvania and a master's degree in health economics from the wharton school of business. please welcome to the national press club rajiv shah. [applause]

>> hello. good afternoon. thank you, alan, for that kind introduction and thank you, donna, for the invitation to be here on behalf of usaid and our whole team and thank you, andrew for your support for this event. i'd like to start today's discussion was by sharing something you might not usually hear from a public servant in the aftermath of a crisis. thank you. your coverage at the national press and international press of haiti's earthquakes certainly helped rally the american people behind the cause of helping our neighbors in a time of need and crisis. in fact, more than half of all citizens in the united states contributed directly to the relief causes. it was an all inspiring

demonstration of american compassion. and all the americans might be most familiar with usaid's work and red white and blue logo from seeing it on the evening news during the description of a story about that particular tragedy or others like it, our focus as an agency is also on long-term sustainable economic development. we work to ensure that all people have a chance to lead a healthy and productive life and we think of that not just as our moral duty. it is also an indispensable ingredient for global stability and prosperity. the president recently published national security strategy set an ambitious agenda for our work. it calls on us to help prevent conflict, spur economic growth, strengthen weak and feeling states, let people out of poverty, combat climate change and epidemic disease and strengthen institutions of space

governments. that is a tall order. but it is also the challenge that animates our entire team. president obama and said the clinton have made it my mission to free make usaid into the world's premier of a lead agency. to meet the security and the development needs of the 21st century. and today i hope to discuss a little bit about how we hope to achieve that goal. let me take you back to haiti for a moment and explain how that experience really helped me learn and helped reshape our reform agenda which is now well understood as an agency. really within the first week of my arrival at usaid, the earthquake killed more than 200,000 haitians and left an additional 1 million people hungry and homeless. i mean, just thinking about the scale of that tragedy we continue to remember the victims and honor their memory and they're resilient spirit. before i was sworn in on had heard a lot of grumbling about

usaid. a lot of people said the agency moved slowly, we lacked the ability to innovate, that we have lost our in-house expertise and capacity. as i witnessed in those early moments of those early days the agency mobilize its energy with astonishing speed and haiti i realize many of the agency detractors were overstating their case just a bit. within hours of the earthquake we dispatched urban search and rescue teams of specialists who helped pull 132 people from the rubble. within days the military got the airport operating at more than three times its standard operating capacity. in fact, the team's entrepreneurial work was essential to meeting the urgent need in the critical first few days and first few weeks. rather than waiting to work through normal channels, we purchased local food stockpiles and immediately distributed them. together with our partner of the world food program, we fed more

than 3.5 million people, the largest feeding program ever attempted in an emergency. and together with our partners we vaccinated more than 1 million haitians we believe to be at risk. to date, and we were quite concerned about this, there is fortunately been no major outbreak of disease. today our professionals are helping patients build back better. paul is here and helping the that effort on behalf of our agency and we are harnessing the power of the private sector and innovation as we do so. just last week we launched an initiative with the beets foundation to encourage the provision of financial services through salles phones. mobile transactions, mobile banking transactions are cheaper and faster than traditional banking and safer from disruption due to natural disasters. in fact in the early weeks getting money to people in his haiti was a challenge. people getting access to their paychecks and savings.

mobile banking has the power to reach hundreds of millions of people really are now the world who currently lack access to a safe place to borrow and more importantly a safe place to save with limited assets they do it to emulate. this new effort will make haiti the hub for the mobile banking revolution and the innovation that needs to take place to develop the kind of breakthroughs that we need to solve this problem around the world. we are also working to strengthen haiti's resilience against future natural disasters by helping the local construction firms learn how to arrest low-cost yet stronger homes to a practice we learned in part by helping peru rebuild from the year earlier earthquake and paul was the mission director. and at president obama and sector clinton insistence, every penny we spend is subject to concurrent audit by a member of the usaid office of the inspector general on the ground in port-au-prince. so haiti's recovery is just

starting and will take many years. development is a difficult and long-term endeavor and we face significant challenges especially as the hurricane season now approaches. and in some cases, we did need much more capacity than we had as an agency to respond adequately to a crisis of this magnitude. but the early results of the entire government effort have been encouraging and they help me shake my agenda for reform for the agency at large. i learned that to bring out the best in our people we needed to unleash the pence of entrepreneurial energy that existed within the agency and within our staff. we need to apply the latest learning to the most pressing problems and we need to encourage the staff to work shoulder to shoulder with our beneficiaries and partners in government and civil society and the private sector. our staff can succeed by acting like development entrepreneurs

by taking risks, finding new ways to stretch the dollar, leveraging the capabilities of any willing partner and focusing on impact instead of focusing on either getting money out the door or other process indicators. for example, based on the studies that showed people more likely to use chlorine tablets if they were distributed along with water right at the point of distribution, we knew we had asked haitians and dominican truck drivers we hired to distribute water to the camps and other settlements to also dispense purification pills at each stop. as a result, today more haitians in port-au-prince are drinking safe water than before the earthquake and illness compared to the pre-levels has dropped by 12%. my job as administrator is to make good on the president's promise to revitalize usaid by modernizing the agency and enabling every employee to make

those kind of judgment and those kind of innovative decisions that can help improve results for every dollar we spend. and that is why i am launching the comprehensive set of operational reforms designed to partner and deliver high impact cost efficient development. first, the global agency with 9,000 employees and an integral role in executing our foreign policy absolutely needs to have an intellectual nerve center and that is why last month we formed the bureau of policy planning and learning. so we can achieve better results by becoming more evident based and more impact oriented. next month of the bureau will host the conference of scientific leaders to identify how we can best support innovation. the polio vaccine, and i enjoy coming in and seeing the replica of a newspaper cover story about the polio vaccine on the wall, the polio vaccine replace the

cumbersome on your mom. years ago and made it possible to now nearly eliminate this crippling disease. we will ask the scientific leaders to help us understand how we can better support the next generation of breakthroughs of malaria vaccine, for the parts of the world dependent on green said agricultural production and of great energy for places that don't benefit from large scale energy systems. we believe these types of breakthroughs could save millions of lives at a much lower cost than nearly any alternative long-term strategy. in addition we will rebuild usaid's budget accountability with a strong focus on getting better results for the u.s. taxpayers. we will pursue its development strategy that is based on focus, scale and intact. we will focus and fewer sectors in each of the countries we work. we will pursue those efforts at greater scale and pursue those

interventions that have the cost attribute and the scale ability to reach a very large percentage of the population and need. and we will assess missions, our country missions based on their achievements, not the process indicators t second, to achieve greater returns from our investments, we are writing a package of procurement reforms. wednesday in-source program design and evaluation. saving money on contracts while building up our internal program management capability. we are re-doubling our efforts to build local capacity. working through local partners is often the most cost effective and sustainable way to use our resources. i contacted one of the 1,427 health huts in senegal. monday actually. in these huts, volunteers, who are selected by their

communities and trained by usaid are offering life-saving interventions to women or children who have health need, or they are referring them into the proper health system. by training local health workers and hiring local staff for project management, the program lowers overall costs while saving more lives. and it builds local capacity so that one day our aid will no longer be necessary. third, to get the best out of each employee, we are reforming our personnel policies. a development entrepreneur needs real flexibility and the ability to take risks. but at the moment, bureaucratic processes at our agency sometimes hold our stave back. in august we will be gnawing raying a set of changes that will cut back on red tape so our professionals can become more nimble at problem-solving. these are capable professionals

