 Well, that's a very large question, and let me start by saying that I'm sorry that I can't be with all of you today, especially my colleagues, the former administrators in Raj Shah, the current administrator. These are all good friends, and I think we have a lot in common. I'm not sure that we would answer this question the same way, but I see the most important accomplishment being the the spirit of the Point Four program when President Truman announced this program. He contrasted our obligation as Americans to help the poor of the world with our security concerns, which are equally legitimate in in that case in Europe. But throughout the history of USAID, I think we have been the soft side of US foreign policy. But what how you quantify that I think is more in terms of the livesaved in terms of the dignity that we've brought to people so that they could fulfill their human potential. And that's a result of interventions like the Green Revolution, like child survival programs, oral rehydration therapy, programs that helped people express their freedom through institutions, democracy, and governance. All of that I think is a major contribution not just for the United States, but for the entire world. What we did in the 90s to promote democratic development was to create an office for democracy and governance at the Global Bureau, then called the Global Bureau at USAID. But we also created the Office of Transitions Initiative. This office, OTI, has been very very successful in getting involved in reconciliation programs in post-conflict situations. And I think it was a new endeavor for USAID in the 90s. But the world was changing so quickly. There were so many new democracies, so many new and fragile institutions that it was very very important for us to work with them. To share information about how democracy works, both in legal terms and in institutional terms and in civil society terms. And USAID did a lot of that kind of work in the 90s at a time when there was an explosion of democratic societies. This work continues because it is known that democratic societies, especially when they're new and poor, are very fragile states. We are just experiencing now an election in Liberia. I was there just a few months ago. It's a very fragile state and an election is a very important element. If it doesn't work well, you basically provide a shock to the system that causes you to reverse all of the progress that's been made. From what I hear, it's working very well in Liberia because just the process of running elections smoothly and fairly has evolved over the years. But there are many other institutions. Elections are only the beginning of a democratic process. How does the parliament work? How does the executive branch work? How can you stimulate people to understand what citizenship is all about? That work goes on and USAID is in the forefront. Well, when USAID speaks at a meeting, USAID is listened to very carefully. Obviously, it's the largest program by volume in the world. And it is involved in just about everything. And nowadays, there is a great deal of attention being paid to the reform efforts that are being undertaken by Administrator Shah. A great deal of interest in this work on innovation. Science and technology. A great deal of interest in how USAID is complying with its commitments under the Paris and Accordes. Not always as well as we would expect, but then we have system issues that need to be dealt with in the United States that are very different from countries that have parliamentary systems and the like. But USAID is still respected as the top development agency in the world. I think, however, today, as a result of USAID's work over the years, there would be some who would argue that case because there are some really excellent development ministries in the Scandinavian area. Korea and Japan, Korea will be taking a lead in the Busan conference. The Department for Foreign, for international development in the UK is known as one of the most innovative as well. So there is competition. But if you look back at the 50 years of history, it was the U.S. that led that process and encouraged other countries to get into this business. So there's still a great deal of respect. There's also a great deal of worry that people who do not support either soft power, smart power, or hard power are going to be cutting budgets and really debilitating a major arm of U.S. foreign policy. Well, this is a major challenge for the United States. It's a major challenge for development in the world. Generally, it's the challenge of fragmentation. It's the challenge of not being able to respond to country ownership when that capacity exists. When a country puts together a strategy, we should be responsive to that by aligning our resources with that strategy and helping to measure results right there at the country level. This becomes very difficult for the United States, given the number of agencies and departments that are engaged in development work. We've got to fix this. Now, I really respect the work that has been done both at the White House and the State Department in trying to bring other departments and agencies into a more coordinated program. But I really think we should go back to the day Peter McPherson remembers well, when you couldn't spend money overseas on development unless USAID signed off on it. Today, USAID spends only about half the resources that are made available for development work overseas. That's where the expertise lies. That's where I think the coordination point should be. Now, there are some other very good programs. Our peer review cited the Millennium Challenge Corporation as being an ideal program because it responds to country ownership. I commend Kale Smith and the White House team that tries to coordinate these things under the presidential review memorandum. And I think that the real premium has to be on coordination at the country level. That means the country team has to work very closely together, but that means it seems to me that USAID missions need to take the lead working with other departments to make sure that we are aligning our resources and our strategies with the country's strategies.