 I wanted to ask, in essence what I asked each of the speakers to do is to tell a little bit of a narrative about how, in some ways, how their organizations or how they have seen changes in development, especially in relationship to, for example, the private sector and how they've worked with or around the private sector in the case of the third sector and in the case of the private sector, how they've changed their, how they've had a mind shift about development as an important part of their business. And then I'm going to come to Vin and I want Vin to tell us about how Congress has evolved in its thinking about development as well as how we continue to make the case for development, which is the question I've been asking all the folks who are publicly elected officials because I think that's the important question that we need to be asking because I think it's an ongoing challenge. So I'm going to start first with my friend Patrick Fine, who's the CEO of FHI 360. It's a very distinguished health and education nonprofit organization. Patrick had a distinguished career as a Foreign Service Officer at AID. I first met Patrick in Dakar, Senegal many years ago, had dinner at his home and met you to endure there, actually. So that's my, that's one of my talking points whenever I, when I talk about Patrick, but also Patrick then went on and was an appointee in the Obama administration at MCC and now he's now leading FHI 360 and doing so very ably. So thanks for being with Patrick. So tell us about, tell us a little bit personally about your journey in development, but also tell us about how FHI 360 has evolved in its thinking because I think this conversation is about the future and the evolution and development and also how we're going to have to work across sectors. Great. Thanks. First, thanks for putting this forum together and thanks to Chevron. This is fabulous. I've been here all day and attended the different sessions and have gained a great deal from it. So it's really a good conversation that you've got going. Also, thanks for putting multi-stakeholder partnerships on the agenda. It's a critical part of the development agenda. Oftentimes it's not on the agenda's forms like this, so it's great to have it here and it's really wonderful to be with this distinguished group. So I'm just going to make a few observations and I'm going to make them from the point of view of a practitioner. So I spent my career mostly in Africa working, designing and implementing programs and putting together multi-stakeholder partnerships. So that's the perspective I bring and then I can share a couple of examples from FHI 360 and what we're doing. First, I would say that multi-stakeholder partnerships are not new. It's not a new idea. Understanding who the development actors are, building alliances or coalitions or partnerships or PPPs or joint ventures, you know, whatever you want to call it, has been around for donkey's years. I think it was in 2002, 2003 that the term multi-stakeholder partnership overtook the term PPP and some of the other other terms. And in fact at FHI 360 we have a whole team devoted to partnerships. That's how important it is to the way we view the world. And it's because they can be super rewarding. They can mobilize ideas and resources. They generate ownership and political will to carry out activities. They can achieve more sustainable results and they increase accountability. At the same time they can be super frustrating because it's difficult to bring together different personalities, different institutional interests and different operating requirements. In simple terms, the more parties you have, the more complicated it gets. And that can translate into higher transaction costs to negotiate agreements to greater uncertainty because you may have the personnel in a partner change or you may have the priorities of a partner change and it can throw the whole partnership a skew. It often takes a greater level of effort to coordinate the joint actions and to meet different reporting requirements and it can mean that there's less flexibility in adapting and responding to changes. So while on one hand they're super rewarding, they're not without their challenges and I think it's important for us to be clear about those challenges if we want to put successful MSPs, I'm going to abbreviate it. MSPs together. So while these kinds of partnerships have been around for a long time, we've seen a very distinct pronounced evolution in the nature of the partnerships and that's simply because the world has changed. So as the world's changed, so has the way we put together partnerships and the things that they do. But if you just go back to 2000, you think about how the world has changed in the last 15 years. You've got rapid population growth, urbanization, mass migration. You've got the cross-border influences of conflict on one hand, increased prosperity on the other. So you've got a lot more trade, a lot more commerce going on. And then of course you have technology which has revolutionized everything we do. How we communicate, how we travel, how we buy and sell. It's revolutionized labor markets. It's changed everything. So we live in a truly globalized world and MSPs have evolved to respond to that globalized world. So I'm going to share a couple of ways that we see these things changing. We see the changes in our world changing the landscape for multi-stakeholder partnerships. First, there's a lot more players. You go to a community, I think of the community where I was a Peace Corps volunteer, there was the traditional chieftain and there was the church and there was a primary school and that was it. There were no other players in the community. Now you've got many small businessmen, you've got multinational companies, you've got local companies, you've got different political structures. So it's a much more complex and diverse landscape than it once was. That was in Swaziland. And that was a rural area. You look at urban areas and you see the same kind of diversity of new actors who have a stake in what happens in their communities. So we see a lot more players and we also see those players viewing their roles differently and particularly we see private sector, the commercial and the business sector viewing their roles differently. And here are some of the trends that we see. One is a trend towards a much more inclusive conversations. So it used to be that there had to be a lot of negotiation and advocacy to try to convince different groups to come together and that it was in their interest to involve other stakeholders. That's not so much the case anymore. Now we see people sort of starting from the point of we need to have an inclusive conversation because we know that our interests are going to be influenced by these different constituencies. So we see more inclusion. There are a lot of non-traditional investors and funders where there didn't used to be. There are things, you have whole new conversations like impact investing which is changing the conversation about how we put together partnerships, what