with 20 or 30 years experience in the fields and sectors. this will be a major step forward in unlocking our capabilities. we will be offering better opportunities to the 4,foreign nationals who are -- 4,000 foreign nationals who are from the communities where we work. we often underutilize the threpts of these individuals, who make up half of our work force and often include doctors, engineers, i met a soil scientist last week, and former government officials. that will change as we change our h.r. policies and enable real rotations and career paths for these professionals. we are also looking for ways to expand or civil service and to ensure that our work force has the best to offer. because we recognize that usaid needs more in-house capable and expertise, we have already hired more than 500 new foreign service officers and are

planning to hire at least that many more in the coming years. we are depending on these officers to bring fresh ideas, new energy and practices into our agency. woe will be equiping them with flip caps so they can interview program beneficiaries, record what they are learning and propose real program improvements. in addition to making our work more prince parent really to the entire world but certainly to our agency, this will build a culture of customer research that will make us more innovative and responsive against the problems we are trying to solve. fourth, we need to do a much better job at monitoring and evaluation so we can easily identify what works, what does not work and why, and imploment changes quickly in our programs to optimize against that information. formation to get wee than triple investment in baseline information collection, just the collection of basic data from the inception of programs so we can improve

outcomes by checking progress and making the corrections as we go. we are requiring vigorous impact evaluation of the crucial programs right from the very inception and creating incentives for knowledge sharing to recognize the best evidence based decision making n our agency. to do this we will begin hosting a regular series of summits we are calling evidence summits to study our own actions and explore real ideas for improvement. this will start next week with our after action review on he being held at the national defense university. finally our agency will increase the concept of extreme transparency. we will meet president obama's open government directive and seek to set a standard on transparency for the field of development. we are committed to making information about our investments public. we owe the american taxpayers hard evidence of the impact

their money is making. we owe it to partner governments so they can plan around our assistance, increase our programs or ask us to make changes so that we are more aligned with their basic strategic approach and we know what to the citizens' civil society and media that followed our work so that they can hold us and our partners and partner governments accountable for real results. as a first step by the end of the year we will have a readily accessible geospatial map of all of our programs available in certain pilot countries. it will be available online and accessible understandable manner. so that's my reform agenda for the high impact development. taken together i very much hope that these reforms will marked the most operational improvements to the nation's diplomat agency since president kennedy announced the creation of usaid almost 50 years ago. our anniversary is next fall so we are working against that time

line. and really a more efficient result oriented agency is needed now more than ever. in the five decades since our founding the role of usaid in supporting the national priorities particularly the national security priorities has certainly evolved. america's greatest security challenges are no longer steep based. extreme poverty, compromise is basic to indignities. banishes hope for the future and paves the way for the rise of transnational extremism. we can meet these challenges through the president's signature long-term initiative, which are designed to meet the millennium demint goals. i think many of you know the millennium different goals represented the global community coming together and describing how we could address poverty suffering and hundred a decade ago. our administration has launched the feed the future program to reinvest in agricultural development and a major global

health initiative to prioritize women and children's health so that we can achieve better outcomes for some of the poorest communities around the world. in both initiatives we are applying new ways of doing business to achieve more transformative and sustainable results. in the fight to end hunger which now reaches unfortunately more than a a billion people worldwide secretary clinton committed us to work in partnership, not patronage. i just returned from west africa earlier this week where regional leaders from countries throughout west africa presented their own food security plan and committed to nearly doubling their investment in food security. the identified strategic intervention for eliminating hunger such as investing in improved needs or investing in reducing barriers to transborder trades of food can go from food surplus region to food deficit region. we will coordinate with others

to invest in these country owned plans because it is less costly and more compassionate to prevent famine than it is to feed the starving. and we will make sure the plants focus on women who make up more than 70% of all agricultural producers in sub-saharan africa and are a big part of the solution. but a moderate agency must work with the link between the a opportunity to lead a healthy productive life and our own national security. is stronger. since the beginning of the civilian uplift in march of 2009, usaid is more than tripled its staff and afghanistan. right now, usaid field personnel are working side by side with the troops across the country. in kandahar our development officers said at a table with company commanders and afghan governor designing a project to reconstruct the irrigation can now. in helmand, marines quad's

patrol with our advisers engaging the local community to build more representative forms of local governments including local council and local sure us. in arkansas a district just outside of kandahar that i had the opportunity to visit earlier this spring, granted orchards are springing back to life creating jobs and economic opportunities. where usaid has held community essentially rebuilt the basis of their economy after it had been destroyed. we have learned in these contested communities is that the process of working with local leaders to do this type of work is just as important as repairing roads or digging wells. when our assistance is filtered through local governing process these we help prepare not just the road but we help to build a real government in a community. as so much of our focus is justifiably on the challenges in front of us in afghanistan, it is important to recognize how

far we have come. development efforts have taken root we have been able to make real improvements in the lives of the afghan people. we have improved road infrastructure to increase trade and ease mobility. and created educational opportunities for millions of children and extended basic health care to now nearly 85% of the population. the health initiative is of particular interest where a group of donors have come together to work in a very coordinated way through the ministry of health. and since 2002, infant mortality has fallen by 22%. so where you find usaid in the field, you will see what i saw in afghanistan. committed to public servants putting their lives at risk to keep our nation safe. one of them is here today and he will be heading out there very soon. bob, thank you for your service. sustainable development is essential to a sustainable

national security. the world has changed in the last decade and the development community starting with our agency must change, too. we have to become development entrepreneurs and through our ambitious reform agenda we hope that will be able to do that. we have to make innovation a core part of our approach because this work is challenging and difficult and we have to learn as we go and get better every day. and we have to work in a spirit of partnership. partnership with the government we are working with, partnership with the communities we are trying to support, partners with civil society and the private sector and many of the new actors and if a woman, large or small private foundations, a different technology providers that are using applications of mobile base technology in particular to create new options and opportunities for some of the poor communities in the world. on a really believe if we do all of this and if we make our work

extraordinarily transparent to the american public and public around the world the development is set to have a tremendous future and that's because of what we saw in haiti. at the end of the day, we have the best mission in the world. our mission is about bringing hope and opportunity and benefit to people who suffer greatly who don't benefit from increasingly interconnected world and who still suffer from disease or hunger that we know we can conquer and we can solve. the opportunity engaged in the mission is a tremendous one and when we saw more than half of all families in this country give to the haiti earthquake response average, we know that people have a thirst for participating in this mission. if we make it accessible and we shall we can do it efficiently, if we give people confident we can use sound strategy and real analytical thinking to actually

solve problems sustainably, i am convinced a development enterprise will have much more relevance in the next 50 years than we had in the first 50. thank you. i appreciate the chance to be here with you today and i look forward to taking questions. [applause] >> thank you for your willingness to take questions especially given your very ambitious traveled describing in your remarks. as you have outlined lots going on at usaid and about your initiatives. first question right now the state department and the usaid are in the middle of their overall policy review. the white house is doing its own policy review as well. will either or both of these be released to the public and when and what has your role been in this process? >> well, that is a great question. both will be released to the public and in both cases as soon as possible.

i believe the presidential study directive which is one of the things which he referred will perhaps be public sooner. the speed which is the quadrennial development agency brought about bye secretary clinton will be acceptable, publicly available this fall. but throughout both process these we have been consulting widely with stakeholders, partners, leading thinkers and partners on the hill to learn a set of ideas for how we can improve our development enterprise and development policy and thus be eight of course is even broader as it includes the diplomatic mission as well. >> the overall concern you will see expressed in the development community is that after these reviews control for policy and budget could be given to secretary clinton rather than your office. is that something you would object to? status is there a better positioned to fight for usaid if they have control.

