notable exception. washington, d.c. the rest of the country sadly has seen median incomes go down. we should be lessening the barriers for incomes to go up everywhere. for every american. you know,s just recently, president obama's former secretary of energy -- and i would note under prior administrations it was the u.s. secretary of energy, but the president is fond of saying it's my secretary of energy, to his secretary of energy recently observed that the delay with the keystone pipeline is not scientific. it's political. there have been five environmental review, each of which has concluded the keystone pipeline does not raise significant environmental concerns and yet, it has not

gone forward because this administration continues to block it. tens of thousands of high-paying jobs with the stroke of a pen the private sector could be allowed to create, but this administration is not stroking that pen. but here's the point, as much as we need to approve the keystone pipeline, we need to think far broader than that. we need to do far more. in coming weeks, i will be introducing a bill, the american energy renaissance act, that is designed to do two significant things. number one, to prevent the federal government from stopping the energy renaissance that is blossoming across the country. and number two, to expand the lands, the resources that are available for the private sector to develop so that we can answer

what the american people are asking for which is jobs and economic growth. this opportunity is right in front of us. if the federal government will simply listen to the american people. now what are the elements of this bill? i'll give you the elements at broad level that i'll tell you in coming weeks we are continuing to receive input from multiple players as we design the exact pieces. here are the broad strokes. number one, preventing federal regulation of hydraulic fracture. fracking a technology that has been in use for over 60 years, is what in combination with horizontal drilling has opened up resources that are unimaginable. there is no reason for the federal government to get if the way of fracking and if the

federal government did so, the harm to the economy, the harm to the number of people who could eyes ha otherwise have good jobs would be staggering. the states care every bit as much about having clean water and clean air, but we are seeing states that are able to ensure clean water and clean air with responsible fracking and at the same time not impede the development of our resources. number two, improve domestic refining capacity. streamline the process for upgrading and building new refineries. you know, we haven't built a new large refinery in the united states since 197 7. that's got to change.

number three, allow and approve the keystone pipeline and remove the barriers for approving additional pipelines. there is no reason for this bureaucratic mess in washington. no reason whatsoever. and i would note a pipeline building the keystone pipeline ought to be a no-brainer. in the senate there's a large bipartisan majority. republicans and democrats who agree we should build this pipeline. it's a no-brainer from the perspective of jobs, a no-brainer from the perspective of national security, no-brainer from the perspective of tax revenues and it is even a no-brainer from the perspective of the environment. indeed, i will suggest if you are a birkenstock wearing, tree hugging, greenpeace activist,

you should love the keystone pipeline. you should love the keystone pipeline because number one, the keystone pipeline is not built, it means we will continue to rely more and more on overseas oil, and as long as there are oil on tankers, there will be spills. by any measures transporting oil in a pipeline is far safer for the environment, far more controllable than overs seas tankers. and number two, if the pipeline is not built north/south it will be built, it will go east/west. the canadians will not leave the tar sapped sands -- if it goes east/west it will go to china to be refined there in a much dirtier way. if your concern is the environment the last thing you want to do is send the oil to china to be refined there which

will do far more damage to the environment than refining it in the u.s. where it would generate good high-paying jobs and benefit the environment number four, stop epa overreach and the war on coal. you know, we are blessed to have enormous coal resources in this country. and yet, the last five years we have seen an all-out war on coal. when i visit with those working in the oil and gas industry i tell them quite frequently, you guys are the second most despised industry in the country in this administration. only coal exceeds. in 2008 president obama was cand candid, he said you can open a new coal plant and it will

bankrupt. and we have seen hundreds of coal units across this country shut down. i have to tell you, some time ago i was in southern illinois, visiting coal workers and one after the other came up and shook my hand and the look on their faces as they realized their government has declared a war on their lifestyle. the look of just hopelessness and despair, generations of families who provided for their families, for their kids, working in coal up and down the appalachian. now, these are not the favored classes this administration likes. these are not titans of wall street. these are not ceos flying on corporate jets. they do very well under the obama administration. the top 1% of our economy, the

millionaires and billionaires the president loves to demagog right now earn a higher share of our national income right now than since 1928. the people who have been hurt by the obama economy and people struggling, young people, hispanics, african-americans, they're single moms. they're people working in coal country who for generations have been able to provide for their families and they're seeing their jobs go away as the administration tries to shut it down. that doesn't make any sense. number 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's going to take away jobs, let members of congress sign it. 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 control regulatory state