they look like, you have product diversification in the terms of what kinds of partnerships are possible and what different actors can do together. We've moved from talking about corporate social responsibility to talking about shared value. And that is a fundamental shift and if you think about it, it's a much more sophisticated way about thinking about what a partnership looks like, where the partners play multiple roles and they view their interests differently than a more one-dimensional approach. And perhaps most importantly, there's a growing appreciation by local business communities in less developed countries that their bottom lines tied to the well-being of their community. That underwrites domestic resource mobilization. I know something that's near and dear to your heart. But it also leads to new types of multi-stakeholder partnerships and new possibilities for what you can do. And I'll give an example from Senegal, where there the local business community, both small and large, but Senegalese, recognized that their interests were deeply impacted by the nation's ability to educate its children. And so they mobilized and they brought together dozens of local businesses. They brought together multi-national businesses. They brought together the public sector in the form of the Ministry of Education. And then they brought both public and private schools, which were small community-based schools and private schools, into a coalition that formed the foundation for education, the private sector foundation for education. And they're now funding a variety of activities to improve the quality of education in that country. It is a homegrown initiative. It has stakeholders from the community level up to the multi-national level. FHI 360 has been really proud to help as a kind of facilitator. So our role in that partnership has been more as a facilitator and a sharer of lessons and a connector as opposed to a direct doer. And I think it's a great example of the evolution of multi-stakeholder partnerships from one where the private sector might say, here, we'll give you some money to paint the school or to build a fence to one where they've formed an institution to have a more sustainable approach to really improving quality of education. So that's one. Second, as countries become more urbanized and more connected and, in many cases, more prosperous, the development challenges are changing. And I think we all see that in the work that we do. And I'm going to give just one example. If you look at what the main drivers of illness and death are in less developed countries, they have been infectious diseases. And you've seen the huge initiatives like the Global Fund for Malaria and Tuberculosis and the PEPFAR effort to address HIV-AIDS. It's really been around stopping infectious diseases. But if you look out to 2025, what you see is a dramatic shift in the drivers of illness and mortality in less developed countries away from infectious diseases. They fall kind of to rank the top 10. They fall to the bottom of that list. And at the top are respiratory heart, diabetes, cancer, road safety. And road safety is number four, I think, on that list. So you have non-communicable diseases and injuries rising to the main drivers of illness or poor health status in less developed countries. So an example of a multi-stakeholder partnership that's recognizing this trend and saying we need to do something about it is in Ghana. And that's, again, it's great because it brings together the Ministry of Health, two university schools of public health, local universities. It brings together multinational pharma company Novartis. And then scores of pharmacies and what they call licensed chemical dealers, which are sort of, they're not licensed pharmacies, they're below a pharmacy, and they're spread around the country. So it brings together these small businesses to put together a more sustainable approach for, in this case, addressing hypertension. In Ghana, something like 40% of the population has hypertension or is at risk for hypertension. And only 4% know it, have been diagnosed. So there's this huge gap between the problem and addressing the problem. And what this stakeholder partnership does is it makes accessible to people through pharmacies and through these licensed chemical dealers, which are out in the communities, means to test so a person can come in and have access to do a test at little to no cost. And then if they need treatment, they can go through the referral system to get treatment. But it's a way of delivering a service out across the entire country, both urban and rural. And to do it, it took this combination of partners. And again, I see that as a very, as a much more sophisticated approach that realizes that you've got multiple people at different parts of the society who have a stake in addressing this problem, identifying it, figuring out a solution, and then working together to bring that solution about. So let me just conclude by saying that just summarizing that the nature of the challenges, the way the partners view their roles, and the way we come together to address the issues are only evolving and into more durable, more sophisticated, and hopefully more effective partnerships. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you very much. It's a very different world than when I visited you in 2002 in the car Senegal. I mean, it's certainly if you listen, if you just listen to the way you describe the changes, it's a, some far more complex place, technology, the issues are, are changing and evolving, and we have to, we have to change with them, right? So Helene, thanks for being with us, really. And also thanks for being involved with our, being a, being a, one of the, the task force members for our, for the, for the commission that we did that created the report that I was referencing earlier. I was saying earlier in the green room, I first visited care in many years ago before you were leaving it. And I was at AID and working in multi stakeholder partnerships. And I wouldn't say I got the warmest reception. And so I wanted you to just share a little bit about the journey for, for both at care, because I just know that you have really transformed the way care thinks about it. But I know that the social sector has been changing too. So it wasn't, of course, you know, it takes leaders to do that, but there's also been a whole series of forces that are changing the way that, that the social sector is organizing and thinking about how change happens. Yeah, thanks. And again, my, my thanks as well to you and to Chevron and others for hosting this, sponsoring this. I think this is a great chance to really think about these very complex partnerships and, and how to keep evolving them. You know, yeah, I think it's fair to say that a decade ago, plus, maybe even five years ago, there wasn't, in general, warm and fuzzy feelings between the NGO sector and private sector. I, you know, myself, I mean, I went into my career thinking I wanted to make a difference in the world, have, you know, create positive