do you agree? [laughter] >> now you're trying to get me in trouble. .. she demands greater accountability and greater outcomes and greater results for resources and development. this administration overall is really committed to elevating development in a different and fundamentally important way. secretary clinton is a very unique leader and has been a

tremendous champion for development. the president himself has a unique relationship to development and to the agency and has a deep knowledge and understanding of this work and incredibly supportive and also insistent that we expand our effectiveness, our transparency and really put all of the best practices of this field as it has evolved in the last few decades to work on behalf of american taxpayers. and, perhaps unique way you have a secretary of defense and they chairman of the joint chiefs of staff that are out there talking consistently about how we need to have more resources and development, we need more capabilities in our development enterprise and we need to do that with a greater focus on outcomes and results. i actually see all of this coming together as really elevating development, elevating all of the different parts of the development policy and certainly elevating in a significant and fundamental way

usaid. >> how much usaid's role as diplomatic versus humanitarian and how is that changed under your leadership? >> i don't know diplomatic is the right term. we are a development agency. we have a significant portfolio of activity in humanitarian relief and of course usaid is the first lead responder in humanitarian emergencies. but we do that as you saw in haiti in real coordination with so many other parts of the federal government that either bring unique capabilities or other assets and skills to the table so we can optimize our efforts where we work. at the end of the day it is not about what agency is doing what. it is about how many people in haiti have you supported and in what kind of manner. in terms of our development mission, we have the bulk of our agency is focused on long-term sustainable development and we have missions in more than 80

countries around the world that are actively building the expertise and the knowledge and the partnership and their relationships to carry out that mission to excellence so we have a lot of work to do but i would frame it that way. >> now, as you mentioned your background comes from the gates foundation. you talked a lot about creating development entrepreneurs and greater accountability and accomplishment rather than process oriented evaluations. increasingly foundations and humanitarian groups such as the gates foundation seem to be getting into the foreign aid where large amounts of money are being expended. the question is how does that affect the work of usaid and is a former executive of the gates foundation how would you describe the differences in effectiveness of private foundations like that and a government organization such as usaid right now? >> that is a great question, wherever it came from.

it is a different world and development to date that was 10 or 15 years ago. private foundations are part of that and certainly the scale of the foundation that bill and mellnda gates have created enron is a unique attribute in that landscape. we also have organizations like the one campaign and bono who are out there not not just advocating for development but engaging deeply in best practice in studying the differences between different development strategies and suggesting a more entrepreneurial or transparent approach would make a big difference as we go forward in the future. you have different kinds of partners, a corporate orders like pepsico and others that engage in various value chain programs. coca-cola launched a program in haiti for fruit juices. the field of development is certainly much broader today i believe then it was a wild back. in terms of private foundations, i think they play a very unique and incredibly important role.

they can often take tremendous risks. they can work very very long time in a very focused area like getting a big breakthrough like an aids vaccine. if you look at 38 million people around the world with hiv-aids the way we are going to solve that problem over time is prevention and treatment and hopefully a breakthrough in technology like a vaccine that can be used more cheaply and more effectively. they play a very unique role but that actually highlights that the public sector should be doing more and should be doing more effectively. we can also invest in science and technology. we can also take risks and stay focused. we should also be incredibly oriented around using our resources in a results-oriented way and trying to get as much leverage as we can into every investment we make so we are not reaching 7000 farmers and a part of senegal. we are reaching 200,000 in a sustainable way because we have

an attractive private sector. i also think there are a lot of opportunities for it development agencies now to partner with the gates foundation or any other foundation or any other enterprise that is out there because those types of partnerships often bring different skills to the table, different types of resources to the table and for some of the big breakthroughs like if we are really going to have mobile banking capacity that lets hundreds of millions of rural and lower income women have a safe place to save resources, that would be a huge value add to the world. those kinds of breakthroughs probably require technology expertise and corporate expertise, public sector investment, engagement with regulators in the country. you need to build those kinds of partnerships to get the really big wins and i am thrilled that her agency is jumping into that. we have a great history for a group that has been doing

public-private partnerships for more than a decade and that is now paying off in our capacity to move very quickly to do these types of deals and transactions. >> we have several questions on the future initiative and food security as a topic. many organizations have suggested in addition to agricultural development and nutrition a comprehensive approach to addressing hunger should include emergency response activities. can you discuss how the future will ensure emergency response and safety net efforts are incorporated into a comprehensive government wide approach? >> that is a great question. that is exactly what we are trying to do with the future initiative,. we have this wonderful event earlier this week. it has been such a great week four earlier this week we had an event called the world food prize which honor.your norman bore log who is the father of the green revolution and a tremendous leader.

those of you who know him have his absolute commitment to winning the war on hunger. to do that we are going to need to use every tool at our disposal smartly. that includes science and research to create new breakthroughs. it includes real extension systems to get goods and templates to small farmers and to help them produce more. it includes innovative ways to reach women in particular who have really been left out of the agricultural development programming and are the key to success in the future but it also includes bringing the private sector and so you have large-scale buyers and market demand bringing policymakers and so they can make the tough but important decisions to reinvest in agriculture in so many partners in the world are now doing and it of course includes providing safety net programs and feeding programs to vulnerable populations. i like pointing out that the usda budget is i think more than

$60 billion goes into supporting programs that make food accessible to needy populations here in the united states and if you look across any country food system, really tackling hunger requires working both on the production side and on the side that ensures access to vulnerable populations. when you look at what is happening in the world right now, i was in bangladesh were 47% of kids are stunted. that means they suffer chronic town attrition and that means at that age that they are going to slow their brain growth, their ability to learn, their ability to thrive for the rest of their lives. it doesn't have to be that way. we know how to solve that and that is why we are so committed to bringing all the tools of the federal government together in order to win this war on hunger. >> talking about food

accessibility, and your dress you mentioned briefly some of the efforts you have been making in terms of reducing barriers for food transportation between countries. one of the issues you will find in the agricultural community deals with local community purchase. one of your predecessors andrea natsios was very vocal in saying we have to shift food aid programs which are currently based on selling us-born commodities overseas to a local and regional base purchase programmer you would be putting cash and supporting agricultural development and possibly getting food to needy populations quicker. do you share mr. natsios's opinion we need to make a major shift from commodity-based to local purchases and where does that fit in your hierarchy of national food security? >> first let me say i have an offended from knowing and being friends with andrew for some time and before i started i went to visit him in georgetown and asked for his guidance and advice.

he said your agenda is all great and very exciting but you have to be prepared because if there is a major emergency you will have to drop all that and focus on that emergency for as long as it takes to make sure that we get it right. i said andrew thanks for that but i don't really think it is likely. blasco this is about the first 100 days and what are the chances that that is going to happen in the first 100 days. i saw him shortly after the earthquake and pointed out that he was quite right. it is absolutely true that we have to have both food assistance. the food we provide through food assistance programs-- i will give you one example. we send corn soy blend which has a higher protein content as part of school feeding programs and secretary vilsack and i had the chance to visit a program and islam and the beer in kenya and we met with probably 300 kids that were in the school getting a little red cup filled with

corn soy blend. we asked as many kids as we could what was the most important part of school for them and it was getting that cup of high-protein food. we have to just remember that our food assistance plays a critical role in supporting vulnerable populations around the world and at the same time, we have real opportunities to use local procurement to create the kind of markets for small-scale farmers that can help lift them out of poverty through their own hard work and ingenuity. so our future effort is doing just that. usda has invested in those types of efforts that as head of usaid so is important to both sets of tools at our disposal because again to address hunger, we really if we are going to win, we need to use every tool at our. >> you stated on several occasions that in development and specifically agricultural

development women are central to usaid's goals and activities. what exactly specifically are you doing to promote that? >> that is a great question. it is a great question because usaid is one of the agencies that two decades ago started kind of the drumbeat that women and girls are critical to development. we know that we have seen study after study that shows an additional dollar of income that goes to a woman is far more likely to be invested in the children in that family and approving their nutrition and their access to school and educational opportunities and their ability to pull their communities out of poverty towards a more successful life. and yet when we look at the millennial development poll and they have established goals for hunger and poverty, for health and human nutrition and for education, across the board one area where the goals have been slower than others is on those things that touch on women and girls. maternal and child health is an example of that.

