but usaid and usia resisted that. a deal was cut, as so often happens up here, and so here is what happened. oh, by the way, the heritage foundation, which is currently advocating for consolidation of state and usaid, has called this usai merger misguided, and some of their scholars have written about how poorly it went. so one reason for the failed integration of the agencies stem from the vastly different missions and cultures of the two organizations. i would argue that this is something we should consider here. state and usia's budget functions were also merged, but public diplomacy was and is seen as a secondary function of the state department, and that created problems as well. lastly, the consolidation we now know was short sighted. soon thereafter we had 9/11. the global war on temporary is a global war of ideas. gives us some sense of how consequential getting it wrong can be. so i what just commend that very brief article to your attention, others' attention as we consider that. next, i want to thank you. y

so it may not be the secretary's idea to collapse state into usaid. i don't want to be responsible for giving perimeters to things i have a fundamental problem with. the last point is, you know, the question of it will be far more difficult in my view, having sat where you have sat and having an administration of my party and standing up to it when i personally believed they were wrong on a policy basis, to challenge in next year's authorization, assuming you do this year's authorization, something that the administration will have done. so they structure the new department as they wish. they pursue their reorganization without any meaningful effort legislatively to construct what that should look like, and now once having done that members not only on this committee but on the senate as a whole will be put into a position, if they believe that reorganization or elements thereof were not appropriate, of challenging the administration to do that in a new -- in a new authorization bill. so that may not be a problem for the chair, because i recognize the

the budget or puzzle imposes particularly sharp cuts on usaid. i do not know whether this is proposed to be reviewed under your leadership and how you would work to address employee contends. >> i will take the second issue first. let me reassure you and the committee desmond know pretermination -- pre-determination on the issue of absorbing usaid into the state department. we had a robust conversation last week in the committee with significant representation from participating and giving amp up put on what senator gardner has described as the different culture, mission, tolls that, etc.. i am very familiar and respectful of that. there implied is extremely important and there has been no induced to merge a id state. second, i have met with the ambassador. he is one of our most senior career ambassadors. a great patriot. we are -- the office you describe is one of those that is under review. note decision has been made yet ifwhat will be done, anything will be changed with respect to that office. what i can assure you of is two things. first, th

that usaid employees have. i am very respectful of that and of their commitmen input is impd there has been no decision to merge into the states. the office that we described is under review. anything would be changed with respect to that office but what i can assure you of is two things. first, the significance is not diminished in any way and that is my promise to you. >> thank you mr. secretary and mr. chairman for your indulgen indulgence. we will stand in recess for 15 minutes and reconvene at 5:49. thank you.

>> approximately 50. >> how many from usaid? >> it is a breakdown based on the size of the state department versus a idea. i will get you those precise numbers. is -- it'slieve, view is articulated by senior people who are represented fairly on all of these committees. >> my time is expired. you told me that they are represented. that is not my question. my question is, is it heart of the policy of real organization or intention to fold a id into state and if so, how are you dealing with the differences in culture? >> my apologies. the answer is no, there is no intention to fold a id into state. that has been proposed by people outside the department. it is something that could be considered by this working group . but if it were it would be with the full input of all of these aid leaders involved. but, i can admit to that there has not been an intention of this department to absorb usaid. >> if i could, as i understand it just in talking with you but also secretary tillerson, there is no beginning point for making any assumptio

in the foreign assistance and usaid. they are essential elements of a comprehensive american foreign policy that promotes the interest and builds more stable and resilient allies and partners. to suggest the possibility of usaid is alarming and i would like to understand the policy perspective behind that. and i'm especially concerned that we are undertaking this exercise as the administration pursues with continuous duty at least to me draconian cuts and although he rejected here it says it is the administration's intent, draconian cuts primarily responsible for promoting american values into securing our interests overseas and in the process of us far seems to be no more than an exercise undermining of pushing out the career diplomats and foreign and civil service have dedicated their lives to serving this country. with seemingly no strategic consideration that i can discern. it indicates a high level of confusion and demoralization of the diplomats and civil servants who've expressed concerns about their futures as we