social change. You know, the last thing I was going to do was to have anything to do with the private sector. That was the dark side. Those were the devils, you know, you stayed as far away from them as you could. And you went into the good organizations, you went into government, you went to the not-for-profit sector, you did something that had as its mission, social change, social justice, etc. But, you know, I think the world has shifted. And, you know, my own conversion, if you will, I think came when I went to the Gates Foundation and, you know, not surprisingly, this is a philanthropic organization that is founded by two people who were from the private sector and believed that, in fact, the private sector could be an engine for good. And I saw there, you know, lots of these kinds of public-private partnerships that really were created in a way to look at things that were otherwise market failures. How do you put resources into things that markets alone may or may not address? And so, from that experience, I myself gained, you know, a real appreciation for, you know, the value of what private sector could do to create positive social change. And, you know, I mean, if you think about our own history as a country, you know, we evolved because there were economic engines that also believed that you can create economic value and social value at the same time. And so, back to your point about shared values, I think this notion of shared values is becoming more and more part of the lexicon. And I think, you know, some of it comes from a real sense of self-interest. When you see where the world is going, where economies are going, the economies that are rising the fastest are not the economies in the currently industrialized world. They are the new economies, the emerging economies. And I think companies realize, particularly multinational companies, if they're going to continue to have markets, if they're going to continue to grow profits, that you have to also think about those communities in which they will be working. And so I think there is this whole new opportunity to look at how you create economic value and social value at the same time. I think not-for-profits have also realized, you know, if we're true by our mission, we can't only take on these huge problems like eliminating extreme poverty or eliminating disease or whatever the case may be and just do it with organizations that bring the same thing to the table that we do. That's great. And we've always been partnering with other not-for-profits. And that's good because you can extend good programs the same way. But if you can bring different skills to the table, then you really have that opportunity to create much greater change. And so, you know, I think for both reasons, I think companies have understood why working to create social value makes a difference. I think not-for-profits have realized why it makes a difference to work with people who bring different skills. And so I think we are in a whole new world in terms of this notion of these kind of double or even triple bottom line because I think the environment comes into this as well and the whole notion of sustainability. So just, you know, give some examples of the kinds of things that we're now very involved in. One of, a big area of work is how do we incorporate small holder farmers into the value chains of global companies? So Cargill and General Mills were working with cocoa farmers in West Africa, you know, helping them to be able to increase their cocoa yield and get it to the point where it can actually be sold in global value chains. So we're connecting people who have skills, who would otherwise not have access to global markets, getting them to the point where they can actually become part of global markets, becomes a sustainable source for companies. And it's one of those kinds of win-win situations. And I, you know, I go on examples like that where by actually helping to link markets with the small holder farmers and people who would otherwise not have those access, you really have these kind of win-win situations. And I think we're seeing more and more of those sort of opportunities. But I think it goes beyond just those kind of on-the-ground tangible experiences. Policy and advocacy change, another huge way. And again, I think to your point, you know, there was a time when you thought about corporate social responsibility is, you know, give me a couple hundred thousand dollars, I'll build a schoolhouse, I put it in my brochure, we feel good about ourselves, we got a couple hundred. And we send you a postcard. Exactly. But I think, you know, those days are over where the only value of corporate partnerships are money. You know, money's good, it helps. But, you know, sometimes you have even greater value and create greater change when you're working on policy change. So, for instance, food aid reform was a huge issue that we were involved in as an organization, looking at how we can be better about local purchase of food, get out of the business of monetizing food, all of these sort of things that were part of policies that were created 60-some years ago, maybe make sense, but don't make sense in this day and age. We got several of the big agriculture and agribusiness who also realized why, you know, it wasn't a good policy and, you know, came along with us on that journey. And we've had huge impact on the farm bill, food aid reform, etc., because we also had the voices of corporations who understood that this was also good, good practice, good business, good policy. We're doing a lot of work in Bangladesh with companies that we work with and particularly post the big factory fires, working to shift the way they work and the standards that they set. Now, we were doing programs with some of those same corporations like Gap and Walmart, etc. Those programs were great, but if we can get big companies like that to shift the standards of how we work in those countries, again, that has huge value that goes beyond just any particular program that we can do together. So I just think, you know, more and more we're looking at how, you know, working with the private sector can have a huge impact. That said, there's also challenges. And, you know, there are still companies that want to trade on the names and the value and the brands of companies that are the organizations like ours that are known for, you know, to have good names and want to brandish their sometimes not so positive corporate practices. And I think it is this, it is this challenge of how do you engage with companies who may not quite be there yet in terms of their practices? But if you don't have that dialogue, then you also don't have progress. And I think we've felt very strongly that while we have certain standards around who we accept money from, who we do business with in a direct way, but also looking at companies that have a sincere desire to look at are our business practices in need of change? Are we thinking about pro-poor practices? Are we thinking about the way we do business and the ways that actually help the