so this administration has really tried to focus on concrete, specific things we can do to support women and girls access to these programs, to policies that will enable their success and we are doing a lot of very specific things. in our health program for example we are really focused on maternal and child health and trying to reinvest in those specific interventions that we know can be protected particularly in the critical 1000 day window from the minus nine when women are pregnant to two years out and in that window we know that that is where you win or lose the fight against attrition for both mother and children, so we are very targeted and focused on that particular problem. we can also do a range of other things. we can focus on concrete, operational decisions that will drive benefits and programs to women and girls specifically. in our future efforts we will collect women's income in a

disaggregated way so we can track outcomes very specifically for women. we will insist that people who are hiring extension workers to reach farmers higher women because we know women are more likely to reach out to other women and they are more effective at providing benefits in that context, especially as it relates to agricultural vouchers or inputs or knowledge and information. so there are a lot of different things we can do but we have to become really strictly operational about making the secretary's commitment and our general commitment to women and girls a reality around the world. we have to get beyond the knowledge that it is important. >> final question on food security. the administration suggests that wants to work with the private sector on food security. what exactly does that look like? how does the government best leverage private sector innovation resources and thought leadership? >> there are so many ways to answer that but let me give you

one example. i was in senegal visiting a company that is the first company to do ultrapasteurized milk distribution in that country, and when they think about their dairy market, they are actually looking at a huge unmet need for dairy products in senegal. they have a unique system for essentially collecting milk from small-scale dairy producers around the country, most of whom are women and most of whom are small-scale producers who otherwise will have a little bit of milk for their family and then we'll take the rest in either give it away or more likely move it to waste and spoilage. instead, this company together with usaid and our partners are investing in creating the specific milk collection hubs that are chilling facilities of people can go get a voucher, get financial return for taking their access milk and putting it

into a formal dairy system. in country after country if we can make that kind of opportunity available to tens or hundreds of thousands of small producers we can see the kind of large-scale change that india for example saw with what has been called the dairy revolution. it really change the income profile of hundreds of poor communities in india very large-scale. so it can succeed and they can succeed if we are smart and strategic about it and that is just one example of how we work with the private sector. >> variations of this have been the most commonly asked question today. how was is the agency tackling corruption issues? are they reliable ways to insulate and monitor projects to keep funds going where they need to go? >> that is a great question, and we have no tolerance for corruption in any of our programs. that is why we have the

inspector general on the ground in port-au-prince, in haiti helping oversee disbursements and contracts. it is why we have teams of inspector generals in afghanistan and pakistan that very rigorously evaluate the flow of funds. i think in addition to that we do a number of things to help address that issue. we invest in civil society and organizations like transparency international i can make funds flow more transparent so people can see where resources go in trying to build real accountability for public resources in particular. usa does have a lot of contracting mechanisms we can use to protect or shield the flow of our funds and we recognize that it is absolutely imperative to not put those funds at risk. at the same time, we do want to part with countries and one of the things we can offer countries that are working actively to improve their public management system is to build transparent public per curiam

and systems and to apply practices of sound and transparent financial management. once they do those types of things and once we certify they have done it and if we have a system for monitoring that then we can invest in those types of vehicles as well. it is it is a nuanced approach but we are absolutely committed to protecting u.s. tax dollars against corruption it really all costs. >> could you describe some of those systems and principles specifically in the context of afghanistan? >> afghanistan is a great example because we have gone there from about 8.5% of our overall spending going into public related mechanisms to about 13.5% and we expect that to go up. before the ministry of health is a great example. we spent years building a procurement system, working with the ministry and setting our own experts and their partners

expertise in the ministry to create the kinds of her chairman of vehicles that we could use to invest resources. once we have ensured that that was transparent and safe and we could monitor we started using it and we brought other partners and as well. the benefit of that was that a lot of other partners could use the same funding pipeline and it allowed for much better coordination with the ministry. it allows us to work with the ministry to define a basic package of health intervention and the results have been really quite impressive as in terms of the rapid scalability to 85% of the population. this agency can do really extraordinary things but sometimes it takes time and we have to make sure that we build accountability into everything we do. >> this morning the administration announced a global health initiative countries. for organizations working in this country what can be expected as the next step for ghi implementation? >> that is a great and timely

question because we did just make that announcement today and we are proud to have the ghi as part of our portfolio overall. the global health initiative is really about looking at how we work in countries and trying to get more for our collective investment across usaid's investment, crossed the investments made by the centers for disease control and the cross pep bar and so many other aid programs that touch on the health sector including the national institutes of health so it is a way to bring our work together and get more outcome for resources that are going in and it is a way to live out the principles we have articulated for our agency that we want to work in partnership. we don't want to build a parallel system of service delivery. we want to know what is the country's plan for their health system and how can we align our work with that plan and how can we help them build the capacity to sustain these investments over time so our commitment are

not endless. so, what our country teams are in the process of doing is coming together across the inter-agencies, developing a shared health system strengthening approach to global health in those places, reinvesting and smart evidence-based strategies for reaching women and children, maternal and child health in particular and focused on where they can get the most leverage by working together. what that means for implementing partners is that we would ask that you work with us to design programs that abide by those criteria, that you work with us to work across agencies and across to grams and fundamentally you work with as so many of you already do-- he work with country ministries and country systems so that we can make the work that we do really country owned and country managed and over the long term, we can be a pass for success and

sustainability. >> the reconstruction in haiti will require a multisector approach. how will usaid shelter reconstruction assistance, job generation and economic growth, improve access to basic sanitation as well as improve education opportunities? >> that is a great question and i might ask paul to help address it but part of what we are doing is what i talked about in my remarks which is just one example but helping to train local firms in modern and code specific construction methods and using those types of construction materials is one way to ensure that as resources are spent in the reconstruction, the lead to the creation of local economic opportunities and a vibrant local private sector that can then sustain the haitian economy over time. if you look across a range of sectors, if you take that basic approach, that is a big part of

how we are trying to do that by marrying expertise from here with expertise and management capability that exists in haiti. we think we can use this new model and in many cases we learn from how we did this in other parts of the world. what works and what doesn't work and we are very much trying to build a vibrant, long-term, sustainable and one-day prosperous haiti as a result of this tragic event. >> one of the challenges in haiti as it has the highest per capita tuberculosis burden. the current tuberculosis vaccine is almost 90 years old and is becoming less effective. what support may usaid offered to support the research and development of new tb vaccine's? >> we are ready both directly support and work with the national institutes of health that does a lot of work on creating new health technologies in particular new vaccines. hiv, tb and malaria will vaccines are among the most important in terms of having the

kinds of technologies that can actually over time really eliminate these diseases and there have been big breakthroughs on the development pathways for each of those, so we continue to work with the global expert community to do that and we envision intensifying our support in our engagement with other federal science partners to really get real outcomes as quickly as possible. in tb their other great breakthroughs that are even closer like improved diagnostic technologies that can help rapidly access to low-cost the type of tb someone has and that can affect the treatment regimen. there are a lot of great opportunities and investing in a range of health research items and we are proud to be supporting a number of those public-private partnerships that do that work and also will continue to expand our efforts in that area. 's be more globally, looking at aids prevention, the u.s. has been funding organizations that fund aids prevention for a strictly heterosexual lens to