do we really want this in usaid at such a perilous moment? >> no. what we're saying when we talk about making america great, we're stepping aside while the other countries come in through the vacuum to make the united states irrelevant. i'd like to think that our values are the relevant ones, and not other countries. i want to know why you may disagree. obviously, you do disagree with secretary powel and why you believe that eliminating thousands of personnel positions and paying billions of dollars for the programs admin stared by the department of state and usaid is in our best interest. i would ask consent as chairman and put the powell article in the record. >> without objection. >> secretary powell also said that many had assume side the cold war's end would allow us to retreat from the world, and the cuts may have looked logical at the time came back to haunt us as tensions rose in the middle east, africa, the korean peninsula and elsewhere, confronting such challenges requires not just the military that's second to none, but also our resource

the state department and usaid budget increased over 60% from fiscal year 2007. reaching an all time high of $55.6 billion in fiscal year 2017. recognizing that this rate of increase in funding is not sustainable. the fiscal year 2018 budget request seeks to align the core missions of the state department with historic funding levels we believe this budget also represents the interest of the american people, including responsibility stewardship of the public's money. i know there is intense interest in prospective state department and usaid redesign efforts. we have completed collecting information on our organizational processes through a survey made available to every one of our state and usaid colleagues. over 35,000 surveys were completed. and we held listening sessions with 300 individuals to obtain their perspective on what we do and how we do it. i met personally with dozens of team members who spoke candidly about their experiences. we've been able to get a clearer overall view of our organization. we have no precon veeved outcomes and the discussions of

so i think dealing with usaid, yes, we have agreed framework would not include the usaid but the administration is taking fundamental changes and i understand the secretary bbs hat is not the case but if they were taking fundamental changes on the organization of usaid, and we remained silent on that it is a challenge and if they are going to do major changes in criminal war crimes accountability and we are silent, that is a nonstarter for both democrats and republicans on this committee. so, i think it is a reality we will have to respond to some of the things getting done but i want to get to the finish line. > and each year there is an authorization that comes up, and each year, you know, you can write things in and make them law and i don't see how the remaining silent by not acting in any way causes it to remain silent so again i don't get the psychology, but i obviously need to understand it for us to be able to move. senator menendez and then senator markey. >> i understand your question. let me just give you a few cuts at this. as you may remember, i didn't want to move forward on the s

state department and usaid will continue to deliver results for the american people. i thank you for your time, and i'm happy to answer your questions. >> thank you. we'll do seven minute rounds. and one, i look forward to your effort to reform the state department, get the feedback, come to us and say, this is what we can do without, this is what we need more of. i know you've got the perfect right attitude, but we've got to live with this budget until you get there is unacceptable for me. so between 2007 and '17, would you say the world is more dangerous or less? >> the world is changing and it's in a difficult place today. >> so if we've been spending more in the last ten years, there's probably a good reason. and i would say increasing military defense spending by 10% is absolutely long over due. do you support the president's budget to increase hard power by 10%? >> i do. >> do you believe that soft power is an integral part of our national security strategy? >> without question. >>> so we've got the general construct that soft power and hard power are important.

. >> i am greg formerly of usaid five years iraq, congo etc.. looking forward and thinking about the challenges that we will face particularly in the war on terror, how do you view the role of the special operations and special forces in dealing with the outcome of the conflict? nadia chad low has a great new book on that. you've probably seen or heard or read her talk about it. one of the things that's lacking in the way we planned and executed our wars is that we haven't given enough attention to managing it for a successful total outcome among the population and in the countries affected by the war. as a former usaid guy and having served close to the special forces and other operations on the military side how do you view the potential and the opportunity and risk of dealing with what happens after the war from a special forces perspective and from the perspective of a possible relationship between the special forces, usaid or state or other aspects of the civilian government? thank you. >> yes, a great question. nadia is a very good friend.