communities that we work with? And if you're there, we're there to go on that journey with you. And I think you have to have that sense of, you know, of some trust and some ability to work through what are sometimes very, very difficult issues because if you don't have that dialogue and if you assume that there's no way of getting to another point, then we will continue to have this, you know, this kind of dichotomy of this is the bad company and this is the good NGO. And I think we want a world where in fact we're all looking, we're all working towards how do we make the world a better place? And how do we use the different levers that we each have? Thank you. Thanks very much. Steve, you're at a company that's gone on a major journey on how it thinks about development over a 15 or 20 year period. I can remember sitting in the Ronald Reagan building cafeteria with Simon Lowe's who I think was here last night and going back and forth on 20 different address of a memorandum of understanding between AID and Chevron and Angola. And that relationship changed the way AID thought about companies and big opportunities to work with companies. And there was some sense that the partnership with AID had a significant impact in the way in Chevron thought about development and partnerships. It wasn't starting from zero in 2002 to begin with. And I also know that you were also in the field for a long time and you've worked in some pretty complicated places before you came back to San Ramon. And so I know also at a personal level, not just at an institutional level, you've experienced developing countries and their challenges. And so I know you bring both a personal perspective to this and you also bring sort of a very interesting narrative from within Chevron on this. Well, thank you very much, Dan. It's a pleasure to represent Chevron here today and it's been a pleasure for Chevron to partner with CSIS in sponsoring this discussion on development this now in its fifth year. And I believe is producing some different ways to think about how development's done. And I generally don't get called a demon or the dark side until after I finish by talking more if you're standing in one of our gasoline stations, but I'll be on my best behavior and maybe I'll leave with a little D instead of a cap. But you know, I think ours has been a journey and it's evolved. I mean, we, like most corporations or companies, we wrote a lot of checks for a lot of years. And we were pretty good at writing checks and we wrote some that were a lot bigger than others. And but we worked on a lot of complicated places. And our operations in many of those complicated places aren't in we may have an office in the capital city, but the actual operations are in remote parts of the country and they're surrounded by the people of that country who have very, very basic needs in many cases. So over a period of time, and we begin to shift our thinking about from philanthropy to what today we've migrated to investment. And we look at this part of our business the same way or through the similar evaluation processes as we look at capital investments on our core business of producing energy and producing energy for the world's needs. We've seen the benefits in this country and OECD countries of reliable, affordable energy and how that powers progress. And I think some of that observation led us to begin to changing our thinking about how we go about investing in social projects or improving living conditions or working conditions in the places we do business. A couple of the earlier speakers said a lot of companies get started because they feel it's the right thing to do or somehow they want to feel better as a corporation that they're helping in some way. And there's nothing wrong with those reasons. It is the right thing to do. If you're more fortunate, you should try to help those who are less fortunate. But what we began to realize is even Chevron's a large company. And in current environment, we're going to be a lot closer to a nonprofit than we have been the last few years. But we are a large company. We've been successful for a long time. And we began to say, well, you know, how do we create something here that's not dependent on us writing checks for the rest of recorded history? Because that's just not a sustainable model, no matter how large or how successful your your company happens to be. And our government hosts in the countries we do business were our partners. And so we begin to try to think about how do we how do we shift this from philanthropy philanthropy to more of, you know, investment in something that's going to produce progress over time? It helps us a little bit in thinking about we don't get seduced by having to see immediate step change progress because our business is such a long cycle business. We view this as a very long game. And you can get very frustrated early in the game if you expect, you know, lightning bolt changes. So I think that's helped evolve our thinking a little bit. But as we begin to take on new kinds of projects and in a different way, we realize there's some things we're very good at. We're pretty good at project management. We manage some of the most complicated energy projects in history. We're pretty good at that. We have significant resources to work with. We have the ability to attract talent and bring focused resources on an issue. But when you get into delivery of health systems or education systems that gets to be pretty far afield from what our core business is. And so finding partners who could bring those skills as Helene was saying, you know, and compliment the things that we're good at, we saw an opportunity to be more effective and achieve results on a faster timeframe. And we've got a lot of examples in a lot of complicated parts of the world where, you know, some things worked out very well. Dan mentioned he was at AID, the Angola Partnership is something that companies very proud of the results. We replicated that in the Delta in Nigeria and the Nigeria Delta partnership initiative. And we've taken pieces of it on a smaller scale in Bangladesh. You mentioned Bangladesh. Last year, we announced a $15 million new commitment to Bangladesh. So let me just interrupt you, Steve. You're the largest taxpayer in Bangladesh. We are. We're the largest energy company, largest taxpayer. I don't think we're the largest employer, because I think that's still the tea plantations, but we are the largest taxpayer. We're a $30 million commitment in Thailand. And I'm not throwing those numbers out for anything other than to say that, you know, we are, our businesses are large scale and our approach to social investments is of a similar scale. But this journey is not complete. But we would not have been nearly successful in Angola or Nigeria without USAID and the other partners who have been. Yeah, the last thing I'll say, and I want to take up too much time, is engagement has something that has turned out to be critical. Because in, in Nigeria, early in our time in the Delta, we decided they needed school for kids. And then