collecting cultural taboos. how does usa try to meet the diversity for hiv/aids prevention? >> you know, hiv/aids prevention, first it is important to note how important prevention is. even as we have seen big successes with the president's emergency program for hiv treatment, a lot of what that has enabled is getting people a sense of real hope and than that encourages voluntary testing and counseling and encourages access to a broader range of prevention programs. we have to do a better job of getting more cases and infections averted if we are going to be successful in changing the at the academic-- epidemic writ large. a lot of science in a lot of research is going into what are the best methods. there've been particular insights into everything from male circumcision to how particular behaviors, behavior

programs and engagement can be effective large-scale and we are trying to learn from all of those and recalibrate our programs so we are fundamentally an evidence-based approach to hiv prevention. but this is one of the big challenges in global health is really understanding what the interventions are over the next decade that will really help make huge reductions and i just came from senegal where they had early on in the course of the epidemic a lot of public leadership, very forward-looking policies, used access to and other interventions and they were very successful at keeping the prevalence rate under 1%. i think it is .7% today. so we don't successes possible and we need to be much more aggressive than focused about getting it diverted. >> we are almost out of time but before asking the last question we have a couple of important matters to take care of. to remind her audience members and guests of's future speakers.

at monday dr. edward miller dean and ceo of johns hopkins medicine will discuss notable aspects of new health care laws. on june 23, oliver stone award-winning film director whose latest film itself of the border, will speak about the movie, making it-- and on july 7 venus williams will be here to address the luncheon. also on sports don't forget on july 17 the national press club will once again be hosting the national press club 5k and beat the deadline for early registration before june 30 to help the national journalism library to register. go to www.press.org. with that we would like to present our guest at the moment we have all been waiting for, the traditional national press club mug. [applause] and now our final question. it is inevitable when one

reaches a position of national press club speaker and head of the national government agency at a relatively young age compared to a lot of the people we have speaking here, no commentary on them and no commentary on you. you worked for the gates foundation. ufr for the u.s. department of agriculture as a chief scientist. you are the head of usaid but for some people in this room that is not enough. the final question, development experts have said they usaid chief position should be elevated to cabinet status or to a seat on the national security council. do you agree? [laughter] >> i thought we were going to a different place without question. in case anybody wants to know i really wasn't running for president at all. [laughter] look, i think it is incumbent upon us to get this reform agenda enacted into make usaid the most effective and strategically significant

development enterprise anywhere in the world. i have now seen what our people are capable of and i know we can be successful at that and i'd know in this administration we have a huge amount of support for development at all levels. i have been fortunate to have as much access as i could possibly ask for to help carry out this mission. secretary clinton has been to our building to express her support. michelle obama came to do the same. we have supporters everywhere, but what we need to do is execute on our mission. i really believe it is the best mission in the world which makes this one of the best jobs in the world. so i love it and i'm very excited about it. thank you. >> thank you for coming today. [applause] ..

>> someone work with everybody. >> i also want to say before i start, senator gramm has been so articulate and thoughtful i think it is a wonderful thing to see when bipartisanship works. i want to thank you for a growing to -- agreeing to do which you said you would do. you have made a big sacrifice from your family. this is not a job or you get to come home every day at 5:00. i appreciate what you are doing.

it is a great thing to look back on. i want to thank you for what you are doing. you are bringing some much to the job. these other issues are important. many americans are concerned about what we are doing to make sure that they feel safe and secure, not just in a nationally but also on the domestic front. i want to spend some time about my favorite subject, which is what i am doing to make sure people involved in this crisis will pay the price. with reduce resources, it gets harder and harder. we have $75 million coming just to fight financial fraud. what type of a priority to you think this is? >> the area of financial fraud

is something that has impacted every single american. the loss of money and savings and retirement accounts, faith in our capital markets has been devastating. it is something that we need to make sure that people are held accountable to. this is so important. only by making sure that people know there are consequences to having perpetrated this type of fraud will we have the hope of deterring anybody from doing it. i hearken back to some of the discussion we had in other sessions. one of the main ways to do this is to go after the individual executives who are responsible to make sure the they are not just going to walk away because the corporation takes a hit. they will go to jail and suffer the consequences. they make millions and millions of dollars will be forced to give it back.

that to me is one of the keys that could come in a successful program to deal with this. from what i see, there has been an increase in resources. it is hitting the ground. i have checked with friends in the fraud section and criminal division. they said they have been hiring. that is promising. i find that a very important first step to start dealing with this issue. there has been a lot of talk about it. it is finally getting done. >> you mention coronation. let us start with the u.s. attorney's. there is a long history of u.s. attorneys being protected of their turf. you have a case being carried on main justice.

how do we get u.s. attorney's main justice? you are uniquely positioned. you are the only people in the justice department that they report to. i know your experience about these things. how can they operate together in share everything they are doing? >> when i was in the justice department years ago, the less successful cases i saw is where the criminal division in the u.s. attorney's office worked together. there's a great deal of expertise coming out of that division. there is an enormous amount of talent there. this is much like everything else we did. we need to use all the tools we have and make sure that we avoid any sort of infighting.

sometimes there are valid complaint in issues about who should have a case, but we are a very large organization. the more the justice department can work together, the greater success. >> the only couple of people that can enforce that are you and the attorney general. how do you see that happening? >> looking forward, it would involve the assistant attorney general, who is an excellent prosecutor and lawyer. he would interface with a lot of the u.s. attorney's on this case. they have the expertise. as the u.s. attorney's office its more familiar with them and gets to know them and see what the value can be, the resources then they start to get comfortable and work together. a few successes is usually the

key to make everybody preakthrough and realize there is gold to be mined from the cooperation. >> there are a number of reports, one of the key places to obtain information was the bank regulators. talk about how you get the bank regulators into this thing. >> there have been a large number of federal agencies that have touched the financial meltdown. we need to get what we can from them, because they all have a perspective and saw a part of it that can be very helpful in trying to bring these cases. we should use whatever source of the information we can that can be found in the justice department's and use whatever source of every nation that can be fined to get inside on how the financial problems occur, who was responsible for them, to try to bring those people to justice. >> i want to thank you for what

you have done. it sends a clear message. it is not about retribution, but making sure they are treated fairly. there are people that think they got the financial fraud thing absolutely scot-free. it is complex because they have very good attorneys on their side. they seem to have gotten away from this. it is important to where we go down the future that we are working together. i think having you come on and do this job is an incredible son. the people we are getting a really key. we do not want another meltdown. we do not want people to think they can do it without any fear of retribution. thank you again for what you are doing. it is very important. >> thanks. >> thank you for your public

service. thank you to your family and the sacrifices they put up. we know this is a family effort. we thank you all for your willingness to serve in the public. the senator made an observation that i fully agree with. he says he will call it the way it is. you will do what you think is right. you have the ability to avoid the outside pressures and do what you think the job requires you to do. i sought the investigation is in the house with the speaker newt gingrich. some of us to agreed where you were heading. you were persuasive in the way that you handled it to get us back on the path to resolve the case as it should of been resolved. do we have your commitment that

as deputy attorney general you will continue to call it the way you believe is right and you will not be influenced by partisan politics or popular sentiments? he will continue to carry out these possibilities the way you believe is right? >> if i am confirmed, you have that as a firm commitment. >> thanks. that may test you in one area. it is the closing of guantanamo bay. it is a tough issue. i am not trying to make it easy to accomplish the goal of closing it. one of the challenges -- i was recently down there. it is not my first time visiting there. what do we do about those detainee's that we cannot bring to trial? there is no place to really send them, and we have to detain them for a longer period of time? president obama made a

