do, you will recognize the strength that they have. you will build on their strengths and enable them. there are many barriers that we found when drug and alcohol was involved. there are problems in amerco alcohol and drug this education, with because our problems he sent a savior, but that's something else. >> thank you. i'll ask one more question and 2u7. we'll open we recently had a lot of commentary about 50 years since war on poverty was launched. to talk pportunity about what our solutions are as conservatives. briefly giveld you

an assessment of the 50 war on about what it's going to take to break through the ideas. 50 year anniversary was anuary 8th and as congressman jordan already said president lindon johnson said he wanted to attack the causes of prof symptoms.nd not the that's a noble intention. is it born out. today that comprises 80 provide, programs that cash, food, house know, medical ssistance and targeted ssistance to poor and low income individuals. a total price tag over the years trillion. i bring that up only to say if we were going to win this war on spending, we would have done it a long time ago. look more deeply at the things that bob's calling o us look at, the incentives

within these welfare programs. this is just as true for any is ate enterprise that trying to tackle t incentives matter. period the time unwed child bearing rate has gone from single digit to 40% markers e have some that we need to be aware of, but get very focused on the incentives that will bring out stories and that's what congressman's jordan's bring tion will do and the food stamp requirement into he puzle and that's just 'em pwepl mattic of one problem. so the reform act that was widely hailed left and right as it eat success because transformed the old aid to childrenwith dependant into a path towards self-sufficiency and required that people sure were engaged in work activities over time. effects.to dramatic

the welfare roles fell in half poverty reached an entire low and that was an rere to say let's paoe pete that in others of these 80 programs but too many walked done.and said the job is the job is not done. justice to the poor in the united states and we need to keep working and build on that success. next step is congressman jordan's legislation and look orward to engaging in this new conversation about how we make he path toward sufficient-sufficiency clear and incentives match that. > i would like to add a footnote to that. the black opportunity is more of barometer of the health of the nation. 196085% of black families had a man and woman raise children.

gone down to 30%. poverty spending were the cure then detroit a social reform mecca, but it isn't. ecause the problem is structural 70% of every dollar spent on poor people does not go people. it goes to those who serve poor people. which problems are solvable but which ones are fundable this year. incentives forse professional service providers o serve the poor no matter how compassionate they may be if their income and careers are upon having people serve no matter how compassionate, you're asking to sacrifice their own personal careers and their empower poor r to people. onservatives by contrast have no proprietary or strategic interest in the existences of

therefore they've got more of an incentive to people with the suffering the problem. but we've got to make that kind and demonstrate to people that we're willing to -- we must inal point is non-governmental interventions. or instance, in indianapolis, indiana you have a program where church -- tprerbgs, you have kurt moore. he spent 13 years in federal out and found christ and didn't leave him in with him. brought him but kurt needed a job. job in this ministry washing cars for another member of the church for four months. he said why don't you go in business four yourself. and was given a beat-up van some equipment and kurt started washing cars in people's

driveways. two years after that he employs has contracts with 23 car dealer ships to wash trucks. so i'm -- we need to come in. ohn williams is a local business guy and so now they are in partnership to talk about iving him access to capital because he has to buy new equipment but he doesn't have any credit because he was in prison. but when we can come in and partner with people like that, access to capital, begin toand so that we establish these kinds of relationships all over the 15 try and the church has other entrepreneurs rather thanville identifying the rich, let's provide the means for for creating wealth and their business acumen so we can grow and generate jobs by building on the strength of communities.ose

we need to always talk in terms of what is working in those and how can we build on those strengths and you will kurt has to -- when asked about minimum wage he'll have a different response some advocate. up for aoep it questions. >> kids under 20 could you pass law?nimum wage >> it might not get signed by he president but we could work on it. bob's comments are right on target. what works and not what people here in washington think may work. e can focus on that kind of thing, but getting that across withine would be difficult

this congress. jerry. t here, >> good morning. thought ied by what i heard. i statistic that 70% of the flow through these rograms do not go to the end recipients but are for the infrastructure that delivers it, is that correct? >> yes, sir. at that done by -- time, the liberal community service society of new york city at all the various poverty programs. concluded. they were the first study i saw that said 70% of all dollars worker, ocial psychologists, drug counselers, systems, the care variety, just the whole of services stems, yes. >> one thing to remember in that

statistic it will vary program to program. and federal programs cash some are social services so it's service. for a >> one other question for whoever. some of the things you're perverse out the incentives in a lot of the programs that actually subsidize -- this is true with many federal programs -- of the recognition perversity of some of these recognized bys is the democrat party? actually arrier to getting some sensible things done. much.reaction is not one of the things our let'slation seeks to do is start at least get our arms around everything that's going on. 77 and jennifer mentioned 80, it's a lot of programs. have job training,

education, nutrition. this agency is probably doing is redone hat tkapblt. we're ind out what spending and let's account for t that's a step in the right irection, but every time it's tried where you have this -- i like the way bob described it, categories of folks, but the tough love component does work. '90sd this back in the mid when they passed legislation we did it., we did it in the stated of ohio. -- i offered the amendment on the floor and it was an all out debate. the deal worked out for welfare reform and job training was no tough love component. one on t i could offer the floor. after two years if you're an will no ed adult we longer pay you without working. warning.r

it was a big debate. it passed. it worked. you know what we found? no one got kicked off because influenced behavior. think about your own life. hen people saw the deadline coming, guess what they did? hey got the skill that bob was talking about. they found a job and got the skills and moved on something for them and their family. we need to recognize that component and make sure it's regulation. >> can i comment on the question bout is there recognition across the political spectrum of the wrong incentives currently law there have been epiphany.ng moments of there were predictions prior to 1996 there would be a million children starving on the streets. quite the opposite happened. that brought many liberals to would you, this kind of a strategy does work.

the campaign trail, some of you will remember, then enator barack obama at the saddle back forum for the presidential candidates, he was sked to say, what is one issue on which you've changed your political opinion? e said i have to say welfare reform. i was on the side that said it was going to be a horror for families but it was a success. you can't fight the facts of how this has worked in the past. we should talk about it and logic to the other programs. >> right down here. said gressman jordan you that deadlines for action. obviously you just last week for 1.7 a deadline people ran out and it was not and not y the senate going through. are these people not finding jobs because of the lack of a ion or trying or is there bigger issue that needs to be addressed? >> a host of things. the phenomenon cited about what the obamacare can be

they're on unemployment on an extended period of time they're not lways the first applicant that the employer will go for. there's that dynamic a host of reasons there. things we can do in the policy area that will help overall economy. you have tax policy and regulatory policy and debt policy, and all those things contribute to the fact we're not growing and including obamacare welfare program and the disincentives. focus on though policies that empower people. earlier i s speaking was struck -- i keep telling reminds me -- but f things we did in the mid '90s. we did a thing in ohio school cleveland.gram in it went to the supreme court and was constitutional and held up. at the time cleveland had a 32%, spendingte of