is that congress has outsourced its responsibilities. has handed it to unaccountable regulators who don't actually have to see the american people. our constitutional system is based on accountability. if congress has to cast a vote, before putting in place legislation that kill jobs i suspect we'll see a little more focus on what the american people care about which is a focus on economic growth and jobs. number six, proactive. the first five that i laid out 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 lands. there are states eager to see the kind of job production we're seeing in north dakota, we're seeing in texas. i suspect there are other states that would be very happy to see high-paying jobs come to their states, would be very happy to see welfare rolls dropping down because people are getting jobs and providing for their families. would be happy to see local school districts tax revenues going up because people are providing jobs, getting jobs and providing for their families and yet the federal government is not opening up those lands for development. the states can do a far better job of that. among other things expand energy development on indian lands. there are considerable natural resources on indian lands, many native americans tragically live in crushing poverty. and the resources are right

there to improve their standard of living and it is only the federal government that is keeping them in that condition of poverty. we ought to allow native american tribes to develop the resources on their own lands. number seven, we need to open up offshore exploration. expand the offshore areas of the outer continental shelf that are available for development and streamlining the permitting. we have enormous resources we're simply not accessing and actually sitting by and let other nations develop those resources instead. doesn't make any sense. number eight, we need to expand u.s. energy exports. we need to expand liquid natural gas exports. we're producing natural gas at incredible levels and yet the bureaucratic paperwork to export

lng has been mind numbingly slow. we ought to open it up which also gives incentives for developing more resources here, but also gives the ability to expand trade and commerce across the globe. we need to end the crude oil export ban. right now, exporting crude oil is prohibited and that is a relic from ages where our supply of crude oil was viewed as quite limited. we are now developing crude at an extraordinary level and unfortunately, there's a mismatch because most of our refineries in the u.s. are designed to refine heavy crude from nations like saudi arabia. and so the sweet light crude being developed here, our own refineries have limited capacity

to refine them. and we also should reduce the regulatory barriers to exporting coal. with all of those, with producing our natural resource, if we expand the markets, expand the markets they can go, that generates more and more high-paying jobs. let me note something. the jobs that we're seeing in the energy renaissance, are not just oil and gas jobs. they wouldn't just be coal jobs if we ended the war on coal from this administration. they are jobs across a host of industries. like heavy manufacturing where we're 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 in

heavy manufacturing, providing for their kids and we've seen their jobs drying up as the working class in this country has been left out of federal government priorities. we're seeing those heavy manufacturing jobs come back and we're able to compete with nations like china, not based on low-cost labor, none of us want to xweets with china based on low cost labor, but competing instead based on 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 will allow private initiative to develop those resources. and finally, i would note, preventing washington, from stopping the american energy

renaissance has enormous benefits, will produce millions of high-paying jobs across this country. and also will generate significant additional revenues to washington and the final element in this bill, is the additional revenues coming in, will be dedicated to a trust fund to pay down our crushing national debt. five years ago our national debt was $10 trillion. today it is over $17 trillion. it has grown some 60% in five years. it took 43 president s and one president in five years to grow it over 60%. what we're doing to our kids and grandkids is wrong and having a trust fund dedicated these national revenues will go to paying down debt we can start

exercising some basic responsibility. our parents didn't do that to us. they didn't give us a crushing debt we couldn't escape from. how can we be content do it to our kids and their kids. i will note, money in washington, trust funds in washington, have a way of being, but the advantage of dedicating this revenue is it increases the political price of politicians raiding the kitty. doesn't mean they won't have the instinct to raid the kitty but it does mean any politician who tries, will face accountability of his or her constituents saying why are you spending money in the trust fund to free us from your debt on your own spending project. this is a combination that makes

enormous sense for our country. i want to close with this. i've said many times, that where we are today, is early similar to the late -- eerily similar to the late 1970s. the same failed economic policies that we saw under the jimmy carter administration, out of control spending and taxes and regulation and the same economic stagnation and malaise as a result. just this afternoon i re-read president carter's speech on energy. because i am a gluten for punishment. it really is striking. he compared the energy crisis of the '70s to, quote, the moral equivalent of war and he told the country, we are running out

of oil and gas. by the mid 1980s it will be gone. it's really worth re-reading. it is a speech where he tells the american people, i am calling on all of you to sacrifice. and listen, any time a politician calls on you to sacrifice, grab your wallet. for some reason, the sacrifice never seems to fit -- hit the rarefied air in washington and sacrifice just thickens the government while the rest of the american people hurt. it's worth re-reading carter's speech because i'm pretty sure every single word in the entire speech is wrong including and the. but what's striking is how much of our energy policy is still

stuck back in the 1970s. like that tv show with ashton kutcher "that 0s show" that is the current federal government's approach to energy. we still have antiquated bans on exporting, crude, restrictions on lng. antiquated rules on building pipelines that enable a president who's being irresponsible to arbitrarily stand in the way, to behave as the energy secretary said, politically, to stop those tens of thousands of i might note union jobs that are not being created because the president doesn't want them. the rules and restrictions we have are for a different time, for a different era. we can, by simply allowing entrepreneurs, allowing the private sector to do what it

does best, we can continue this >> on tuesday, the president and the first lady has today state and are for french president françois hollande. on sunday, watch newsmakers with the chair of privacy and civil liberties review board, an independent agency created by congress. talking about the nsa surveillance program and the programhat the election -- collection program is illegal at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. the new fed chair janet yellen will have her testimony also on sunday, 1035 a.m. eastern here on c-span.