commitment and senator gramm was part of that that there would be a process in place to review their status, so that we could present to the international community that we are using due process of law to make sure the people that are being detained, there is justification for their detention even though they are not brought to a criminal proceeding and released. i question the attorney general as to when we would expect to see those. more than a few days and less than a year. i would hope that you would tackle this issue and have this resolved, because in the eyes of the international community, guantanamo bay is an icon of abuse. people who may be terrorists are still entitled to the rule of law. we need to make sure that is complied with in how we manage

this. i charge you with your reputation to try to bring this to conclusion sooner or later. >> i think it is a very high priority matter. >> this past friday, i was in the gulf of mexico and saw her with the damage caused by the oil spill. it is hard to imagine how fast this problem is. we saw it on a beach community, not too different from ocean city, maryland. there was nobody there except for the people cleaning up the beaches. i cannot imagine what would happen if we closed ocean city for a season. look at the sensitive islands where birds are nesting in sea

oil all over them. bp oil needs to be held fully accountable for the damages they cost. in their application for their permit, they said they have a proven technology to deal with any type of spill. they did not have proven technology. they are trying to deal with this issue on the fly. there should have been ways to contain this spill. that technology should have been on site. the best technology today may contain upwards 28,000 barrels if they are fully successful. we know they are closer to 40,000 barrels of oil pouring into the gulf of mexico. my point is that if you are confirmed and become deputy attorney general, we need to make sure this is protected. there should be no government

bailout for damages caused by bp oil. we have to have aggressive law enforcement. the department of justice needs to be there with significant amounts of resources to help those property owners, the taxpayers and protect our environment from future generations assessing accurately the damage caused to our environment. will this be the highest priority to the department of justice under your portfolio if you are confirmed to? >> my understanding is that it already is a very high priority. the devastation that has been visited upon the gulf is important to the president, the attorney general, and the people that live down there. every effort as i understand it is addressing all of the issues that you just outlined as very important prerogatives.

>> let me thank you for being willing to serve. you have a very distinguished career. your experience is what we need. i wish you well. thanks. >> like many of the graduates of the department of justice, i watched with real or and dismay as the events in the department of justice in the gonzales attorney generalship unfolded. what was horrified was what happened at the office of legal counsel. it is almost unimaginable that the office of legal counsel would be the subject of an investigation. that happened. we have to deal with that. it also ran into its own problems. david margolis review the the

investigation and had concerns oprt concernsop destination. one person things that his opinion has become president. when you are confirmed, will the review that determination and make a departmental determination as to what the standard should be of four lawyers at the office of legal counsel. where it stands right now is that the regular day today

lawyer with the files under his arm go into the court to bang out his cases every day is held ton he makes representations a higher standard than the office of legal counsel when they give advice to the president of the united states. i think that is wrong. i think that when a lawyer is before a court, the standard that they are held to as a couple of safeguards. one is they do their own independent research. second, he has his distinguished second council to explain it to the court that lawyer is wrong and why he has overlooked those cases. but this does not have those

checks and balances. for those reasons, the standard for the office of legal counsel was the gold standard. these are people that went on to the supreme court judges. the idea that they are held to a lower standard than the regular work of a lawyer who is slugging it out with 12 cases under his, to me just seems dead wrong. if you would review that when you get there, that should be a formal departmental determination made rather than just the david margolis opinion. >> it is a matter that i would be happy to look into if confirmed. >> the second issue of want to ask about -- >> coming up next, a member of the afghan parliament talks about his country's future. and then president obama talks about the economy and jobs.

live at 7:00 eastern are your comments and questions on the "washington journal." >> general david petraeus testified on afghanistan this week before the senate armed services committee. he can't tell you to support the plans -- he continued to tell support the president's plans of with a drawl. you can see that testimony later this week. >> take a new look on his tour of america. he has a new book. this is sunday on q&a. >> supreme court justice clarence thomas and the prospect

of a new justice. >> it changes the whole family when you bring on a new member. it is different today than what it was when i first got here. i have to admit, we great -- regrow very fond of the court. >> with the confirmation hearings of kagan on june 28, learn more about the nation's highest court in this book, "the supreme court." you'll get unique insight about the court. it is available in hardcover and also as an ebook. >> a member of the afghan parliament talks about what he sees under president car site and offers suggestions for improving the lives of afghans. this is at george washington university. it lasts about 90 minutes. you to george washington university, to the elliot

school here and to our roundtable -- our ambassador roundtable series. even though not a formal ambassador, he certainly is an ambassador for the afghan people to thunited states, and vice versa. this is the 45th in a series where we have had either ministers with responsibility for counter-terrorism or ambassadors representing their countries in the united states to talk on some of the challenges their countries are facing, both domestically as well as --. we are delighted today, and we have some competition. if i were not here, i would be glued to the t.b like many of my friends are, with your consequences that if i were living in somalia, were watching soccer is not an option.

the stakes and the outcomes for today's discussion is great as the world cup is, are much greater. obviously, the future of afghanistan not only has great impact to the united states, but most importantly to the afghan pele. we are delighted today to have someone shared his perspectives and his pulse as to where afghanistan is today, where it going ithe future. most of the "newsweek see and hear in the united states is rarely positive -- most of the news we see and hear in the united states is rarely positive. there are reserves that are untapped, both copper and lithium, but obviously, afghanistanasts hands full in terms of challenges. politics anywhere is a contact sport. it is obviously a difficult set of issues, but i think in afghanistan is much more so,

where increasingly politicians to stand up against the taliban and other forces find themselves in very tough positions, including assassinations. most of you read just last week the young 7-year-old who was hanged because his grandfather was trying to push back on some of the taliban in the region, and obviously this has some significant consequences for all our books. i just met daoud today, but i have read some of his statements over the years, and the resonated with me. this is someone who is fighting not only for better afghanistan, but someone who is standing up and making bold statements, as well as the needfor faster, quicker, andetter political reform in afghanistan. politics everywhere is tough, and is that much more so in

afghanistan. we are delighted today to be able to host daoud sultanzoy, who is the chairman of the economics committee in the parliament in afghanistan to share some thoughts withs. maybe 20 minutes, and then we will open that up to questions and answers. we also welcome our c-span viewers this morning. >> thank you very much for the opportunity. the most important thing of like to say today, probably the most important part of my statement, is to think the people of the united states for their generosity, their sacrifices, d their willingness to

persevere against all odds, where politics dictates other things. the people of the united states at this point and afghanistan recognize that the stakes are so high, it is not just about security in afghanistan, but the extension of that stabilitor lack thereof can affect not only the region but beyond that region. you look at the demographics of afghanistan, about 85% of the population of that country is below age 25. again, i think the people of the unitedtates -- thank the people of the united states. we appreciate the sacrifices that your young men and women have made, and the fallen soldiers in the country will not be forgotten. it is for freedom, for dignity

of human beings, not just one country. while it is easy to politicians to use slogans like civilian casualties to legitimize their presence, it is important to recognize the sacrifices and say that these people are there for a cause. even civilian casualties happen when taliban and the enemies of freedom are hiding in civilian areas and the cause the civilian casualties, but it is not talked about in that fashion becae it is not popular. some of us talk about it. i will tell you a story, just about two months ago in a village near kabul, about 60 kilometers west, there were as

a -- there was a house where people got together and said they were burning the koran, the holy book of muslims. some got on a soapbox and try to take advantage up that story. we should have the courage to stand up and bring people back to reality. so i took that liberty and said, let's wait, let's investigate and see if the americans are so 90 or so reckless to come to a musl country and step on a holy book of the people, does that make sense? tour three years later after the investigation was finished, it was discovered that the taliban had done this. some politicians have to be courageous and sometimes stand

up and tell the truth, especially in those parts of the world, because everything has become personalized. systems are built around personalities, and systems collapse after those personalities have gone. therefore, that is what we do not have continuity. that is why we are fighting for a system where people cannot, systems count, not personalities who you systems as their choice. -- who use systems as their choice. it would be better for me to touch on a few things briefly and then open the floor for questions. i am sure it will be more productive that way. i would like to just go back and revisit the situation in afghanistan after 9/11. after 9/11, afghanistan became a very popular subject.