they did. And we all, we built a beautiful building. And we showed up and ribbon cutting and all had our picture placed. I wasn't there personally, but we took our pictures and hung them on the wall and not too long after that, we gathered there again. And couldn't understand how what had been a beautiful school is now pile of embers. And the reason was we didn't engage the whole community. And we didn't realize all the dynamics between the communities. And that wasn't necessarily their highest priority. So we learned a valuable lesson about the power of engagement of even those you're trying to help. And so we don't embark on any of these projects anymore without local stakeholder engagement. And it has made our efforts much, much more successful. But I would say the secret sauce is the right combination of partnerships and they can be, you know, public, private, multi partner, whatever, whatever moniker you want to put on them. But finding complementary skill sets that people have a similar view, similar aspirations as something's worked very, very well for Chevron in our journey. Kathy, thanks for being with us. And thanks again for helping us with the commission. And we're very happy with the work and very, very grateful for your commitment and the time that you put into it. Abbott is a company that's also been on the health industry and the agribusiness industry as well in some ways. And so we there's been a significant journey for Abbott. And some of the the case studies that you shared with us were very, very interesting in terms of getting at some of these issues of leveraging something other than money expertise, having an creating vehicles that are in essence ongoing concerns. So I just share a little bit about that share that your perspective with us. Happy to and thanks so much for the invitation to be here, Dan. It was a great pleasure to work with you and Helene and others on the commission. And I still reference those relationships and the work that we did. So thanks for that. I have to say we're in a new era when the NGO representatives on this panel have exhausted my talking points. It's really exciting that we're talking about shared value. We're talking about about how we can engage more meaningful as a business. But you're right. This journey when I came to Abbott ten years ago, I'm in the global citizenship department and it was probably 90 percent of my work was around philanthropy and 10 percent was on responsible and sustainable business. And over time, our team took an active role in trying to change that. We went to our boss and said our money and our people are in the wrong places. What we see as a business in terms of how we can assist and develop economies, it's really more so more effective and done more effectively through our business engagement than through our philanthropy. Now, our philanthropy is important. It always will be. But what we did is we took the time to carve off more risk in our philanthropy in the early days and really test some of these ideas that we had. We wanted to make our partners sustainable. We had one great NGO come to us and say, you know, we really need a product donation in Haiti. We're trying to ward off malnutrition in this certain population. I said, I'll give you whatever you want because I trust you so much. But you have to make me a promise that when we when you have an idea about how we can partner more specifically in building that economy of Haiti, let's let's let's do it. That will be in with you on this. And so about a year later, in partners and help came back to us and said, look, we're making this great product. It's called Maria Mamba. It's an RUTF and it's saving lives. But we have some questions that you as a nutrition company can help us answer. Do we have the right ingredients? Do we have the right quality systems? And how in the world do we make enough for people in terms of meeting demand? And you know, I turned to our business and said, you know, we do this every day. How can we help? And over time, what we were able to do is is is engage the local economy, start sourcing ingredients locally from the Haitian farmers would now increase their revenues by 400 percent. And that translates into, you know, a ripple of back going through that economy. You know, they're starting to hire people. They're starting to send their girls to school. And it also informed us that we can take this power as a business and really put it to good use in the economies where we have a presence. And so we've taken actually one of our NGO partners from Haiti, TechnoServe, which is a great not-for-profit that builds agricultural capabilities and capacity. And we've directed that partnership to India where we have made a commitment to source 80 percent of our inputs locally. And what we're doing is we are not just looking at our immediate suppliers, but we're looking way upstream from that supplier, looking at individual farmers, dairy farmers and how to help them improve their lives, their family lives through building their capacity. I'm now taking some of my corporate donation money and I'm building both milk chillers in India. And we think that that kind of investment in infrastructure and that kind of training of farmers in terms of getting them veterinary care, making sure that they've got a cell phone that works and they can understand what the price of milk is on the market that day is going to transform those economies as well. Now, it's not all so simple, but you think that we're on the right track. And I have to credit Helene Gale. And Helene came to Chicago when she first started her work with care. And she said something that I've repeated far too much. But she said, you know, we used to give people fish. Then we taught them how to fish. Now we're revolutionizing the fishing industry. And it was spot on. And she also, I mean, as we're starting to think differently as a business, not for profits like care, we're starting to push us differently saying, you know, because I wear two hats, the foundation and citizenship. I really appreciate all the money that you've given to us from the foundation. But we want to be part of your value chain. And so we did some tests. I mean, really early on, we gave a grant to Cara in India to try to help us figure out, you know, how do we work together in terms of social enterprise? And, you know, I think that we both, both organizations learned a lot in advance to our thinking. And I think the role of business can be carve off that risk, try and test these new ideas and these new strategies so that we can get to the how. We know that there is a need, but how we tackle these challenges will be what makes the difference. You agree. Vin, thanks for being here and your former congressman from Minnesota. And you've also been a friend to CSIS. You were on the commission and you're one of the co-chairs and thank you for doing that. And we continue to draw upon you for any number of different projects and we're very grateful for your ongoing engagement. But the reason we wanted you to be on this panel. It's always a