just to say a word, usaid is helping to lead the u.s. i government response to this humanitarian catastrophe. we've been work aggressively to help save as many lives aswe possible with our partners long before the famine declaration in february of this year, and we will continue to do so. we're reaching about 1.3 millios people each month with life-saving assistance. but this is a really difficult and dangerous undertaking and not just because we're in a conflict zone and there's lots of insecurity. there have been numerous deliberate and brazen attacks on humanitarian aid workers in south sudan, attacks which are violations of international humanitarian law. 84 aid workers have been killed in south sudan since the conflict began in december of 2013, and 84 -- sorry. 17 of those have been since, this year alone, since january of this year. and that makes south sudan the most deadly place in the world for humanitarian workers to operate. and that's really shocking if you think about conflicts thatpl are going on all over this, the globe -

but at this point, the state department budget calls for wiping out usaid and there say knerr survey coming out showing the usaid workers completely demoralized as a result of what they're hearing from the new secretary of state. >> i wish that donald trump and rex tillerson could have been with me and with the state department special envoy brett mcguirk, seeing the role that our usaid coordinator, the relief coordinator, the difference he's making on the ground now as isis falls. this is a fantastic development that people should cheer. but tens of thousands of people in need. they need the basics. u.s. sent its top relief coordinator, al dwyer, who has been at every major crisis, haiti earthquake, ebola outbreak, and there he is, coordinating this, as an american logistics expert can, that's the role that we should be playing. but people, i wish they could have seen through my eyes how quickly this campaign is going now, and how the u.s. finally has figured out how to get other people to do the fighting on the ground while we helped them the ways that the u.s. can. >> and if we ta

if you look at it at a governance security, dod has the development it's been usaid and the governancegets lost and we don't really have agency focused on that. that's a big area we need to improve. i think military has a big role to play there. special operations can play a certain role, issue of scale. there's so much else that they have to do that their ability to work in nonsecurity field is somewhat limited. what i argue in terms of long-term capacity what special operations have made the most difference is where they have taken a role in long-term leadership development and worked with central training institutions of those countries and that's how you develop leaders over the long term but you have to do it when they're in military academy or command staff because that's when you can actually really affect culture which is a critical ingredient and you go out and go train people on the shotgun or on the rifle range which we do a lot of, long-term value that i don't see as being -- i certainly think we need to take more strategically more in the long term because as you point out

lead to a significant retreat from the world by the united states, and the closing admissions for usaid and the withdraw of our investment with programs that have had bipartisan support and significant layoffs in usaid. while i recognize no agency should go without tough budget review and virtually every agency has a few percent, you can find it is not being spent appropriately, 30% on the case of the "a" side. and that's not trimming and not correcting and that's not slashing. there is a bipartisan expressed view on the foreign relations appropriations subcommittee which i serve that that budget isn't what we're going to be doing and that the appropriations committee would be to next year's level and we'll move ahead with the appropriations we have made. that's not a done deal. in visiting a number of the embassies in asia, in africa and europe since the budget was announced, there is real concern among the rank and file and people make career choices and based on signals like that. if the budget this year and next year and the next year contain cuts of that magnitude and we continue o

he should be fighting for every the statetment for department, diplomacy, and usaid, and the programsround the world for people who are starving or have other problems around the world. the president is proposing to cut back on all of it. house has the purse, and hopefully the majority will fight against all those cuts. i would fight against every one of them. >> do you think republicans are doing enough so far? rep. engel: i don't think they are doing enough because the bent ont seems hell this, and i hope democrats and no.blicans will say, hell we had a meeting, and both didn't like it and said it was terrible, and we had expert who said around at the state department is at an all-time low. there are so made positions in the state department that have not been filled. they like to say the senate or whatever is installing it, no, that is not true. not nominatedhas high-level people for diplomacy. it is seven months into the administration. i just came back from a trip overseas and we have excellent people who are acting m's and wes or dc don't have in basinger's. , which iso cut usai

and he wants to cut usaid, which is absolutely imperative for the world and the united states. the president has a disturbing pattern of nominating people to be secretaries who want to cut the department. usually a secretary would protect the department and you would not want to see the cuts. department,tate foreign affairs, it is to an education, it is true in o the other secretaries. it is ridiculous. this is the worst budget for foreign affairs and state department i have seen in my 10 years in congress. greta: time for one more question. >> congressman moving to the , united nations and how america funds it, the bill out of the house state foreign operations appropriations subcommittee yesterday includes cuts of over 18% of the united nations and associated agencies, with new restrictions on the human rights council. giving your long-standing support of israel and concern for the united nations focus on israel, do you support the level of cuts to the united nations that are being proposed? rep. engel: my mother, may she rest in peace, she used to say don't cut off your nose