the international community's interest created an unexpected level of expectation. that expectation was not managed. some of the expectations were realistic, some were unrealistic, and some of the tension was genuine. some was just a byproduct of the intrinsic attention that cost everything. on one hand, the urecedented amount of media coverage, that aid money and the attention of the international community, and on the other hand, the inability of the afghan government, the weakness of the afghan government, created a very complicated situation which was mismanaged by the afghan government. we still have not had the courage to acknowledge that. in the third years of war in

afghanistan, we have turned into an asian that feels aense of -- turned into a nation that feels a sense of eitlement. the political leadership in our country has not taken the leadership t emphasize and reinvigorate the necessity of national responsibility. that usually should start from the top, on the polital leadership itself. that has been lacking in afghanistan. that is why when the mission started in afghanistan, the people of afghanistan were wholeheartedly a very enthusiastic and totally with the mission. slowly, corruption, lack of rule of law, bad governance, some bad choices by the afghan government, and at least the lack of ability of the

international community to recognize certain sensitivities and cultural differences and other thin created a recipe that was creating a failure in front of our eyes without us recognizing it. slowly the people started drifting away from the process, and the government of ghanistan, the leadership in afghanistan did not have the ability to recognize that and stop that. the gap became a vacuum, a void in which the people who were unhappy about the government, the regional players in iran and pakistan and perhaps other countries in the region and beyond, they found this opportunity to instigate further instability, because america was

there, because the west was there and this was an opportunity for them to get even with america. so i think we cannot ignore those factors. the mst important factor that i always come back to and always point to is our own self responsibility of the nation as a government. that has been very anemic, to say the least. with that, the sult of a weak government, the result of a lack of law, the populations alienation created a vicious circle. now the government lacks even a perceived legitimacy that should exist in a government after an election. that in itself has become a negative energy, and the government itself, in order to regain that legitimacy, instead going to the people to find

that, they are trying to go to the donor countries, to the other countries who are helping us, and they are seeking approval and legitimacy elsewhere, where legitimacy should be with the people of the country. this is another mistake we are making. we are busy looking at washington, tokyo, berlin, paris for approval and legitimacy. the closest, easiest place to go and seek that legitimacy is probably in the villages of afghanistan and the homes of afghans who are suffering from corruption, lack of real law, and the resulting effects. for example, you all have self owns, electric -- you all have cell phones, and electric bills. how my of you go to pay your electricity bill and have to bribe people to accept your money that you should be paying?

in afghanistan, have experiee myself as a member of parliament, i have asked someone to take care of the electricity bill and go paid for, and he comes to me and says we have to bribe the person so we can pay the bill. this is unacceptable. or in order to pay your telephone bill, you have to bribe people. or go in deposit or withdraw your money from a bank, you have to bribe the bank to accept your money or to give your money. nobody will accept this. that is why the legitimacy should be reborn. we need to pay attention to those little things. the little things make the biggest difference in countries like afghanistan. i do not want to depicthe doom and gloom picture here. the situation that has created

the attention that the world has paid to afghanistan has given us some by-products. freedom of speech, the media, achievements in the telecommunications area, legitimate commerce. these are all things that people did themselves with their own initiatives, investment, and te efforts of free enterprise, people or trying to make a difference in the private sector have created opportunities. these freedoms are also at stake at this point, if we allow things to reverse, and the course is teetering on that edge of reversing themselves. those freedoms that are becoming part of the day life of

the afghans are in jeopardy, so we have to be very careful. i am very astonished when i hear in the past few months in different capitals of the world, that we are not in afghanistan to promote democracy. we do not want the american style of democracy or the french or german or european style of democracy. we live in societies in the 21st century where people are looking for basic services, basic individual civic freedoms that humanity needs to conduct its daily affairs. for good governance, for better justice system. these are the essence of democracy. afghan burdo different than americans or europeans when they seek those things -- are no different that americans or europeans when they see those things.

a government that guarantees the freedom that every individual thashould enjoy. that becomes the driving force for democracy, for people's participation to take care of their daily affairs, to create a system where they can participate in governance. for lack of a better government in afghanistan, in order to allow people to conduct their daily affairs and govern themselves, this again takes us to a situation where democracy becomes the only choice for the people who want to improve their lives. whether we like it or not, democracy is the choice that people cannot walk back on. there is no other alternative for it. i think the international community and those societies to enjoy a and are sitting on the

moral high ground and enjoying democracy, for them to say we are not interested in democracy in a country like afghanistan, it is hypocritical to the entire islamic world. then if we do not do anything, what will happen? those societies will fall into the hands of tyranny and extremism. can we afford that? look at france. just a few months ago, afghan and pakistan refugees were in camps outside paris. why were they there? there were not there to have a good time. they were there because they were looking for some freedoms, economic and political. if we do not pay attention to countries like afghanistan, to provide an opportunity to help those societies have better

government, better systems, then where will those tens of millions of young people go to? either they will be absorbed by extremism in their own societies -- some of them can travel. they will go to european countries. by extension, can the united states of for that in the long run? it is only lical and practical to create opportunities in their own countries for them to thrive and prosper and at least live a dignified life in the 21st century. in the past few years, the economic mafia, which has

consisted of drug cartels, warlords, and those to gain government positions from the circles, they have treated -- created a political mafia in the country that right now is threatening one of the most important opportunities after the presidential election hamas and horry were, which is the parliamentary election. if we do not pay attention to this parliamentary election, in the only opportunity that the people of afghanistan have to regain self confidence, to regain the trust in the system they are embarking on an eeriment they are undertaking, then we would have lost a very, very important opportunity. therefore it behooves our allies, especially the united states of america, especially those of you who are aware of the value of democracy, the value of people's ability to

exercise their well, to make sure that we all raise our voices for a free and fair election, if it happens. the most important caveat in my opinions security. right now, the latest report that have, at least half of the voting centers in the country were declared unsafe or unmanageable because of security. i am not saying that elections should not be held, but they should be held so that people can participate in them. if not, the question should be answered basically in the next few weeks, will have better answers. the security situation improves and is such that we can have fair general elections in most of the country, then i think

this is a good opportunity. otherwise, we have to weigh this very seriously, just becaus we should hold elections to fulfill some political calendars in kabul or in washington or berlin are tokyo, i don't thinke should shortchange the taxpayers of the world who are helping us or the afghan people. there are oth issues to talk about, but i would also urge good questions that will be raised, and i will address those things. there are 23 other issues tha are -- that i will touch upon -- two or three other issues that i will touch upon briefly. we had a piecpeace jurga. some said it was an unnecessary