pleasure, but I know you wouldn't stop asking. You know that's true. You know me too well. It's true. So I think what we wanted you to share was the way in which the US Congress has looked at development. Because if you listen to this panel, you've heard significant shifts in the way in which different, whether it's the private sector or whether it's the social sector and the development community has looked at the changing world and looked at either the private sector or looked at how development happens or sort of a theory of change, if you will, there's been shifts in that. I think it would be helpful because I want to shift the conversation using you as a pivot to what does this mean for the US government and what do we need from government and also some of the challenges. Because I think what I want you to do is share with us a little bit of how the Congress has looked at development over time. And one of the recommendations that came out of the report was we need to have the private sector that the private sector ought to consider being more formally engaged in conversations on development here in Washington. And there have been a number of steps in that direction and Chevron's helped with that and other organizations, whether it's US GLC has also been very effective in doing that as well. But if you could just share your perspective on how that has changed because I think that's a significant conversation unto itself. Well, Kathy got to talk about bulk milk chillers and Steve got to talk about Chevron service stations. Those are more pleasant subjects usually than the United States Congress. But I know that the main question on most of your minds is am I going to quit soon enough so you get to ask a couple of questions. And the good news is I served in the House not the Senate. I can be convinced. I think, I guess the way I would start by saying is when Dr. Hammy called me and asked me if I would serve as a co-chair of the commission. My first thought was this is designed to help firm up support for foreign aid in the Congress. And I have to do that. It's sort of an obligation, an unpleasant obligation but a necessary obligation. It didn't turn out to be that but that was my initial mindset. And I think that if you think about how the Congress has looked at some of these issues that was for a long time the way that Congress looked upon these issues. The issue was foreign aid. Nobody really wanted to vote for it unless there are a few constituencies of countries that were large recipients but most people in Congress didn't want to vote for it. You go to a town meeting and you come away convinced that the average constituent thought that the federal budget was about 80% foreign aid and the rest of it was congressional salaries. And it was a hard, hard vote to cast. So you try to cobble together support of people based on their thoughts about the Cold War or something like that. But it was that and the other part of it was they knew it wasn't gonna do any good. There were no good stories. There was, we had to say among those who thought that they had a supply of foreign aid it was out of humanitarian and moral considerations but they didn't think there was really gonna be a good story to tell in Sub-Saharan Africa or most of Latin America or Southern Asia. It was a losing proposition. I think that that mindset lasted for a long, long time. Now what I would say is in my, the course of what I learned on the commission it was a very positive experience for me. We of course talked about the development assistance budget but we talked about mainly about what all the other panelists have been talking about here this afternoon, which is development strategies and I would emphasize good news stories. Good news stories in the, not unmixed, bad places, places that are resistant to change, places that are going up and down as opposed to in a straight line up but economies and societies that we thought of as stuck on the bottom and immovable are dynamic places now and they're dynamic not just because we're pumping a lot of government money into it but because the private sector and the NGO community and the government working together can leverage the powers of the local people and make good things happen. I think when you think about the Congress what we've done with this commission what you've done here at CSIS with the help of Chevron and everybody else is to get beyond thinking about simple foreign aid money and talk about a development strategy for the United States. To the extent that we can move Congress to think about it in those terms that's a huge success. There are some impediments. A lot of people still can't, not just in the Congress, in the country, can't think about America's relationship to the world other than in Cold War terms. They know the Cold War is over. They're not sure what's replaced it. It looks ugly and dangerous. That's about all they know. The Great Recession convinced everybody for a time that we had to sew our wallets shut because the money was all gone and now there is a focus which I think is necessary but the focus on our long-term death situation has created almost a permanent constricted and constrained environment in terms of just about everything budgetary on capital. So it's a difficult environment in which to talk about government's role in these things. But it's not all negative. Throughout the last many years when we've had sequestration and constraints on budget and things like that, the budgets that we care about here have held up reasonably well, better than I would have thought at the beginning. I'm most familiar with the Democracy Promotion Budget because I chair the National Endowment for Democracy for eight years. We would always like more, we could use more, but we have been relatively well protected by both Republicans in Congress and the Obama administration, the Bush administration before that. I think that there is a, that tells me there's an undercurrent of support in the Congress that is better than we might have thought. We'll see what's gonna happen in the course of this Congress, but the trade issues are going to come to the fore and we'll find out if there is a latent protectionism in Congress that would spill over into attitudes towards development generally. I'm hopeful that that won't be the case. Of all things, we saw an op-ed this week by Paul Ryan, Chairman of the Louisiana Music Committee and Senator Cruz talking about the need for trade promotion authority. That's significant in terms of the Congress, particularly in terms of my party because Senator Cruz was probably the most influential person with House Republicans doing some things we didn't think were very constructive in the last Congress. The fact that he is trying to help build a majority for trade promotion authority and trade agreements tells me that there is an attitude toward international engagement that is very, very positive. I guess my main, I have a couple of pieces of advice. First of all, very, very practical. I talked to Steve just a little bit about it before we got up here, but the