>> the new c-span.org gives you access to a library of political events with more added every day through the nonstop coverage of national politics, history, and nonfiction books. access hours of archived video, everything covered since 1977 and it is all searchable and ,iewable on your desktop tablet, or smartphone. look for the prominent search bar. easyew c-span.org makes it to watch what's going on in washington and find events from the past 25 years. is the most comprehensive video library and politics. >> next, a look a public-private partnership and how it helps ofvate policy with the head

international development joined the housemenauer from ways and means committee. from the wilson center, 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. usaid 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. 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. we have also made a big pivot to focus on partnerships 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 that is going to be there for 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 communities around -- we can do a better job of vaccinating young kids. to helping entrepreneurs to invest and create things to tackle poverty and make a living for themselves. we 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. it allows us to 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, -- for every $28 we 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. it is a model that also requires 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. the two most important things that happened the u.s. response to the philippines were far from the cameras. the first was the sharing of climate data and predictive data that allowed the philippine government to evacuate 700,000 people before the typhoon hit. we all saw those early estimates of death tolls being far higher than what people ultimately found was the consequence. 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. we do have an estimated loss 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 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. from 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. i am hopeful we have an open 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 altruism. it is not sort of a benevolent -- 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. if coke has a keen interest in sustainable supply of water around the globe, the extent to which they are able to partner with usaid or other ngo's, it 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. we have not always been regarded -- 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 light. i think people are realizing

that it is in their best interest. we as a country 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 ground immediately after a terrible earthquake in haiti and 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 irrigation or mobile banking, it could help internationally and make a difference here at home. >> do you see an increasing role for the private sector in the field you are studying? >> that is a very good point when i was listening to both of you. what struck me was the conversation 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 and east africa. we are looking at event speed up. when this kind of catastrophe happens we are seeing that the 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. >> do you hear concern from people in other countries that the interest of ge might not 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? >> i do hear that and importantly, i think i hear it more often than is appropriate. there were certainly a history

and development 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 period were 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 widespread hunger without giving 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 their own product, building 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 is interesting, 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. that budget line increased over 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 there is an empty seat. i brought the latest copy of the "national journal" which talks about the most polarizing congress ever. then i pulled the special issue from two years ago which talked about the most polarizing congress ever. [laughter] there is a lesson here. the subtext is "the most 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. we spill 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 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. jane harman very often described 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. we have been recognized as one 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. one of the most 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. there are areas where a 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 they are government programs or 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 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. if you ask most americans how much do we spend on foreign aid and assistance, the answer is 20%. yesterday, i was reading by 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 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. they believe we can help re fight corruption, help motivate a certain kind of reform that can improve the business for everybody. second, i would just say that in our current world the places we're talking about are the fastest growing economies than anywhere in the planet. so companies all over the world are seeking a foothold in the six top economies in the world. and if we can offer a platform for american companies to engage transparently and in the rite way i'm proud to offer that platform, not shy about engaging in those engagements. >> and we should do more in a direct fashion. we -- one of the things i like with some of our n.g.o. partners

their assistants is putting cash in the hands of people who, for example, have suffered from an .arthquake or a tsunami i would hope that we give you food.urplus cash and less i'm embarrassed to say that it takes months 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 demonsvate the power of direct invest -- demonstrate the power of direct investment. >> for example, the president's budget last year called for a shift of about 45% of our food

aid program so we can reach four million additional children a year without spending an additional penny. it seemed like an uphill battle and it will continue to be. but this the farm bill we got the flexibility to reach about 800,000 children. that's incremental and that's real progress. and for those 800,000 kids -- >> you're such a diplomat. [laughter] >> be thinking about questions. we'll be taking questions. >> i think it illustrates that this new development echo system and there's a new initiative called family planning to meet the needs of 120 million women globally to access reproductive health services. this is a partnership with local governments, with usaid to work

collaboratively to meet an urgent and key reality right now. so going back to the framing of your question, it's not only about the u.s. interest, but global interest and there's a shift that's more globally and more inclusive to bring in government and local institutions. >> i know this is being taped. do we have some questions from the audience that you would like to ask? someone in the back. just wait for the microphone. >> thank you. >> mike mcdonald. thank you very much for the presentation. i've done a fair amount of work with public/private partnerships and at a large scale. but 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 echo system in haiti. that where haiti's failing is at the very base level of communities. and i'm just wondering with big data and social networks, can we approach getting some resources directly into these communities to enable them to emerge with their own ideas of what -- of how they want to live rather than in africa where large corporations are driving people off of their land into the cities, to places that have no infrastructure. >> dr. shaud, you want to try that one? >> sure. let me set the context a little is because, you know, haiti very, very important partner country for us and for many of us in this room. it's important to recognize that there's been tremendous progress since the earthquake. if you look at the three years