about $6,500 per kid. -- the the program program started kindergarten, first, and 2 second. 7,000 red 2,000 spots, moms on a mission kicking and scratching to get the golden lined up for that golden ticket. think about what they were saying. $6,500, give me 2250 better dom to get to a school. and the typical family to bob's of them ngle mom, many african-american and many of them had been on or were on ublic assistance but they knew one thing, they wanted a better life for their kid. want their kid going to the at the time cleveland ublic schools. that's an empowerment model where people my neighbor got one of these and it is still going on lot of kids.ped a

that's got to be the focus as and empowering people going in there and making a difference right in their family. thing. one more quick you said that conservatives need the champions doing things 70% ight way and not the that aren't. how does somebody reconcile that? >> well, it's not a matter you're ignoring the 70% are, just as conservatives we need to know how many of those 70% have rn in the recovered from it who have been redeemed? any conservative redemption studies. took members of congress in washington, d.c., drug and alcohol treatment program, faith there were 50 marriages of people who were on recovered from it and restored their lives. we need to go beyond the initial well, how many

people have recovered from this bad start they had? have been recovered and what is the state of those people? to be reporting on and writing columns and restoration and redemption. every time you hear conservative instead of us always being liberals, we must be the group that inspires people you may havethough start redemption is possible and here and here is it.ence of at our banquets i want to you eet two young ladies who were homeless in a homeless center and now they're in college. them graduated high valedictorian and they were studying by their -- by the

light on their mother's phone. hey ought to be conservative champions. every banquet, every conference. at least 7 or 8 young eople born under some great trying and difficult triumphed overut these hard conditions. we ought to be writing about them. >> bob participated in a project called "seek social justice" and did as well and others. did exactly what he was talking about, correctly and how to overcome them. about churches, communities and businesses so the bad guy, d as but with really important serve give to a community in terms of work and training. one of the reasons that bob's ork is so important and

important for many reasons, but he helps us diagnosis the things in go beyond the material this conversation. we have had too much of the aterialistic conversation for the last half century. we need to go deeper and the challenges are deeper. it's a lot of social capital and relational capital nd the organizations that are working with bob are ones that re building relationships, they're meeting individuals at a relational level and helping them. the way thatranted social capital has represented -- helped us where we are today. so many americans don't have that luxury. give that and that's an opportunity all of us need to be various spheres of society and not just public policy. >> star parker. you.hank back to the question of wage loss. i'm wondering this gentleman's the high we have

ground now on school choice and thanks to cleveland and the in 2003 ourt decision we are winning that. ut wage is a challenge because workers are challenged as you have suggested. wondering if the president is having now $10.10 we about could look at these hard hit zip over a way to $5 as the congressman said the national dialogue. we might not be able to get anything through but work has to e created in these environments. there is a competition with the llegal community that is at $2 so perhaps this is a good time to roll it into welfare reform. question and again i'll go back to my remarks. you think about the first job learned those ou valuable skills and principals. than probably less working for minimum wage. i think you make a good point

we should explore --we're i tell people out of work, volunteer. you can't get anymore sub than that. and demonstrate to people that you have values and they'll hire hire you they ey won't let you go. do. 's what we have to >> great point. right here. i just -- two points. i just learned inner terpb ships are under attack that you ave obligations of someone bringing on an intern which is scaring people from bringing on internships. my largest point is inspiration we political and narrative hear is jobs, jobs, jobs. entrepreneurs, small business are disciplined people who build a cess little more than

traepl, baking shop beginning at decimated byle but the theft of content from the online technology companies. focus tends to be i.p. and having an idea that people can start at home. what are you doing to ensure and protect neighborhood and enterprise from technology stealing people's moving forward and separate from that whatever woodson, nning for mr. i'm on board. > god bless those who have got nothing to say and have the good sense not to say it. colleagues on y that one. >> technology is not my area of expertise. on the you have agenda -- did.e this morning. > we should protect people's intellectual property across the

board. inaudible) great point. >> right here. a comment.really i did harry reads office to tell about his thought opinion about the cbo report and wasn't that stupid. up on elled at and hung by the person at harry reads office. to hire somebody else. >> you can work on that one? the reaction was. >> he told me i don't have time you.isten to people like that's harry reid's office. lot of people. i did my first college out of college and i always wondered about this. war on poverty and i worked out on long island and very high

and my job was outh corp to spend people to training programs to require skills. one year and turned into a conservative from heart liberal. i sent a hundred people to go to different training programs. end of the year i discovered only two people completed the training programs. in prison anyway. of the other 98, they kept going weeks and coming back. hat i discovered the incentive in my young heart thought okay, he they want to be skilled and class.the middle but they didn't want that. ride.anted the plane once they were there a couple of weeks and it was really boring skill, y had to learn a they quit and come back and i would send them on another plane wondered if ways anybody tracked how many

or le -- how many trillions millions of dollars went away on that program. our president's program, lindon b. johnson. id anybody ever track that and found out if anybody finished? >> i can't comment on that although we could look that up or you. what i will say the structure of the policy that congressman would work. it's based on the simple premise and ould provide a hand up not a hand out. popular.xtremely 80, 90% of americans are support have this policy. is, if you are receiving aid, should you be work or at king for least preparing for work. polici.ery flexible twenty cy would say by sixteen 4 million people need to be participating on a monthly activities either working for work or preparing for work and focuses attention

abel bodied adults attendant dance. states would have to put them on path for self-sufficiency make it work on that individual's behalf and not encouraging dependancy. it would require regular you would know what's happening. insent advising helps people look harder for a dissituation effect but also makes sure languish on the roles longer than is helpful and to move them as quickly as possible towards work.ctive self-sufficient >> right here.

there was an rdan opportunity, i guess, last week before last for the arm bill for reform for the food stamp program. i don't know if there was incentives or rk the cuts that were made very miniscule in a program that's increased a hundred% over the past four years. what happened there and was it a fact it won't pass in the senate? disappointment was i know you tried to decouple and the nately they'll be on same path in five years. >> there were some minor changes positive in the food stamp program and some volunteer encouragement of enact work requirements. ur bill basically builds on that and makes it much, much stronger and mandatory.

i voted against the farm bill. we n't like the fact that combine the nutrition program with the commodity programs. that makes no sense. split them up and have two different bills which is what we coming out of the house. the years we have had recently we should be phasing it towards a free market more market oriented system and that's why you saw several of us vote against the final package. the policy we understood to pursue is one that changes the character of public assistance offers a hand up and not a handout and that's what the ood stamp policy and congressman's jordan's bill is trying to do. to be distinguish from what happened in the farm bill context. hopefully a few states will do work requirements but it's not of publiche character assistance. >> there is no reason we can't this next year.