waste of time. in a country where you are embarking on a democratic experience our process, said the exercises of that sort index six exercises of that sort are more beneficial than not having it. the majority of the participants were not elected. there were close to 1700 participants. the majority were not elecd. probably about00 of them were elected members. was one of them. still, there were 38 committees, and i visited most of those committees and tried to play a role because there were many who waed to derail the freedoms that we have achieved in the media and in the field of free expression. they wanted to curtail those things. i recognize that, so we visited every committee, and there were

vigorous dcussions there. there were vigorous debates, disagreements. the conclusion, i thought this was a very good exercise, for getting the political reasons for which was held. none of its recommendations are resolutions are binding. th came up with communiques, as a major before it was held to change the name. it was initially named the peace jurga. then we said in the presence of a constitutional system that has the separation of powers, where the parliament legislates, this jurga has no legal jurisdiction and authority to come up with any sort of resolutions. that is why the name was changed, and the resolutions

therefore are non-binding. they are all recommendations, and the government of afghanistan can take those recommendations and turn it into the main points of policy and then bring it tohe parliament for approl. that was a good achievement, in my opinion. another thing i would like to talk about is managing the afghan affairs. lately there have been some rumors or at least discussions that afghanistan is going to be subcontracted to pakistan again. i hope that the united states as the main driver of international effort in afghanistan does not look at afghanistan as an extension of anybody's power in that region. afghanistan is a nation. it consists of a proud people there. we are as proud of americans --

as proud as americans. we may have poverty there. we may havead worse, that governments, but one thing that is important, and i disagree with so-called afghan experts when they say afghans do not want governance, they do not like the rule of law, they are unruly people. they do not like this or that. they forget to pay attention to our history. we have never been governed. we have always been ruled. a group of people who have never been governor, how can you conclude that they do not like governance? how can you conclude that they do not like the rule of law? if there -- everything has been at the whim of a few individuals, cousins, brothers, warlords, sons and daughters. if they have ruled the nation for 2.5 centuries, then we come and write books about that nation, that is a very reckless

conclusion at the very least. afghans would have to be governed in the 21st century to be part of this world. the world with all its problems requires harmony. the world with all of its challenges ahead of it requires harmonynd cooperation. even if a society does not like it, we cannot just leave it and walk away. we have to provide the tools so that society can embark on e same jury that the rest of the wor is on, in my opinion. for that and other reasons, afghanistan should not be looked at from be indian or russian or any other lens. we have to clean up and look at it through its own landens.

we have to prove it to that region that prosperity and progress in the region, economic opportunities in the region, can create an opportunity for afghanistan to be a bridge. is a very, very obvious thing, which brings me to the st point i would like to make, about a trillion dollars of natural resources that afghanistan is sitting on. we have been privy to some of this information for a while. it is illions of dollars of natural resources that the country is sitting on. the thirst for raw materials is from cna, and the rest of the region there and beyond. it will be who must pay attention -- behoove us to pay attention to how to take care of

those resources and not give them into the hands of those who will not only lude but pollute at the same time. this is another challenge that if not mannish, can be a curse also. with that, i would again like to thank the people of the united states, you are institute, a new ladies and gentlemen for being here, and i hope i can answer all your questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much for a very comprehensive picture, an one that i think people need to hear and understand. obviously, we have many unanswered questions. i am not sure we are always asking the right questions, but i will take advantage of sitting where i am asking the first, and

then opening it up to the audience here. by the way,loot and pollute, that is a pretty good bumper sticker. it almost goes without saying that economic growth and prosperity cannot occur without security underpinned by the rule of law. the question i ask is, who really is the rule law? once you get outside of kabul, it is obviously a very different sort of territory. i was struck by the comment made by the reason resignation of the intelligence minister, who had claimed that basically, karzai felt that the united states and the west was not committed, has cast in his lot with the taliban in pakistan. obviously that does not bode very well f a long-term picture. i would be curious what your

thoughts are on that particular statement. also, how we could actually get to that point where we can have even enforcement's. in all alone, it is how we enforce those laws and the spirit behind tho principles. i would be curious how you see that potentially emerging. finally, the peace jurga, one of the messages i think came out loud and clear from the recent event, which of course is a positive development, and goodness the suicide or homicide bombing attempt, which was not successful physically, but it was successful in terms of getting all the western media to focus on that event. i think the taliban is recognizing that even failures technically could become strategic successes.

how do we change that tie to focus on the things that really matter? >> one of thways we can take care of some the problems you alluded to with corruption at the village level oracle the national level, or even international corruption that we cannot ignore, is that in a country like afghanistan, the rule law and from top down, respect for law and order, nepotism, all the circle of influence and interested parties who were allied with the president or with other gros, they have created an aura and

also a group. the people of afghanistan look at it and say they are invincible, beyond approach, untouchable in the sense of -- first of all, they have political rength. second, they have arms, and at our expense they have gained a lot of wealth also. all these things have combined and created a group that oner or later, if we are not careful, they will also control the destiny of that nation for many decades to come. so the rule of law and accountability, not only national but international accountability, should not be just a rhetorical slogan. what has the united states or the rest of the world have the -- help the afghan government accountable in practice?

on one and we talk about these things, and on the other hand we say and do something else. this sends a mixed signal. it is just like raising a child that is misbehaving. if you give them everything they want without holding them responsible, whatappens eventually? i think holding everybody accountable and responsible -- >> you are not saying things have to get worse before they get better. >> know, things are much worse. we have to turn things from rhetoric to practice. i was present at a gathering were the president opened a seminar about fighting corruption, about five months ago. they created a new entity, the high commission to fight corruption. my comment, and immediately after the gathering to the media

was, we do not need commissions and committees in seminars and conferences to fight corruption anywhere in the world. if you have laws, if you have a prosecution, if you have courts, and if you have crux, what the need to do? you do not need to give seminars. just put those four things together and get results. there is no lack of corrupt people and higofficials in that country. we have laws, we have courts, we have the police, we have the prosecution. all we need to do is have the political will to put the whole thing together. i was sitting about 30 meters away from where the rockets fell in a big tent where the jurga. even in the u.s., you cannot provide 100% security when it comes to terrorism.

terrorism is a phenomenon that only populationparticipation, civilians participating in securing their environment, and giving them the incentive to participate, can give us the most percentage of security. but there is no such thing is 100% security anywhere in the world, in myopinion. for that sacking, the best thing i can say is that this sacking was in the mix weeks and weeks and months before this jurga. i saw the signs, and this is the consolidation of power. when people want to turn into strongmaen, they consolidate power, and they go into areas where the security apparatus is

and they want to clean that up and bring their own people. this was in the mix for weeks and months before. >> finally, taliban and other entities -- i would be curious how many western foreign fighters you are aware of in the region. next-to-last estimate is about 3500 to 400 non afghan fighters among the taliban forces. i would say about 15,000 to 20,000 mediocre taliban. some are really hard core taliban, very few in my opinion. others are profiteers of war,

and at the group's two are turning -- unhappy groups who are turning to weapons. the whole thing is estimated to be around 15,000 to 20,000. in upcoming weeks, you will see the numbers swell, because they will probably try to recruit more people to disrupt the election. therefore you will see an upsurge in violence and more in security in the vulnerable parts of the country. we are already seeing those signs. but if you went to -- it is a shrinking thing in the wintertime. they just a hibernate. when that snow melts, the comeback. >> if you could please identify

yourself, and turn on the mike. >> at the beginning of your discussion, you talked about the personality being the driver of people themselves. what does it take to put the systems in place that will ensure that the people are the drivers? >> a very important question, actually. it has been eight years that i have been talking to some colleagues in the international community. on one hand, billions of dollars are being spent on many things. the most obvious thing where there is a huge imbalance in the country is political activities in the country. we have student groups, we have islamic parties, we have the regional playe