prior to the earthquake and the last year -- compared to the last three years, private investment is up 300% if you compare those two time frames. the economy's growing at 4.3%. one and a half million additional kids in school. and of the 1.7 million people who are displaced during the earthquake all but about 150 thousand of them are back in improved housing units and most are built to higher earthquake standards than before. that's, i think important context. in terms of whether the model works in haiti, i was talking about this but 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 rule women throughout haiti and that made a huge difference and reached a lot of families that wouldn't have been connected to a modern

cash economy in an effective and transparent manner. similarly i do think that the coupling of business investments and new hotels going up and the care call park where there are jobs being created, coupling that with effective public investment that is bringing down and ate of child death malnutrition and kids can take home food packages, those things all have to work in concert to see progress. i think the model works there as well. but the model we're talking about doesn't give companies access to land and title in a way that's nontransparent. it's where you measure results, track on them and consult

enterprise and public development gains. . and make no mistake we're buying up farmland so they can export their water. there are oftentimes international, multi-lateral pressures to invest in infrastructure projects on a scale that pose risks for the environment and don't have much trickle down benefit. of concerned that in most these situations we need to develop an infrastructure that includes the political infrastructure, the dysfunctionality in haiti for a

whole host of reasons is my -- mind-numbing and frustrating and the project that has been referenced has been really hard-fowlingt. it shouldn't be this hard but it is -- hard--fought. it shouldn't be this hard but it is. there isn't that political infrastructure where there are people who will take shortcuts. i mean, we've been fighting against illegal logging for instance, which you take poor people. you come in. you circumvent the law. you put cash on the table for further others destabilizing the society and the echo system that they face. these are hard to unwind. but it is -- it is, i think, our responsibility to put in place structures, infrastructure to

help people enforce their own local laws or to create them in the first place. and countries like the united states to respect them o -- so we don't turn a blind eye harvesting timber or endangered species or whatever. here's more that we all can do to try to provide that structure that enables people not have to choose between feeding their family and killing some rare animal. it's hard work but i think we're moving. >> clearly i think this is what it's all about. aid by itself is not going to be completely transformative and can't control everything in the conditions on the ground. but it's about setting a framework that is hopefully moving in that direction and is optimizing the u.s. dollars that we're investing into it. only about five or six minutes

left maybe in the front. wait for the microphone, please. it's coming here. >> good afternoon. i want to thank the wilson center. this is a very important topic. so i work for management systems international now. but i had the privilege of working for aid for 25 years. rodge, you mentioned american innovation and obviously there's a lot of innovation in this country. that's something that we can really sure. but my experience overseas illustrated that there's a lot well.ovation as what's the agency doing in terms of venture capital and other means to take advantage in leverage to support that. >> well, thanks for that and for your service. we've actually done i think a really interesting set of things that are now maturing, including partnering with private equity and the middle east and parts of

africa and latin america. and that has created a capacity to support those kind of entrepreneurial starts. i was in the west bank and saw a business plan competition with all of these young programmers having basically pitching to venture capitalists in the region their business ideas. i tell you they were good ideas. i would say half of them were you know, services we all use as online services taylored to the local context and half were completely novel. and it was just great to see. there must have been 400 in ramallah on a friday night in a big tent. young entrepreneurs that were pitching their business idea and trying to raise funds. you see that dynamic all over the world. i think our aid and assistance should be able to use that and encourage it. it's not that those -- those

-- women speak volumes. it's not to imply that all innovation comes from here. but people do think that when they think of successful entrepreneurship. they think american entrepreneurship and the more we can represent that abroad i think the better off we are. >> i think we're going to have time for maybe one more question. maybe the women in the red there. >> actually, i'm going to defer my spot to his excellencey from the philippines as i saw he raise his hand for a question. >> ok. >> thank you. first of all, i wanted to thank you. this is a very interesting presentation and to publically aknock the great job that the usaid and the u.s. military in

the aftermath of the typhoon. i've expressed my appreciation for the american people for the overwhelming generosity in terms of the assistance i got. my question to the congressman, if i may -- [laughter] reducing foreign aid considering precisely the kind of great job that usaid -- wouldn't u.s. congress consider providing a greater or larger budget for institutions like usaid that not only provide humanitarian assistance but are also able to develop very -- very attractive u.s. ss opportunities for firms, g.e., starbucks, wal-mart and so on. i am of course, concerned about he reduction of foreign aid.