it is possible next year you have more conservatives in the senate. the nutrition title next year alone. do it right next year and then that through the senate. it was a tough loss for they put the when two bills back together but we powerful y strong point throughout that entire unholy bout ending that alliance. first time it had been in 50 years where they they had been through one body of the congress. as part of the bill is there any incentive in there for

to work with companies ho would hire welfare recipients to work so that there would be a way of keeping track who are looking for work? years ago when welfare reform place, i was an office manager at a law firm and young lady who had -- who was on welfare and and part go to work of it was we had -- we had that ed a letter encouraged small businesses to hire these young people. these -- the welfare social worker had to send the and thenl to a company we in turn had to provide proof that they were working. this young lady had three the manager is now at the company where i work. her three kids through college. >> the policy is a requirement administrators of the

state level. smart administrators will be reaching out with creative have gies and i know you stories about this kind of thing, about the creative with businesses to help people enter work. >> it really does. it's how we overcome theville of wealthy people. he example you gave is just perfect. we did this w the whole state of ohio. we went around the world the company to inspire people to change their attitudes. we have three days of celebrating solutions and so i to do ink that we need that more, just have conferences we bring people together and exchange strategies of redemption. you want to encourage flexibility. doing well canre

get it doing then they get an dollars. that's flexibility and the flexibility you're talking about, that's all g that's how these t the needs in kphaou communities. >> time for one more question. here. >> thank you. perhaps all of you could respond to this. deeply concerned about the president e ago the comment a few weeks about marijuana and minimizing and also talking about the states of washington experiment and going on there which is against federal law. wonder what you -- how do you ncorporate in the kinds of public assistance programs

disincentives using drugs like other drugs. comment. some states have experiments testing and that's been quite effective. disappointed i was in the president's somewhat avalier statements regarding the use of marijuana. i just think that's not the kind leader ge you want the of the united states making. open to what jennifer suggested, which is some kind of testing requirement. that ifis fact based in for the to the website national institute of drug buse, she had a conversation, two-hour conversation with the llama in india. they show during the exchange an

extraordinary number of brain scans and it's been determined individuals under 25 years ld will have permanent brain damage and lose as many as ten iq for using r marijuana. these are fact that's the president should have known didn't and i think t's very much ill served the whole country as a result. >> not withstanding the legal problems, it's interesting that the president generation.job walmart -- one of the companies and into a city like this they drug test 200 young people those distressed neighbors pass the drugould test. membersgot city council cavalierly saying, oh, we need it more ate and make

access. at the same time they're young people need to work. that's the kind of moral that's being spread throughout this societies. people. nfusing young >> thank you. i'll make a quick programming note. we're going to be moving to the panel and take a minutes.ak, 4 or 5 lease thank me -- join me in thanking this panel. you did a great job. applause] >> texas senator ted cruz also spoke at the heritage foundation. focused on energy policy. this is about 40 minutes.

you all very much. over the last several years we've seen crystal clear what es what works and doesn't work in america's energy sector. on the one hand the private offered inspiring creativity creative and putting downward on prices and creating jobs and growth. unnecessary hand, federal regulations have artificially driven up the cost development on federal lands and impacted the rivate sector's ability to insraeult and meet new challenges to provide americans with affordable energy. the only way to win conservative policy victories by d be to win elections inspiring millions of americans ith bold policy ideas and changing the broken status quo in washington. washington, d.c. is not broken. it's a finally tuned machine reward those politically well connected the only way to change it the

americans across the country to get involved and man government.their nobody has done more sooner to than the is agenda next speaker. three words summarize his first make d.c. ice, listen. whether it's fighting a control agenda, doing possible o stop obamacare, ted cruz has been the leading reform movement last year. here to talk about the act please welcome me in introducing a great american senator, ted cruz. [applause] >> thank you very much, mike.

afternoon. it's great to join you. coming in off a plane from texas -- exactly. you yesterday it was 70 degrees back in houston. i took my girls out to the park. here and it is freezing. i mean, it is really cold. have to admit i was surprised. us this wouldn't happen. look, it is so cold i actually democrat with his hands in his own pockets. now that's cold. know, mike mentioned disconnect there is in washington. disconnect between career politicians in both parties and american people. the most common frustration you ear all across the state of texas and all across the country is that politicians in washington aren't listening to

and this cuts across party lines. his is true of republicans, democrats, independents, libertarians, americans are frustrated because their are not the ones of washington. outside the beltway, he number one priority of americans is jobs and economic growth. state of texas doesn't matter you are you state can be in the east texas and est texas or up in the panhandle or in the rio grande valley over and over again, when you ask texans and americans is your top priority the answer over and over again is restoring obs, economic growth. yet i've got to tell you in the in the s i've served senated stph senate we have spent zero time

talking about growth. in harry reads senate jobs and economic growth don't make it on agenda. guns.ent six weeks and and virtually no time talking about fundamental tax reform and reducing the barriers coming from washington that are making harder for people who are struggling to achieve american dream. oday what i want to you about is 1 specific avenue, we can to restore growth. a prof uly, i believe, dengsal blessing that at the five years of ad stag tphepbt growth and we've ot the lower label force participation in this country since 1978, we are also seeing beginning of a revolution in energy. are seeing extraordinary developments in energy that are pening up resources that 5 or

10 years ago would have been unimaginable. that, as i said, is a prof blessing. we are seeing the beginning of an american energy renaissance. government al doesn't get in the way and mess potential toas the transform the situation for so struggling.who are take a look at a state like north dakota. the president has told us he to raise the minimum wage hour.0.10 an confront is that the real obama minimum wage is because that's what everyone who has lost their jobs taxes and rushing crushing regulations is getting right now is zero dollars with obama minimum wage. theou look at north dakota,

average hourly wage in the oil north a ndustry in north dakota is $45.90 an hour. interested in those wages than continuing the path where more and more people who are jobs.gling lose their in north dakota which is because of a boom shale gas and oil, the unemployment rate is 2.6%. knowrth dakota does anyone he hourly pay for a cashier at walmart? $17.50. mcdonald's is bonus g a 300 signing because people can make so much money in the oil fields that it's hard to get people to flipburgers. that's the potential of growth. i got to tell you it's happening

of texas as ate well. the dallas morning news reported that, quote, in west texas, the flood of money and region is o the impossible to miss, increased is turning around poor school districts. high school graduate can earn driving $80,000 trucks. the number of012, texas upper middle income jobs grew 24.2%. think about that for a second. making chool graduate $80,000 a year driving trucks, are the sorts of jobs that expanded, see bringing back working class jobs, blue collar jobs where earn a living and provide for their family, that americanackbone of the

middle class. those are the jobs that have obama cimated under the economy. and you know, we're seeing that and ll in pennsylvania parts of ohio. their taking advantage of the marscilla shale. striking.t is if you look at the marscilla shale doesn't end at between pennsylvania and new york, but the jobs do. the jobs end because in new york allow fracking. new yorkers apparently according leadership ical don't want jobs because they prohibited the ability to develop. south to pennsylvania, ou're seeing this kind of economic opportunity on the carved in the ground and shows the impact of misguided government policies.