so in sclar areas it's really been more in the expertise of state or usaid to do particular programs that could counter violent extremism and sometimes the state and diplomatic touch is better than the military tough. so if the secdef agrees there's now transfer authority. i hope that that's something that you will look at. i have noticed there has been some discussion, a stripping away some cve aspects of the administration's counterterrorism strategy. to your knowledge -- and i know we're not presuming nomination so you are not there yet, but will cve remain a strong priority of the ct bureau at the state department? >> yes, senator. if i'm confirmed it will continue to be a top priority for me and for the bureau that i would lead. i think all counterterrorism has to involve encountering violent extremism component. terrorism is a global problem with all sorts of different facets. some of those facets require different kinds of solutions. sometimes military solutions are required, sometimes law enforcement solutions are required, but it's not just hard power that has to be deployed

at usaid. we want them to feel respected. we want their work -- we want them to understand that their work is important. i have always operated under the popular assumption that there's kind of three distinct disciplines in the national security forum. we have diplomacy, we have development, we have defense. right? and development has its own unique skills, culture, and approaches. would you agree with that assessment? >> certainly, senator. >> okay. i also presume that whatever reforms we undertake at state and usaid will involve maintaining a skilled and experienced development work force, professional staff who understand the art and science of development. is that a correct assumption? >> yes, it is. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. senator menendez. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding the hearing and for your continuing leadership in the question of human trafficking. i truly appreciate it. thank you both for your service. ambassador coppedge, let me ask you a simple yes or no. would you agree that malaysia has a ve

stuff is so attendant in so -- populations moving around, reminds me of an example in the book about usaidprogram that is a fake twitter made by a shell company in the cayman islands that would bring cubans using it as a twitter over their connection and have that data saved to a database and people in costa rica who are employed by usaid would categorize them as pro-revolution or anti-revolution that at one moment they would have an update, out on the streets going against the castro regime in the cuban spring. that is the foreign-policy way it works but i know through different things, a lot of people say that was part of the brexit move, how a lot of democracy can be curtailed by something like the filter bubble. there is no necessary public fear happening, just fragmented commercial pockets of news that keep you on the site longer versus actual civil discourse. at the moment i am not that fond of the future but hopefully it will change. i am hopeful we will do something about it. other questions? >> the question is what do we do? >> one chapter is about what do we do? i try to think of

i also presented that whatever reforms we undertake at state and usaid will involve maintaining a skilled and experienced development workforce. professional staff who understand the art and science of development, is that a correct assumption? >> yes it is. >> thank you. senator menendez. >> thank you mr. chairman. for holding hearing and for your continuing leadership in questioning human trafficking. i truly appreciate it, thank you both for your service. ambassador, let me ask you simply yes, sir no, would you agree that malaysia has a significant number of trafficking victims? and also i guess, do you believe the number of trafficking victims in malaysia is definitely increasing? >> that is hard to determine. >> i believe that human trafficking is a hidden crime and it's very hard to get accurate data as to whether the problem is increasing or not or whether we are being government officials are getting better protecting it and gao's are getting better at assisting victims and reporting them. >> well, the tv pa defined country that should be included on the watchlist as countries tha

we enabled, through the mda, the dod to transfer funds to state or usaid on the say-so of the secretary for countering violent extremism. if the secretary felt like, he can do a better job than us, in particular areas that has been more in the expertise of state or usaid to do reticular programs to counter violent extremism and sometimes the state and diplomatic touch is better than any military touch. canhe secretary agrees, we now transfer authority and i hope that is something you'll look at but i have noticed there has been some discussion of aspects ofway some the administration counterterrorism strategy. to your knowledge, and we're not presuming nomination, but will remain a strong priority of the funeral at the state department? statethe bureau at the department? >> yes. for me and for the bureau i would lead. it would have to involve countering violent extremism components. terrorism is a global problem and there are different facets. some of those facets require solutions. sometimes military solutions. sometimes law enforcement solutions. it is not just hard power that has to