but it deprives agencies to do much more for u.s. business. >> i want to go ahead and answer. >> you are of course, right. and i -- the reference that was made not this the usaid but to the u.s. military, watching in the aftermath of the tsunami, watching our military swing into action on bandiachi and providing water. i think that there was more good done in that region, not just for the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives were turned upside down. but candidly the perception people had about the united states. we are going to spend over the $700 ecade, approximately

billion on a nuclear arsenal years.'ve not used in 69 that has 1,000 times more than we need to destroy any country n the globe. they discovered cheating in the missile silos. we've got 450 missiles on alert with people's fingers on the button. they discovered that when they were investigating alleged drug abuse -- i mean, it's insane. if we are able to have people do we could reprogram conservatively a half trillion dollars -- give you 1% [laughter] merica would be safer.

the world would be better off and we would save the taxpayers a lot of people. but i come back to the power of these concept where is people come together and they see the practical stuff on the ground and these partnerships because that's what's going to make a difference for a divided congress. and more important for a divided country that have the support that we need to go forward. >> unfortunately, we've run out of time. it's been a fascinating discussion. and really important question about how does the u.s. use this form of its power out there in the world and thank all of you for coming. and maybe a quick round of applause for our -- [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013] -- >> on the next "washington journal" joseph antos and ron pollack look at the health care law and the extension given by president obama in providing health insurance. alicia caldwell discusss the future of homeland security under new secretary jay johnson. plus your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets all on "washington journal" life at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> watch our program on first

lady michelle obama saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and live monday night, we conclude our series with a two-hour special program from martha washington to michelle obama. >> she brings financial resources to the marriage as well as her managerial skills makes mount vernon a successful operation and makes it possible for washington to be away for age years fighting a war. >> there was something about abraham lincoln that she saw the potential. lessons in etiquette in the dining room that helped polish him up for washington society, the political parties where they invited a lot of people. and the strawberry and cream parties. she wielded a lot of power both over mr. lincoln and where she was going. >> involvement of mrs. roosevelt in the political career of mr. roosevelt is right from the beginning where she becomes much more active in the role after

1921 when franklin roosevelt contracted polio. encourage him to continue his political ambitions. >> live on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> next, a discussion about security on the korean peninsula including north korea's nuclear program. speakers included the korea director hosted by the institute for korean-american studies. his is an hour and 15 minutes. >> thank you, daniel. >> you know, it's quite ironic, i'm glad you mentioned the fact that it was here four years ago.

people remember four years ago nomaged snow maggedon. at the time it was a very splow news weekend and so this presentation got repeated coverage. and people had nothing else to do but stay home and watch a relatively boring, unexceptional speech at the time on the north korean nuclear program. i came as an intelligence analyst. so i'll try to scope my comments within the policy domain and resist the temptation to get into an overanalytical piece. there's no adage that goes you don't know where you're going until you know where you've been. it's a close cousin of those who don't learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat

them. when you deal with a difficult issue, you face a challenge of having to set a policy direction and define a set of guiding principles to under gird day-to-day decisions. the truth of this adage becomes strikingly clear. not too long ago i used the expression predictably pong ictable in using yang's surprise as to no longer be surprising. let me suggest that for the policymaker north korea may be termed transparently o make. north korea's is an actor whose effort to use mystique and surprise as diplomatic force multiplyiers are now so established as being no longer particularly mysterious. i found the 1999 korea central

broadcast system commentary on the revolutionary exploits of kim jong il which termed his political leadership as being mysterious beyond imagination adding it's no accident that even the enemies call the general's experience political art, unpredictable and legendary. i would assert however that after two 20 years of diplomacy of 0 years before that, sustained interactions, 40 years of sustained interactions up to that point through the mechanisms of military arm cyst commission and our day-to-day enter acts with north korea that we amassed sufficient evidence to not be back-footed by opacity or ffled by blinded by so-called black holes. today i would like to take a

look as we examine the future of north korea and our policy in terms of where we've been and how that impacts the direction as we need the future. in the early 1990's as we embarked the most sustained action, there's not much to look ack on as our diplomatic get ahead. we had no negotiating record. we had no test of pee pyongyang's dependability to live up to agreements with the united states. so at this time this warranted moving forward with what would become the agreed framework, not in blind hope, not on faith but on what might be called exploretory confidence building principles or a test there of. as you remember the agreed framework in 1994 came about following concerns over

inconsistencies between north korea's nuclear activities thaze declared to the i.a.e.i. and the intent of the agreed framework was to bring to a haul of missile material and through inspections resolve the differences between the north korean declaration of 90 grams or so of plutonium of what they claim to be a handful of damaged fuel rods. they yielded at the time. and of course, estimates by analysts and observers at north korea may have produced enough woman. m for at least a but they rep and effort to test the proposition that confidence could be built between two adversaries. a critical point of three major

strategic arcs in the history of north korea. the first one would be the emergence of north korea's intent and ability to produce this material and pursue nuclear capability. the second art being the power transition that we were witnessing the first of its kind in north korea. and finally having the emergence of a post cold war world. north the minority's ambitions were becoming clearer. it's international situation was different. and the environment was drastically changed. aggressiveness, vulnerability sectedertainty all enter at one time.