is one thing and only one thing, that can stop us from full potential of this energy renaissance and that is the government. let me tell you a story. a modern ry about ioneer, some might call him a modern day hank rear do not, a named george mitchell. if you listen to the president's state of the union address a of years ago you might think that president obama fracking but the credit belongs re properly with george mitchell. onnist hat the eek magazine describes him as. e was the embodiment of the american dream. his father was a poor greek herder who ranto shine shop in tkpwal val

gal investston texas. at the too much his class. he was also the embodiment of on the prepbt (youral spur and it did not discover shale oil and gas. geological surveys revealed them decades before he started. invent fracking. it had been in use since the forties. ut few great entrepreneurs invent something entirely new. his greatness lay in a combination of vision and grit. he was convinced the technology ould unlock the vast reserves of energy in the barnett shale beneath dallas and fort worth. nd he kept grappling with the unforgiving the rock until it surroundered. i want to make, economic

growth, the energy revolution idn't come from the u.s. department of energy. it didn't come from any government agency. come from a grant program picking this is how to transform energy. it didn't even come with all due hosts s to our wonderful from a think tank in washington. from entrepreneurs risk and pital at meeting a need. that where it occurred was not accidental. state of d in my home texas. there are very few states of the union that would have allowed would have ntation, go -- the chell to barnett shale is not distant

out in the country side. it is right underneath dallas worth, major cities. california is blessed have to formations.shale they're not developing them. been in california and had california's regulatory one we een the only have, there's no way mitchell succeeded because there is no way he would have allowed to try to develop the technology. think for a moment what we are to drill down iles into the ground, turn and drill miles horizontally and extract resources. about t to talk technology. ou want to talk about unbelievely difficult engineering feats. to do theagine trying same thing under san francisco?

couldn't have happened. story of america. his government is fond of picking winners and losers. fond of more fair it's picking losers. it seems this administration to see a whole lot sell indras and a whole lot mitchells.g fewer george what an incredible opportunity but we can't now, fall vick toeupl what hyatt seat. the fatal con we cannot believe that government invents, creates or produces. it doesn't. if stiflesen does is invention and creativity and production.

can stop hing that this great energy renaissance is getting in the way. particularly e with this administration it's and more. that more ight now federal land contains 3% of the oil's reserves and 28% of the nation's gas reserves portions of the land are not available for development. he number of new leases has fallen by 42%. 9,661 to 5568 between the obama administrations. now, you may be confused because president's state of the union address, he proudly credit for expanding oil and gas production. what he didn't mention is that

expanding on private lands, not on government lands on private lands. has approved 37% fewer ew drilling permits under the obama administration than under the bush administration. presidents going back to richard nixon have giving calling for energy doesn't take a geopolitical expert or insight of henry kissinger to realize nation being dependant n foreign nations for energy, many of whose interests are very ifferent than our own, is profoundly dangerous. and as a result of the and the technological advances we have right now,

seeing jobs, we are seeing incomes rising, we are seeing less dependance on foreign oil and the environment unprecedented levels based on the expansion of is reducied a reducing admissions. interesting, our office put counties map of coated as ica color to median income has gone up or down. looks like it could be of shale al map formations in this country because you can see median going up in and around the beau kin and brown it around barnett, and marcel will other notedable notable exception, washington, d.c.

country sadly down.en median incomes go lessening the to go up or incomes everywhere for every american. just recently president obama's former ecretary of energy -- and i ould note that under priored a u.s.phgszed a phgsz it was secretary of energy so his ecretary of energy observed that the delay with the keystone pipeline is inscientific but political. been five environmental reviews, each of it does not cluded raise significant environmental it has not gone forward because this administration continues to block it.

of high payingds jobs with a stroke of a pen, the allowed ector could be to create. is not administration stroking that pen. as much as we need to approve keystone pipeline, we need that.nk far broader than we need to do far more. weeks, i will be introducing a bill, the american renaissance act, that is designed to do two significant thing. one, to prevent the stoppingovernment from the energy renaissance that is blossoming across the country. two, to expand the lands, the resources that are the private sector to develop so we can answer what are asking people for which is jobs and economic

growth. this opportunity is right in front of us. federal government will american ten to the people. now what are the elements of this bill? give you the elements at broad level and i'll tell new are continuing to receive input from multiple the exact we design pieces but here are the broad strokes. one, preventing federal of hydraulic fracturing. fracking a technology that has in use in over 60 years has pened resources that were unimaginable. this is no reason for the government to get in the did f fracking and if they so, the harm to the economy, the who to the number of people

could otherwise have good jobs staggering. bit as es care every much about having clean water and clean air. ut we are seeing states that are able to ensure clean water with responsible fracking and at the same time impede the development of our resources. two, improve domestic refining capacity, streamline for upgrading and building new refineries. large n't built a new refinery in the united states 1977? change.got to three, allow in approve the keystone pipeline.

and remove the barriers for approving additional pipelines. no reason for this mess in washington, no reason whatsoever. note, a pipeline, uilding the keystone pipeline ought to be a no-brainer and in he senate there is a large bipartisan majority, democrats and republicans who believe we a no-brainert it's in terms of jobs and national and tax revenues and from the perspective of the environment. indeed, i will suggest if you a pweur can stock wearing, hugging, green peace activist, you should love the keystone pipeline. you should love the keystone pipeline because, number one,

pipeline is not built, it means we'll continue more and more on overseas oil. on ong as there is oil tankers there will be spills. any measure transporting oil safer and ne is far far more controllable than overseas tankers. number two, if the pipeline is not built north/south it will be built. it will just go east/west instead. to canadians are not going leave the tar sands unmolested. east/welt have west they'll send it to china to be refined there and it will be in a much, much dirtier way. if your concern is the environment the last thing you do is send it to china which will do far more damage to than refining it in the u.s. where it would generate good, high paying jobs

benefit the environment. number four, stop e.p.a. coal.each and the war on we are blessed to have enormous resources in this country and yet, the last five years we out war on all coal. with those working in the oil and gas industry i guys are the industry indespised the country in this administration. only coal exceeds it. 2008 president obama was quite candid. a new coal can open plant and it will bankrupt you. have seen hundreds of coal units across this country

shut down. to tell you, i was in visiting ome time ago coal workers, visiting people after in coal and one the other came up and shook my look on their faces as they realize their government on their ed a war lifestyle. hopelessness st and despair, generations of who provided for their families and kids working in the app and down hraeurb sha. favored not the classes the administration wall these are titans of street and ceo's flying on jets.ate they do well. top 1% of our economy, they of our igher share

national income than any time since 1928. by the obama t conomy are young people and hispanics and they been able to provide for their families and are seeing their jobs go away as the administration tries to shut them down. that doesn't make any sense. five, we need to force congress and the president to vote on epa regulations that kill jobs. the epa is issuing a new regulation that will take away jobs, let members of congress sign off on that. let members of congress go home to their districts and say i voted to eliminate your job. part of the reason we see this out of the control regulatory state is that congress has outsourced its responsibility.

it is handed it to unaccountable regulators who don't actually see the american people. our constitutional system is based on accountability. if congress has to cast a vote before putting in place regulations that kill jobs, i suspect we will see a little more focus on what the american people care about which is economic growth and jobs. six, proactively. the first five i lay that were preventing the federal government from stopping the american energy renaissance. the next are proactively expanding it, broaden energy development on federal land. provide states the option of leasing, permitting or regulating resources on federal land. tore are states are eager

see the kind of job production we are seeing in north dakota, texas. i suspect there are other states that would be very happy to see high-paying jobs come to their state, would be happy to see well for roles go down because people are getting jobs to provide for the families. there are happen to see local school districts tax revenue going up because people are providing jobs -- getting jobs and providing for their families. the federal government is not opening up those lands for development. the state can do a far better job of that. among other things, we should expand energy development on indian lands. naturale considerable resources on indian land, many native americans tragically live in crushing poverty. the resources are right there to improve their standard of living. it is only the federal government that is keeping them

in that condition of poverty. native american tribes to develop the resources on their own lands. number seven, we need to open up offshore exploration. expanded the offshore areas of the outer continental shelf that are available for development. we have enormous resources that we are simply not accessing and we are actually sitting by and letting other nations develop those resources instead. it doesn't make any sense. eight, we need to expand u.s. energy exports. we need to expand liquid natural gas exports. the bureaucratic paperwork to export it has been mind numbingly slow.