corporate community particularly needs to deepen its approach to some of these issues we're talking about. Chevron is probably an exception, but most corporations at the CEO and corporate suite levels will profess a very strong dedication to the kinds of things we believe in in this room to develop the strategies. And they usually have a philanthropic arm that works on them pretty strongly, but as a practical matter, corporations hire lobbyists, both in-house and contract lobbyists, who spend their time building relationships on the hill and plead, and are to the Congress the face of the corporation. And their attitude almost always is to talk about only the most narrow and immediate impactful policy for a company. A tax change, a regulatory change, that's understandable, but if companies really want to have an impact on this issue, it's great that the CEO is involved, it's great that the top officers are involved, it's great that the corporate foundations are involved. Dig down a little deeper. Give instructions to the lobbying teams that live here and work the hill day in and day out and say this is important. It's not just a nice thing to say, it's an important thing for our company because we have a long-term strategy of growth around the world and we need you, Congressman, to understand that when you vote on these issues of development assistance or trade or anything else like that. So that's one very practical thing I would say to my friends in the corporate world. Finally, to everybody around the NGOs, particularly, I guess, when you make an argument to the members of Congress, we did work, I think Helene might remember because she was, her care was someone involved, we did work for Oxfam in the run-up to the Great Recession and it's the first time I really spent a lot of time and I found resistance in the NGO world to talking to members of Congress about anything other than the moral imperative of voting for assistance on a humanitarian basis. Now, I believe all that. You know, I'm a Catholic boy, we got Mary Noll Magazine when I was growing up, it's kind of instilled in me, but anybody, you heard Tom Dashel this morning, I don't know if Tom talked about this, but he and I have talked about this a great deal. When you count votes in the Congress, if somebody tells you they want to vote for it for a reason that you don't think is the most important reason, you don't say, no, no, no, don't vote for me on that. There's a lot of different reasons why we can advance a development assistance budget and particularly I find the NGO community, sometimes there's an unwillingness to consider things like connections to national security policy, competition with the Chinese, which is being felt by some members of Congress. Religious liberty questions matter to increasing members of Congress. Find the issues that matter to members of Congress and if that's what is gonna drive them toward the right position, that's what we should do. It's that's really true of every issue that works its way through the Congress and the tendency of the press and pollsters and there else is to simplify all these issues quite a bit when everyone is a composite of a whole lot of impulses that drive people to take a particular position. And finally, one of the best arguments and I heard the end of the last panel, people talking about the empowerment of women around the world as a strategy. That's also a political strategy on Capitol Hill. Talking about how development programs increasingly are programs that engage women and succeed only through the empowerment of women which we have certainly found in the pro-democracy community is also now a powerful political argument on Capitol Hill and we should incorporate that into every argument we make up there. Thank you, Vin, thanks. I wanna ask Patrick and Helene, you were both in the public sector in past lives and now you've been on the outside for extended period of time where you had to build multi-sector partnerships with companies and we've both talked very clearly about how you've engaged with the private sector. Could I just ask you to both comment? We did a report in the lead up to the commission on the state of play of multi-sector partnerships and how the US government is doing on that. But if you could just talk a little bit about what you'd like to see different or what you need from the US government from the executive branch in order to sort of further the sort of multi-sector partnerships. Is it either, there may be something very practical, it may be something, is it just a broader understanding that the way in which you do your jobs is different now and is that, so just think a little bit, if you could just think a little bit about, because you were both on the inside for a long time but now that you've been on the outside, it's a different kind of a relationship. If either of you would just comment on that, I'd be appreciative. Let me know, all right. Go ahead. Sorry. No, I was just gonna say, I think make it easier to do it. Bottom line, we all know that government bureaucracies can be very heavy. Most government bureaucracies aren't gonna speak specifically for AID or CDC where I was. I mean, you've got a certain way of doing it and a certain kind of grantee that you're used to working with and if you wanna foster partnerships, you have to make it easier for that to happen. So I think one is just, that's explicitly something, and I know there's GDF and there are other things, but they still aren't simple to engage in and I think the simpler we can make these things, the easier we'll all be incentive to do them. Patrick. Yeah, I think that on the USAID side that they have done a pretty good job over the last five years of really looking at how to prioritizing promoting public-private partnerships and looking at what are some of the constraints that are either in procurement rules or in other policies that they have and trying to find ways of dealing with them. Now not all of them can be overcome because we're talking about public funds. So you are gonna have some boundaries. Some constraints. But I actually think that their commitment is real, that there's genuine support, that it's possible to go in and talk about specific constraints and brainstorm around ways of overcoming those. So from our point of view, I would say that there's a pretty good track record and it's gotten better. I mean, that's the main thing. There will always be constraints, but it's gotten better. The other thing, to add to that, two other things, I mean, back to VIN's comments, USAID and all government agencies do things partly because they're appropriated by Congress and they have to go along with congressional mandates. And so I think to the extent that Congress is also educated to why these kinds of partnerships should be done, it will facilitate AID and other government agencies being able to be more flexible. Also, I think getting more people into the AID system who have had private sector experience. It's the same, we're going to the same thing at care. We won't be really great at developing