what went unchanged were north korea's nuclear ambitions. north korea never allowed the access to the sfims necessary to resolve the plutonium discrepancy. they continue the design of high explosives. north the end of 1990's, a ea appears to have pursued uranium witness program. sustained ve and record found a way to complete denuclearization and this would be captured in the september 19, 2005 joint system. in spice of the fact that talks were on the way and i would react and continued to run.

north korean had two reprocessing one. ne in 2003 and 2005. and then by showing dr. sig hecker metal liesed plutonium. and 204 yay nounsing its weaponization. even with adoption in 2005, rth korea launched and conducted its first nuclear test in october of 2006. we all remember the destruction of the cooling tower that would eventually come. and the progress of dismantlement. so these enter the february 2014 initial actions of the implementation of the joint statement, statement.

and the october 3rd, 2007 statement covering actions. and less than addressing all of is getting north carolina to -- to address the remaining uestions concern the plutonium programs. some of this is old history. but this representatively work is valuable because it provide the context within which they view the north korea issue when they inherited it. upon taking office in 2009, as you remember the president took office willing to extend and stay in the country like north korea. as they would be willing to unclifrpbl their fist. pyongyang eaks pee

began operations for a missile test. >> north korea proceeded to conduct a nuclear test on may 25th. again, just months after the obama administration took office. the sed nuclear test had a provide impact on those people who were otherwise believe that pee pyongyang's nuclear ambitions were more than some high take way to grab the attention of the united states. the seriousness in which the orld viewed his actions. the international consensus grew on the immediate to advance the program and inflict a cost on . at program

together these two resolutions clearly and unequivocally require north korea to suspend the nuclear program which would include launches. resolution 1974 to not conduct any nuclear test or any launch using ballistic missile technology and called on north korea to denuclearize. after the diplomatic dust had begin to settle, steve bosworth made a trip to pee pyongyang in an effort to get some type of dialogue jump started with the dprk. a few months later, north carolina again took in action sank in march ly

2010. it's capables on november 12th, as steve bosworthed a i were going to the region. we went to seoul, tokyo and beijing to brief our partners on the uranium enrichment program, some 45 minutes after we flew the pee sland, pyongyang island was shelled. we embarked to test the negotiations. once again another test to see whether the north korean's could engage in a conversation with serious of purpose. of course, in coordination with our other six-party partners in beijing and moscow.

to utiously began in 2011 engage north korea in a series of meetings designed to bring a halt to its nuclear program and missile launchts and in our effort to do that create an environment to produce such talks. after three sets of meetings. one in new york, 2011. one in geneva in october. and following the death of kim jong il. we came to an understanding in north korea that would son boo called the leap day deal. and understanding that we would pursue path of confidence building mutual confidence building measures which would begin with the north halting its missile launches and would be reciprocated with confidence building on our own. and yet again, barely two weeks after this test in essence was that administered north korea

announced it would proceed with a satellite launch in clear violation, not only of the united nations resolution banning such launches using ballistic missile technology and then the understanding that we had. in retrospect the february 29th deal was a test just like the september 19 statement. these three test may have been different in terms of the speed .ith which they were failed the significant of this action so soon of the leadership in terms of the february 29th understanding was not particularly encouraging as to the prospects for authentic and credible negotiations. most importantly for us, february 29th demonstrated that north korea was not prepared to engage in negotiations with a sense of purpose to insure that egotiations would resolve in

concrete the nuclear process. february, 2012 and political season and seoul, washington and beijing were looming. and as north korea watched the elections and political activities in those three capitals, we gain for another series of abouts which would commence in december. followed with a nuclear test the next year, 2013. followed by a period of intense rhetoric and vitriol. so the question is how are we responding? what should the future look like? what should it look like in terms of north korea's intentions and growing capabilitys? well, first of all, let me state our north korea policy is focused on two primary goals.

deterrence and denuclearization. i'm sure dave touched on a range of activities that we do within he context of the u.s. alliance. our extended strategy, our joint exercises, our planning under the variety of mechanisms that we have that feed our ministerial led consul they active meetings as we explore long-term vision and how we secure the capabilities. develop the doctrine and continuing to offer the contingencies posed by north carolina. peninsula for over six years. the alliance is strong and we will continue to be strong. we have to no doubt about that.