we ought to open it up which also gives incentives for developing more resources here, it gives the ability to expand trade and commerce across the globe. the crude oil exports. right now, exporting crude oil is prohibited and that is a relic from ages where our supply of crude oil was viewed as limited. we are developing crude at an extraordinary level and unfortunately, there was a mismatch because most of our refineries in the u.s. are heavy cruderefine from nations like saudi arabia. crude beingight developed here have limited capacity. we also should reduce the

regulatory barriers to exporting coal. withall of those, producing our natural resources, if we expand the markets, expand the markets, they can generate more and more high-paying jobs. let me note something. the jobs we are seeing in this energy renaissance are not just oil and gas jobs. they wouldn't just be cold jobs if we ended the war on coal from this administration. there are jobs across a host of industries like heavy manufacturing where we are seeing more and more heavy manufacturing come back to the united states. industries like the steel industry that have been beleaguered. for generations, we had hard-working americans, union members going to work and heavy manufacturing, providing for their kids, and we have seen their jobs drying up as a

working-class. devon of -- they have been left out of federal government priorities. we have seen those jobs come back and we are able to compete with nations like china, not based on low cost labor. none of us want to compete with china based on that. onpeting instead based low-cost energy, based on the abundant natural resources that god has given this country that are here and available if the federal government simply would allow private initiative to develop those resources. note, or i would venting washington from stopping the american energy race has enormous benefits. ofwill produce millions

high-paying jobs across this country. also, it will generate significant additional revenues to washington. the final element in this bill is that the additional revenues coming in will be dedicated in a trust fund to paying down our crushing national debt. five years ago, our national debt was $10 trillion. today it is over $17 trillion. it has grown 60% in just five years. over many presidents years to build that much debt. to president in five years grow at over 60%. and we're doing for kids grandkids is wrong and by having to payingnd dedicated down debt we could start exercising some basic responsibilities. to parents did not do that

us. they didn't give us a crushing debt we could not escape from. how can we possibly be content to do that to our kids and their kids? washington,money in trust funds in washington have a way of being -- the vantage of dedicating this revenue is that it increases the political price of politicians raiding. it doesn't mean they want have the instinct do that, but it any politician who tries will face accountability going home of his or her constituents saying, why are you spending money in the trust fund to free us from our debts on your own spending project instead? that makesombination enormous sense for our country. i want to close with this.

times that many similar toe today is the late 1970's. we are seeing the same failed economic policies from washington we saw under the jimmy carter administration. out-of-control spending and taxes and regulation. we are saying the same economic stagnation and malaise as a result. afternoon, i reread president carter's speech on energy. because i am a glutton for punishment. [laughter] was striking. he compared the energy crisis of the 70's to the moral equivalent of war. we are the country, running out of oil and gas.

by the mid-1980's, it will be gone. rereading. it is a speech where he tells the american people, i am calling on all of you to sacrifice. anytime a politician calls on you to sacrifice, grab your wallets. for some reason, the sacrifice never seems to fit the rarefied air in washington and sacrifice one thickens the government arrest of the american people hurt. it is worth rereading the speech because i am pretty sure every single word in the entire speech is wrong. including and and the. much ofstriking is how our energy policy is still stuck in the 1970's. like that tv she with ashton kutcher, that 70's show.

that is the current federal government approach to energy. we still have antiquated bans on exporting crude. we have antiquated rules on building pipelines that enable a president who is being you sponsible to-- irre behave politically. thousandsose tens of of union jobs that are not being created because the president does not want them created. the rules and restrictions we had our for a different time, for a different era. we can i simply -- by simply entrepreneurs, allowing the private sector to do what it does best, we can continue this incredible energy renaissance.

that, i would suggest, is in everyone's interest. thank you. [applause] >> president obama and the first lady hosted a white house state dinner for the french president francois hollande. we'll have that for you beginning with the arrival on saturday night at 8:35 p.m. watch newsmakers with a review board. medine talks about the nsa surveillance programs. at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. eastern on sunday. after newsmakers, the new federal reserve chair janet yellen will have her testimony before the house financial services committee which is also on sunday at 103:365 a.m. at public-private partnerships and how they help

u.s. foreign-policy. it is with the head of the u.s. agency of international development. earl.joined by from the wilson center in washington dc. this is one hour. >> good afternoon. happy valentine's day. welcome to the wilson center. i am jane harman, the president and ceo of the wilson center. i am a recovering politician. if you are noticing these bicycles, they are gifts from our visiting politician, earl blumenauer, who heads the congressional bike caucus. all of you and all of us think this is a marvelous thing to support so thank you for the gift.

to all of you, an extra brownie point for braving the weather to show up. i was predicting we would have 10 people in the audience. it shows how valuable my predictions are, but it also shows how valuable this panel is. we are delighted to see all of you and to see an extended audience through all the social media that will tape the events today and show them across the globe. two of our scheduled panelists, matthew bishop and sharon d'agostino, are not here because their trains were canceled. roger-mark de souza, who directs our important wilson program, will join the conversation later in the program. there he is. to substitute for them. thank you.

we are sad they cannot be here. it is a great pleasure to welcome back to the wilson center usaid administrator, raj shah, who is a great friend of ours. aid has facilities in this tiny little reagan center building. raj has not spoken here -- 2012, not 2013 -- in 14 months. he spoke on what then secretary of state hillary clinton called the economic statecraft. something that everybody agrees is a crucial part of the toolbox we use to project a u.s. narrative in the world. as raj put it, "harnessing american ingenuity to advance global development and in the process, strengthen our own nations economy is what we should be doing." the numbers tell the story. since 2001, aid has formed more than 1600 public-private partnerships with over 3500 partner organizations with an

estimated value of more than $20 billion in public and private funds, but the work of usaid in public-private partnerships does not just provide a bounce to our economy and to our jobs picture. it enhances our security. at a time when too many see our foreign policy in kinetic terms like drones and special ops and guantánamo bay prison, soft power diplomacy, or i would call it smart power diplomacy, delivers life-saving help the desperate people and improves their image of america. it is an invaluable foreign-policy tool. think thailand in 2004 and the devastating tsunami. americans and thais worked side-by-side to deliver food and supplies. americans lined up to donate blood. a u.s. humanitarian assistance helped build trust with thailand's government and the

thai people. building this relationship played an important part in the counterterrorism efforts with thai authorities which led to a very successful outcome just a little bit later. segue to the philippines or japan or pakistan or even iran after its devastating earthquake and to today. syria is a moral catastrophe. secretary kerry's announcement of an additional $380 million in humanitarian assistance in january brings our total commitment to $1.7 billion. that is good news. but we can and should do more. increased aid could thwart recruitment from terror groups. it could change the situation on the ground. the wilson center is proud to be the leading forum on maternal health and food security innovation through our maternal health initiative and environmental change and security program.