these partnerships if everybody comes with the same mindset and they've only had one experience. And so I think for all of our organizations, getting people who have different kinds of experience, get more private sector folks into USAID, into the NGO world, et cetera, have that kind of exchange because they're going to bring different ideas, they're going to think about things differently. And I think that will also change the culture of organizations internally. No, thanks for that, Helene. When I was in government with Henry IV, we were able to help set up the Franklin Fellows program at the State Department, which was a vehicle to get folks in. And then we were able to jerry-rig, that's not the right term, but it was sort of with bubblegum and shoestring, we were able to figure out ways to get additional secondments from companies like Intel into AID. And our report that Anna Saito and I wrote together talked about we need to put secondments on steroids, we need to be doing a lot more of that. And I do think that's absolutely the case. We need folks that have had multi-sector experiences, whether they're in the social sector or whether they're in government or whether they're in the private sector. And I think you're starting to see that across all three of those sectors in terms of the hiring that's made or sort of the career paths that people are embarking upon. Because we even talk different languages. And I mean, I still think about an experience where we're working with one of our private sector partners and the group that we were working with, this is around some of our microfinance and other work. And the person who we were working with who understood this, if you talk to them about financial inclusion, they understand that they get that. But he said, you know, if I go to my colleagues and talk about financial inclusion, their eyes glaze over. But if I say a billion new customers, they get it immediately. So, you know, it's just being able to talk each other's language. It's a little bit what Vin was saying. Yeah, right, exactly, right. I have a story about that related to my relationship with Chevron. So when I was, Simon and I were sitting in the basement of the Ronald Reagan building for several days. It was me and two other colleagues from aid and it was Simon on the other side. And we were going back and forth and I'd look at my colleagues who knew the Angola program and the Africa program better than I did. And they said, well, and this was the, I don't think AID uses this exact term any more, Patrick will know what I'm talking about. And so we'd look and say, well, that's not in line with ESO. And we talk about ESO this and ESO that and ESO this and ESO that, which in AID language at the time was strategic objective, like what's your big goal? So after about literally the second day of this, Simon, who's very polite and to sort of listen to all this and we kept using this technocratic lingo, stopped me and literally in the second, they said, Dan, can I ask you, why do you keep talking about our competitor ESO? And I said, no, no, no, no, no, it's not your competitor ESO. It's our own internal language. And so I think your point, Helene, about being able to cross translate is still real and is still, and I think how we speak to members of Congress where they're at to speak to them what they care about matters and also speaking to how companies care about these issues and how also understand where the social sector comes from. I just wanna close, I know our time is coming to an end, but I'm just thinking at Cathy and Steve in terms of, could you just talk, even if you might just briefly reflect about your experience without making this a complete tell-all in terms of any frustrations you've had with the US government, could you just talk a little bit about either what else you'd like to see either from the US government or from other governments in terms of either understanding this better or making it easier. I've had some companies say, well, we now have so much, there's a proliferation of relationship managers and I've had six different government agencies come to talk to me and stop doing that. So is there something you'd like to either do more of or less of in terms of, and I'll start with Cathy. Sure, you know, I've been thinking about that. I get great examples of incredible efficiency, lightning, quickness in terms of getting a partnership executed, we did some work with the State Department and the Secretary for Women and Girls in Burma and I'm telling you that through that partnership we were able to work collaboratively on the ground with the embassy and the ambassador there who's brilliant and was able to get some really important resources in the hands of Burmese organizations that we would never have identified on our own. Moreover, I'd still be working for the past five years trying to get the money in there, would not have happened. And then there's the other side of the coin where I have a completely different experience and in terms of just absolutely talking past each other with different sectors of different agencies and I guess what we all want is, they could probably say the same thing about business is how do we get everybody to speak the same language in terms of the terminology, let's move beyond CSR and to share value and strategic partnerships and how can we get a little bit more, I think, uniformity in terms of our efforts. Steve. My experience in working in a lot of the different countries in Southeast Asia is the US government select corporation to, you know, they've got the headquarters and then you've got the field office and the field office is actually pretty easy to work with because they are on the ground, they see what the challenges and opportunities are and so it's pretty, in my experience, it was pretty easy to come to alignment with, you know, with the local diplomatic mission or if USAID happened to be in country or what have it. I think the US government just like corporations has to be very purposeful about communicating SOs not our competitor, but their objectives and then some degrees of flexibility to implement it on the ground because the greatest plan in the world with all due respect to the hallowed halls here in Washington, you know, making that work on the ground in a complicated country that doesn't have the resources or infrastructure or whatever that this country may have, it requires some flexibility. So I think that's where I would leave it is, you know, being a bit more clear about what the objectives are between the various aspects of the government and then allowing the folks charged with implementation some degree of flexibility to make the program work. Steve, thanks very much. Please join me in thanking the panel. Thank you so much. Thank you, Steve. I hope you all will stay. We've got Sree Maliani who's the COO of the World Bank Group. We're gonna have a, she's gonna give some remarks and we're gonna have a conversation. So I hope you can stay for that. I think it'll be very, very interesting. And thank you all very much. Thank you.