on the denuclear side. i thought i would share a few minutes pls in terms of our diplomacy and our policy. it's one of those statement of statements that need repeating perhaps every month or so. the united states would not accept north carolina's nuclear ate nor will we stand by a missile that can target the united states. it's worth noting thee the international community agrees with a series of united nations security council resolutions calling on the d.p.r.k. to rede nuclear. he results of tests now in 2006, 2009 and 2013 is the international consensus. the undeniable consensus nderneath north korea to emphasize. rst of all, it's the

entrality of our aligns. prk policy is founded upon clothes with continue operation with our allies. we go out regularly to the region in close continuous rdinary. we are not the only country that has learned the lessons of history that i just spoke to. second element, of course, is our close corporation with beijing. the united states and china ize the the denuclear

korean peninsula. we share similar goals. we have open lines of communication and continually consult with china and how to advance these common goals. we see u.s.-china corporation critical to attain critical steps to meet international negotiations and have a denuclearization. and in it's regard they have a with role do the ties north korea. the third principle is a principle of no reward. it's provocation, rhetoric, and it's refuseable to denuclear -- it will not e rewarded for bad behavior.

fourth principle has added to him. i spoke about briefly earlier. but there should be no tchute the united states will continue to take actions in our defense. this will include a robust sanctions. this includes strengthen our alliances with seoul seoul in tokyo. that we and our allies face. fifth principle is to main tine an alternative path. as we said repeatedly the united states will continue to edge courage north korea. choose aer path we look forward to a diplomatic solution. leading to congress denuclearizations actions. sit downis prepared to with north korea, the

commitments that they made. but he must take meaningful steps to show that has an ntention to abide by its commitments. honor international law and engage in negotiations. finally and this may be concerned our bottom line. we will judge north korea by its actions, not by its words. this is more than a talking point. really in a nutshell of the asons for dealing with the policy. the policy seeks to pursue in tandem economic construction and .he growth of it nuclear forces pee pyongyang has sur pewed --

pursued a policy that seeked economic gains. what we have with the declaration is party level strategic policy line, clarity into pee pyongyang's overarch trag tee jick goal. but as my colleague has noticed pee pyongyang is a dead in policy. scott snider wrote a very interesting piece of the nuclear development. i recommend that highly to those of you who have not seen it. in an essay submitted -- for .ive my pronunciation himself noted north korea's development of nuclear weapons is difficult to advance.

t since the sanctions unable to access advantage technology as well as aid for human, financial and physical resources. >> opening up to the rest of the world difficult to achieve. real results, political, economic, and social environment. general wong uses a lot of resources. maintains disproportion fatly large scale military. research rall perspective and the reform progress. >> even for the stability of the korean peninsula, china must use all of the cookies governmental research to convince them to abandon these nuclear weapons.

this of course is united states policy as well. in this way and i say this in close, he provides an opportunity, an opportunity to harpen north korea's choice. to remind north carolina that the security she seeks are possibility to denuclearization. we'll only continue to lead to. greater diplomatic and economic isolation and deprevacation. to remind him that this makes the country less security and less prosperous and to remember that the true vicks of north carolina's program are the north korean people and the piece and prosperity they desire and deserve. thank you. [applause] >> now the floor will be open.

>> thank you very much. it was a great historical overlay which is important for all of us to unction. but with that understanding the history, you know, we are kind of at new point the young leader with kim jong-un. i wonder if you could talk a little bit about your assessment of the stability of his leadership and, you know, if -- you know, if he's going through . the transition period what are the chances for things to go down the wrong road. if and when he is in a stable position, do you assess that you will continue his path as you have outlined which i really do -- othis tarns parent, owe make. if you could talk about the

leadership stability i would appreciate it. >> it's not very prudent to predict the future. what we see -- the reason i did this historical overview is to sthow continuity of some of these trends over time and to kind of understand that what we've seen in terms of the action in the dprk over the past few years being entirely consistent with behavior that goes back, you know, two leaders, two kims ago. in that regard, there's a degree to which the continuity provides a sufficient framework within hich to make smart policy. that's why the formulation to kind of get over this idea that somehow north korea's a country

that nobody really understands. and we don't know what they're going to do next. so we're sometimes handcuffed from a policy perspective we have associate understanding of the dprk. i think to makesome policy. the transition period is underway. it's an evolution process again if you take a step back and you look at the events of the past two years, within the larger asm of whether they with going. there was no inconsistencies or anomaly that would cause us to think that, you know, we're -- we're somehow not sufficiently aware of the direction. that said this is why i i spoke about the tons that he provides because the core of our policy that is been one of sharpening

choices for the dprk. -- ready to make clure in the negotiations that have a serious possibility of leaving the nuclearization steps. the other five pears are prepared to live up to their obligations. fundamentally transform. d also to be dill jebt and committed to sanctions and other actions that we need to take in our defense and that them to make sure that north korea knows that it's program cannot continue to grow unabated. that's there's a price to be paid. and therefore to understand the downside options and that's sharping choices strategy. >> so i think regardless of the