a new ecsb report, "harvesting peace: food security, conflict, and cooperation," examines the relationships between food insecurity and conflict recommending that humanitarian and development partners work more closely together. our friend raj is here to chart out where we are going in 2014. after he speaks, he will take part in an all-star panel featuring earl blumenauer, my very good friend who was elected to congress in 1996 and whom i served with for many years. earl is one of the brains behind usaid's first global water strategy which was launched in may 2013. our moderator is jason beaubien, wonderful name, npr's global health and development correspondent. i want to recognize many wilson supporters in the audience but

particularly the ambassador from the philippines. there he is sitting in the second row. i have mentioned earl and i think that is it. dr. shah will now speak and right after his remarks, the panel will begin. welcome all of you. [applause] >> thank you, jane. thank you for your leadership here at the wilson center. the topic of today's conversation was really about defining america's role in the world. you have been doing that for quite some time very effectively. earl, it is great to be here with you. thank you for being here. i want to thank jason and roger-mark. the ambassador and friends and colleagues. i am glad folks are here.

if you are walking through our offices which are right next door and in the building, i think most of our folks are teleworking or got stuck in the snow. this is great to see people out today. it is true that the discussion should be about what america stands for in the world and how we stand for it. the answer to that question cannot only and just always be what our military is doing. it has got to be more comprehensive in a manner that captures our diplomatic and development efforts in government, but also captures the full range of american institutional partnerships around the world. business, science, innovation, and technology. it is true that when you look across sectors and around the world, whether it is in columbia where we are helping to bring starbucks and small farmers together so that people could be

reintegrated after a difficult war. or whether it is in syria where of the 4.5 million people inside of syria to get relief about 3.5 million get relief because of american support. or whether it is in afghanistan where the 8 million kids and 3.5 million girls who are now in school are not talked about much, but are very much a part of whether that country succeeds, regardless of military presence. these efforts make a huge difference in shaping and defining the world in front of us so i look forward to the discussion today about how to best execute that mission in a modern way. in that context, i would like to pose a question to you. how can we put the power of business, science, and innovation into the hands of those who served this mission,

whether it is serving on a humanitarian basis or working on the longer-term partnerships designed to end extreme poverty and build resilient democratic societies around the world. it might be thought of as an unusual question, especially from someone in government leading an agency tasked with doing these things. i think we have all learned and seen that the world is different than it used to be a few decades ago. a few decades ago, energy investment and resources that went into these parts of the world were in fact largely defined by public resource flow. development aid, world bank loans accounted for 60%, 70%, 80% of flows of capital into the countries we are talking about. today, we are a small fraction of that. despite having maintained our commitments and our level of commitments and even increased those commitments, we are

thankfully far outstripped of private investment and business relationships in nearly every country in which we work. when we think about the future of engaging the world through developmental activity, we are not thinking any more about just paying for infrastructure and services, as important as those activities are. instead, we are now thinking about, as others have suggested, how do we build the kinds of partnerships that can reshape the vulnerability in the world in which we live? we cannot pay our way out of extreme poverty but if we engage businesses and companies, if we motivate scientists and technologists, if we use american innovation -- whatever pocket of society it comes from, including the government, and

apply it to live out the founding premise upon which jfk created usaid which was we tackle poverty abroad, we make our world safer and more secure, we believe we can end extreme poverty within the next two decades. that means ending extreme poverty for the 1.25 -- 1.1 billion people who live on a dollar and a quarter a day. it means ending widespread hunger for the 860 million people who will go to bed hungry tonight. it means eliminating the reality of high levels of preventable child deaths for the 6.6 million kids that will die this year before ever reaching their fifth birthday. it is easy to step back and say that sounds great but those tasks are not achievable. we have made huge progress in each case. child survival is the single greatest developmental achievement in the last 20 years, in terms of what all of

this work has actually done. in 1990, 44% of the global economy of the world's population lived on the rough equivalent of a dollar or a dollar and a quarter a day. today, it is 22% and in 20 years if we do the right things, it can be three percent. we are only going to get there if we do things differently. i would like to describe to you some of the efforts we have put in place over the last few years to reshape how we do our work and to motivate a greater degree of partnership to achieve those goals. first, we have restructured how we work in order to partner more fundamentally with local institutions of all kinds, all around the world. in the last few years, we have supported more than 1200 local institutions in 73 countries. that is a 50% increase over 2010. we now have direct partnerships with local banks that are investing in small-scale agricultural businesses. we are funding and partnering

with local civil society organizations that help women expressed their leadership capacity in role villages in africa. we fund and work with women's groups in new delhi so that when tragic things happen, they can have a voice and be more active and engaged and partner with pure organizations here in america to carry out their task and their vision. pivave also made a big ot to focus on partnerships with part the -- with private organizations. we have global relationship managers for our top 35 private sector partners. that means we are working with walmart and a dozen countries around the world to help reach hundreds of thousands of small-scale farmers, reviving technical assistance and support, but also connecting them to a real market.

there foring to be the long haul and sustain their gains. it means only tackle a famine in somalia we are able to reach out to our partners and if they have the capacity to redirect the $7 million shipment of rice and put it quickly into the somali economy, we can be more responsive and save more lives. it means we have partnered with our colleagues at google to do everything from mapping we can dos around -- a better job of vaccinating young kids. to helping entrepreneurs to invest and create things to tackle poverty and make a living for themselves. --have now sent a field field investment officers to our missions around the world. it is only time in the foreign service we have had that.

identify private investment opportunities and connective those investment opportunities to partners and investors here in the united states and around the world. we are bolstering our traditional aid programs by in the last year alone, using our capacity to provide loan guarantees to 26 new partners mobilizing $500 million in 19 countries. for every dollar we mobilize, every $28 wer mobilize, we end up spending about one dollar when a loan fails. it is an extraordinary deal. in these budget environments, we are always looking for good deals to advance our mission. we call this approach a new model of development. a model that relies on asking governments to reform the

policies and programs that they have put into place to fight corruption and to prioritize the poor. requiresodel that also us to do things differently, to be more nimble and flexible, to reach out the private sector partners at home and abroad, and to bring more engagement to tackle the kinds of problems we want to solve. when i started at u.s. aid, about a percent of our resources were programs to this new way of working. it is about 40% today. we hope to increase that over time. what that means is that when there are disasters, instead of simply providing aid and assistance, we are also laying the groundwork for recovery and rehabilitation. i am thrilled our ambassador from the philippines is here because that is a great example. important things that happened the u.s. response

to the philippines were far from the cameras. sharing ofas the climate data and predictive data that allowed the philippine government to evacuate 700,000 people before the typhoon hit. estimates those early of death tolls being far higher than what people ultimately found was the consequence. it was because in partnership we were able to get that done. the second part, also not seen on tv, was how we stood up energy systems and food systems and got health clinics back in operation. yes, it was our wonderful military and humanitarian partners doing great work. it was also pulling together companies, mostly local, that cost those systems back up and running. i think that is telling because today it is those kinds of partnerships to give us the confidence to think we can

achieve extraordinary things. i mentioned the possibility of ending preventable child deaths around the world. how would you do that? one answer is we partnered just a month ago with ge in east africa to bring power and energy to hundreds of health clinics throughout east africa. that project is going to be outstanding and is supported by one of the loan guarantees i was talking about earlier. loss have an estimated related to that that we have to account for in terms of public funds. in this case, ge said it was such a good deal for them, they will pay for any losses we suffered using our credit guarantees. it is virtually no cost the american pet -- to the american taxpayer. we are essentially going to bring power, light to hundreds of health clinics throughout east africa which will help save

lives and improve the delivery of health of their. opportunities to do this are endless. colombia to africa. i'm eager to join the panel here because i believe that america has much greater capacity to do this work in this manner than we are tapping into today. i look forward to your ideas how we get there going forward. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. an openeful we have dialogue here. feel free to jump in on each other as we go along. we will get the questions from the audience right towards the end as well. i would like to ask you congressman. i think this question of what is the role of the private sector in the united states's image abroad. what is the proper role because

on the one hand, it can do some amazing things, but i think there are some concerns that the interest of the private sector may not always be aligned with the best interests of the people in some of these developing countries. the rabies and cynicism from people in those places. you are dealing with budget in congress which is sinking. what you see is the proper rolling constraints of the private sector? i found what the administrator described as being very encouraging. i think the legitimate long-term interest of american business is very much like this. it is not some sort of misguided altar was him --al altruism. benevolentort of a -- not worrying about the bottom line.

these folks are serious about making a profit, but they have been able to do identify areas where it just makes sense. interest ina keen sustainable supply of water around the globe, the extent to which they are able to partner ith usaid or other ngo's, helps meet this objective which deals with her ability to actually function. it helps them deal with market because if they are identified as part of the solution as opposed to part of the problem, people who are making their own economic choices will gravitate towards them. been regardedways -- i think of central america.

a whole host of things where we have not measured up to our standards in short-term profit has sometimes move in directions that have not shown a federal light.- a favorable i think people are realizing that it is in their best interest. are going to be well served if we can figure out how to identify, promote. some of the technologies that are being utilized internationally, being on the aound immediately after andible earthquake in haiti watching what a little oregon ngo had been able to do by partnering with mobile banking. this has now spread dramatically.

they have applications here in our country. simple, commonsense technological advancement whether it is your addition, -- rrigation or mobile banking could help internationally and make a difference here at home. an increasing role for the private sector in the field you are starting? -- studying? >> that is a very good point when i was listening to both of you. what struck me was the ,onversation around private public sector collaboration. it has changed and it is something we at the wilson center have been looking at and have found there has been three driving trends globally that i've helped change the dialogue and perspective on this new

development approach. this new model of development. i think of it as a pep talk. that talk is looking at populations. what is new about copulation variables, what does it mean? what does it mean in terms of consumption levels and vulnerability? you talk about the philippines any fabric a. -- and east africa. we are looking at event speed up. when this kind of catastrophe that thee are seeing shock reverberates more quickly and more widely than they have previously. what is the role of technology in responding to what is the corporate sector's role and interest in looking at the bottom line? what does it mean to overall development? it is around partnership and

recognizing it is a changing development ecosystem. it is looking more at the corporate sector as a role, a key role in this development ecosystem. these three trends of every important in changing this dialogue about corporate engagement and its role in overall development. from you hear concern people in other countries that might notst of ge be aligned directly with the people in india for instance? how do you respond when you are in a country and trying to pitch a project? that andear importantly, i think i hear it more often than is appropriate. there were certainly a history of some pretty prominent countries having a very poor track record of community impact.

that has lingered for decades. if you actually look at what is going on, it is pretty easy to get to the conclusion that this approach works. we work in ethiopia. we have asked the ethiopian government to make some reforms to its sector so that they can get ethiopian scientists, varieties that are testing on the soil to be effective, and then work with a whole host of companies to commercialize hybrid maize and give it to farmers. dupont is reaching additional farmers and we are in dialogue and how to get the 3 million with partnerships with us. the most important part of that has nothing to do with that. it is about the farmhouse a little. these are farmers were barely subsistence producers.

they often have a two to three month. often people work for to it as the hungry season. people go without food or without adequate nutrition. the bottom line is for these 35,000 households, they have not beaten that. they're producing more food and selling it in commercial markets. they are improving their food production. this is the path to and without givinger up food, but rather relying on the industry and enterprises of small businessmen and women who these small farmers are. this approach works. it is a reason to do more of this, not an excuse to cut back on our public budget or cut back on our other necessary and critical, meant three commitments. >> do you think there might be an interest in congress giving

budget constraints to having almost everything outsourced? >> there are some. the fact is that these partnerships actually do require significant investment appeared the notion of your 35 managers who are working with these relationships. the more people understand that these are transformative. sitting in the coffee exchange for ethiopia, just watching these folks developing the capacity to be able to market building product, skills -- not just marketing coffee, but other economic infrastructure. it is good for american businesses. i don't think we should look at this as a shortcut that is

necessarily any easier or requires less investment. it is embarrassing how little we invest now. we just had a budget that gave me heartburn with an eight percent reduction. but, part of that budget which the reference, was made to our work with international water. we have developed an understanding in congress that by investing strategically in water. focusing our attention better, getting more out of it, and building partnerships with the community, environmental groups, it is money well spent. increased overe one third in this tough climate. i think the partnerships that are being described here with the private sector, business, if

we manage them right, i think congress will go along with more. i could not resist today. i thought it might come up. anytime jane -- i am not surprised everybody is here. i am surprised as an empty seat. i brought the latest copy of the "national journal" which talks about the most polarizing congress ever. i pulled then special issue from 10 years -- from two years ago which talked about the most polarizing congress ever. [laughter] there is a lesson here. the subtext is the most poor lighting -- polarizing congress until next year. what we are talking about here has the potential of bringing people together. it stretches resources.

jane fought for years in terms of the national security space. more in a weekend than you spend in a month. this is the best money we have invested. it is something that brings people together. if we do what you are talking about and it is walmart, ge, coke, nike, we have a shoe store in my neighborhood that is doing a lot of work in terms of trying to protect labor and environmental standards. i don't mean to single out for five companies. congress need to get on board, understand it, and when they do, i think the evidence is it makes a difference. we can fund this. >> you do a lot of work with maternal health and environmental security. are there some places with the

private sector does not really fit properly? i am wondering whether, certainly in terms of into structure -- in terms of infrastructure, i feel like maternal health which is normally a government function. are there places where the private sector is not really appropriate? >> that is a very good question. i want to go back to what point that you made about this being an opportunity to bring us together. describedn very often it as an intellectual candy shop where you don't get fat. what is important on that is that we bring the analysis to the table. oneave been recognized as of the top global think tanks in the world and the number one u.s. thinktank to watch. this is very important for corporations in congress.