-- ction dprk had under his hese principles apply equally. >> yes. i -- i agree with everything you said. i wonder though about our actions. you know, and i agree that north korean has had a playbook that they've been following for 60 years. when we act differently than we have in the past. i think last years tensions last the exercise period month. >> her reaction waser very strong, unlike it's been in the past. that surprised north korea. and i say that because and as helby in his -- mr. said the alliance is crog.

and i wanted to shift gears a little bit. nd ask gears the president's drug policy and how it fits with our policy supporting her. the importance of her policy or the able of her policy to success also rests on the alliance. to nder if you could talk them. >> this is an area where our two countries could have continuous operation, even before the election when we first reach out to the political camps, during the campaign. foundationr that the were built on many of the same pinsnals we have. flexibility to explore and

probe. but a there's a lineage that that it resulted in substantial progress. and that would have been be founded upon. so our nk that tracks articulation of and to engage the north. also to hold the north accountability for its actions. what we have is an extremely national shoim. then i would argue many people and i came on boor roughfully three years ago. state visit. i stribted it to perhaps policy or president's as strng as those -- as strong as they were the

alliance is built upon shared interest and shared values. regardless of who is in charge. so it's even more charge when you have --. larry? did you something? >> whenever i hear an administration official and this goes back to the bush administration. it's not just the current administration. talk about north korea or read statements in the neighborhoods coming from u.s. officials, there is a topic that hardless ever gets mentioned. and if it is mentioned it's mentioned only in passing.

and that is north korea's pliff ration activities especially itself activities in the middle east. and i have seen and i've written about literally hundreds of reports quoting european intelligence sources, israeli intelligent sources and japanese intelligent sources describing a eep collaborative relationship between iran and north korea in both the development of missiles and the development of nuclear war heads. the latest of the -- of these reports described and a south korean officials was quoted in one of these. iran sending top missile experts to north korea and the second half of 2012.

who assisted north korea in eparing for the successful long range missile test of december 2012. and reports that iran paid a very handsome sum of money to north korea in order to send a ery high level delegation of nuclear experts to the 2014 nuclear test. but as i said this is kind of he unwritten, untalked about problem that i think given all of the information that has come out in recent years that there is with north korea. this deep involvement between north korea and iran. we also have the wikileaks

documents describing how ecretary rice instructed our ambassador in beijing to protest strongly to the chinese government over aircraft from teheran and pee pyongyang unloading people and apparently weapons in beijing's airport and efforts whichhese apparently bore no fruit. so i'm going to ask you, mr. siler if you can tell us koreang about this north iranian relationship. and what is the substance of it? if you can say anything about that, how much of a problem is

this going to be at any future diplomatic intercourse with north korea on the nuclear issue. >> thank you. larry, those are excellent questions. they're difficult questions as you mentioned because they do touch very directly and very really on some of our sensitive intelligence as well as the rest of the activities and our efforts to try to halt, prevent, roll back north korea's outward proliferation as well as the proliferation of technologies into north korea. this is a central purpose actually of the entire range of the united nations security council resolution derived sanctions that we put on north korea to not only impede the growth of the program. the cash that it earns from those sales but ashley to

prevent the outward movement of those technology. in this regard, let me just say a number of principles. first of all, it's a key, top interest of this administration and realy any administration. faceow the dangers that we and north korean's willingness to engage the activities. it is a top priority issue when we sit down with the north koreans, when we talk about when e came to nebraska 29. an international corporation growing marketedly particularly since the test. and in 2013 activity we partnered with a number of companies.

it helps to deal both with the well as the ial as related finances. that's about as far i can take a public answer for this issue but 's certainly one that's of paramount. >> that was a fascinating and deple pressing historyless sodge you gave us. you stated that we should judge north korea not on its statements but on itself actions. and it seems to me the same standard ought to be applied to partner, chin. they continually use the language that you use opposing and yet it has participated in north korea's program. beyond what he said, he was also

involved in the original proliferation which ended up in north korea. one could make the case that china is not only a pro live ray tor of w m.d. it's a pro live ray tors of pro live rating. it has parade in the east and in asia. so i would respectfully question the assumption of the u.s. government here. china shares, our goal or objective is that we. i would submit that china's number one priority is not north career, it's the nuclear program but north korean's so-called they would prefer letting it proceed.

it means that as a bumper country between the debt catic career and china terry carey today you that a year ago china made all these commitments to increase the issue on novereds question. there has been any. and i don't know if she would collapse. any event. sanctions on fuel and the economy let alone diplomatic protect. it seems me that this is some sort of about the element of in the room. and china has been a facile traitor. we motivate us and relax >> well, i don't really want to be a spokesman let me just speak

to some of the elements of our corporation. happy -- i had the prin ledge of rying out once to beijing. , indement productive. it was six parties talks. i need our colleagues here in articulates the courtroom and a desire for piece and scruent. both of those clearly understand. i think with the interest and the dwe sires of all the region. the dbs of china as well. you know the prc has been a in he united states it has been enforcing security it is other