they need the analysis we bring to the table to answer exactly the question that you are asking. innovative and exciting things about this analysis is that we bring to the table is we bring the models and analysis that the corporate sector ordinarily could not find on its own. aere are areas where corporate private partnership would miss but that is where you have a think tank or a nonprofit sector coming in to bridge that role. that is what is exciting about the opportunity of these partnerships right now. >> can i make one small comment? i think what is going to make a difference, whether it is child health or if you are one of those scientist to think we have a climate problem, what is going to save the world is where

we align these interests. the billions of decisions that are made every day have the right environmental, economic, humanitarian interests so that people do things that will make a difference. i think what is being described here is a way to align those individual decisions, whether ory are government programs private sector decisions about where we shop and live, how we move, that is what is going to be transformational. they are doing this on a scale that i think is unprecedented and exciting. >> do you think there are some areas where the private sector should not be involved in this part of the development package that we are putting out as the u.s. government? >> no, i don't. you look at maternal and child health is a good example.

you need a public -- a lot of private investment to deliver results. our partnership in uganda has brought down death rates by about 15%. it is because of technology, measurement capability, logistics partnerships that make that work. the massive global hiv-aids treatment program is underpinned by a logistics system that is run by ups and other partners to know logistics. there is no element of any of this that i think you can say with confidence that there is no role for the private sector. that is not to discount the fact that this is a reason to do more in terms of public investment in engagement, not less. you are talking about bringing people together. i have seen how these partnerships have brought together conservative

republicans and liberals and everyone else in the mix because when you show you can achieve these kinds of results, it is such a highly leveraged -- it is very compelling. i think people of all walks of life got into this business of public service to deliver results in some form. this is a very compelling vision that people can get their arms around. americans howt much do we spend on foreign aid and assistance, the answer is 20%. byterday, i was reading well-educated consumer and author in the post a reference to the hundred billion dollars of aid we have invested in afghanistan. that couldn't be farther from the truth. we spend one percent, not only percent of our federal budget on developmental assistance. in afghanistan, we spent about

two weeks of the total cost of a civilian military enterprise. two weeks of one years cost on developmental investments that have led to new roads and kids in schools. it is an improvement of local revenue production so that they can stand on their own two feet. it is important to keep it on -- all in perspective. not to see this as a rationale to do less but it gives us an opportunity to do more. >> what is being done to make sure these american companies are not coming in and taking out a local company that is based in africa or southeast asia. what is being done to make sure we are not allowing this american power, commercial power to monopolize? >> let me say two things about that. the bulk of our public-private

partnerships are with local companies. i think jane said 6000 partnerships. i would bet 1100 of those are with local companies. they are thrilled to work with us because they believe we can surface issues, help fight corruption, help motivate certain kinds of reforms that improve the business environment for everybody. world, in our current places we are talking about our growing economies. companies from all over world are seeking a foothold in the fastest-growing economies in the world. fore can offer a platform american companies to engage transparently and in the right way, i am proud of the ability to offer that platform. i'm not shy about engaging in those. >> we should do more in a direct fashion.

i liked withings some of our ngo partners is their assistance which is putting cash into the hands of people who have suffered from an earthquake or from a tsunami. hope that we give you more cash and less surplus food. it is an embarrassment to me monthso often it takes for the food to arrive and when it arrives, it has the perverse effect of discouraging local production, local markets. the administration requested a tiny amount of money to be able to balance that out and demonstrate the power of direct investment. i am hopeful we are able to do more of that. the president's budget last

year called for a shift in about 45% of our food aid program so we can reach 4 million additional children every year without spending additional money. it seemed like an uphill battle and will continue to be but in the farm bill we get the flexibility to reach about 800,000 additional children. it is real progress. for those kids, it will make -- >> you are such a diplomat. >> we will open it up to some questions. illustrates it is new development of ecosystems. it is a new initiative called family-planning 20/20 which is a global initiative to meet the needs of 120 million women globally to access reproductive health services. this is a partnership with the british government with corporations with local

usaid to workith collaboratively. just going back to the framing of your question. it is not only about u.s. corporate interests, but global interests. there was a shift in a partnership model that is more globally, more inclusive, and bring in governments and local corporations. >> this is being taped and films. ed. do we have some questions from the audience that you would like to ask? we have someone in the back. just wait for the microphone. thank you. >> i am mike mcdonald. thank you for the presentation. i've done a fair amount of work with partnerships at a large-scale. as i reflect on haiti over the last 20 years, i get more and

more concerned that the kind of public partnerships that have been described so far really would not set up a positive ecosystem in haiti. where haiti is failing is that the very base level of the communities. i am wondering with big data in social networks, can we approach getting some resources directly into these communities to enable them to emerge with their own ideas of how they want to live rather than in africa where large corporations are jumping people off their lands and into the cities? >> let me set the context little bit because haiti is very important for us and many of us in this room. it is important to recognize there has been tremendous

progress in haiti since the earthquake. if you look at the three years prior to the earthquake and compare it to the last three years, private investment is up free hundred percent -- 300%. the economy is growing at 3.4%. there is 1.5 million additional kids in school. of the 1.7 million people who were displaced during the earthquake, all but about 150,000 of them are back in some kind of improved housing unit. are built back to a higher earthquake standard number four. that is an important context. in terms of whether the model works in haiti, one of our partnerships was with mobile phone companies and providers and the gates foundation to help use that as a platform to get mobile money to rural women. then made a huge difference and

reach lots of families that otherwise would not be connected to a modern economy. thelarly, i do think coupling of business investment. the new hotels going up, a park where there are jobs being created, coupling that with effective public investment that is bringing down the rate of child death and malnutrition and making sure kids get to school and have meals. those things all have to work in concert to see progress. i think the model works very well. the model we are talking about is not giving companies brought in as to land and title way that is not transparent. the model we are talking about is engaging in specific partnerships where you measure results, track out, report on them and create both private

enterprise and public development of gains. >> make no mistake. i don't mean to suggest that we have all of a sudden a lot of benign relationships with all businesses. we are watching large investments being made in developing countries, buying farmland for large commercial application so that i could export their water. there are often times international, multilateral pressures to invest in infrastructure projects on a scale that poses risks for the environment and don't have much trickle-down benefits. that in most of the situations we need to develop an infrastructure that includes the political infrastructure.

the dysfunctionality in haiti is mindnumbing and frustrating. the progress that has been referenced has been really hard-fought. it should not be this hard but it is. we have places where there are -- there is not that political infrastructure. where there are people who will take shortcuts. we have been fighting against illegal logging. which you take poor people, you come in, circumvent the law, put cash on the table for them and others profit down the line. --ther the stabilizing further the stabilizing civil society. unwind but it to responsibility to put in

place structures, infrastructure to help people enforce their own local laws or to create them in the first place. countries like the united states must respect them so we do not turn in blind eye when people enter illegally. there is more that we can all do to try and provide that structure that enables people not to have to choose between feeding their families and killing rare animals. it is hard work, but i think we will manage. that is what it is all about. 80 will not be completely transformative. it is about setting a framework that is hopefully moving in that direction. it is optimizing u.s. dollars that we are investing.