and the united states around the edges does some work with usaid, but it is not a priority for the united states at this point. mr. speaker, i return perplexed. we'll continue to push with the israelis, with the united states government, with the palestinians, with n.g.o.'s everywhere we have the opportunity, but it seems to me, mr. speaker, if we cannot bring people together to solve a pending crisis with tools that are available to us now at relatively modest cost, what hope do we have of being able to work cooperatively to implement the two-state solution and be able to bring peace and security to israel and the palestinians. i would hope my colleagues would lend their voices to this question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. zeldin, for five minutes. mr. zeldin: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to discuss my resolution, h.con.res. 20. n july of 1999, three brothers were born in the united states and resided in hampton bays, new york, went overseas towards the end of the kosovo war to fight massive war cri

was a call to go forward with the referendum but to have that dedicated budget for south sudan and usaid to make sure that this is something the united states could remain focused on even after separation the role of the u.s. special envoy continuing to move forward there was a thought the role was only to negotiate the peace agreement and then move out from their. but at that point in time there will be other results of the united states needed to remain involved so that was a special relationship continuing with the united states through south sudan before and after the referendum took place to understand those terms those challenges would continue after and that is the understanding moving forward so what are the choices in decision making that happens now that you have to deal with the new country but not citizens rights. >> the next question is the impact on of u.s. foreign aid on south sudan since the departure and engagement of the implementing partners of who was there and leading up to the conflict dealing with the overall mission objectives to achieve our goals in south sudan.

well usaid yourself. >> thank you. lou: gregg jarrett.tonight, should president trump nominate a new fbi director who isn't an obvious d.c. establishment hack? we like to hear what you think of that. cast your vote on twitter @loudobbs. follow me on twitter @loudobbs. like me on facebook and follow me on instagram. our twitter follows are fired up about my new thriller, entitled put tin's gambit. lou, my husband turned me on to your show a few years ago. i've been hooked since. keep at the timing you like it is my next read, "putin's gambit." viewers whose comments are read, receive an autographed copy of "putin's gambit." treasure untold. >>> wall street a record breaking day, the dow gaining 123 points to a new all-time high, the 27th record close this year. now that's not bad. wait to go. who you should we credit? oh, yes, president donald j. trump i think. what do you think? the s&p up 18. nasdaq up 68. volume on the big board picking up a bit, 3.1 billion shares. stocks moving high every after fed chair janet yellen signaled a gradua

budget that is substantially cutting the state department and other agencies with soft powers such as usaid? senator nelson, i have not looked in detail at the state department. i can't tell you what is actually being cut and what is being retained. i would have to direct that to secretary tillerson. i am not confident to answer it. >> well, i would suggest that you look at it because if you're supporting a budget that whacks the state department and usaid you well know that you are not only a warrior, you are a diplomat. as a commander, who utilizes all of those other agencies of government in projecting your soft power and this is a budget that substantially decreases the state department and usaid, so i understand the sensitivity. you don't want to answer that, but that's going to be something you're going have to face. let me ask you about. are you satisfied in your statements with the u.s. support of article 5 in the nato treaty? are you satisfied that you have assured allies that america supports article 5? >> i have, sir, and i believe the president has just recently done so right fr

it really brings home some of the points on why our diplomacy efforts, why usaid in organizations likehat are so important to stability in a broader world. >> do you find that you and your colleagues discuss books? >> i do and one of the things that's interesting is congress does a lecture series almost every month in an author comes in and talks about a book. i have the opportunity to see a gentleman who wrote a book on lincoln's second inaugural and the address is only 800 words about a page and a half. it was interesting hearing his perspective on such an important piece in our history. like mac thornberry gave me a suggestion to read a book by mark lowdon about vietnam and coming from someone who i respect and look up to. that's in my kindle already. >> will heard republican of texas thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> i had the great honor and privilege of just needing clearance moses l. who was arrested in 1987 and wrongfully convicted in 1988 of sexual assault. he was sentenced to 48 years based on the victim's dream. in 1995 with the help of gary shaq and the innocence pr

what about cia intelligence officers and usaid personnel and guards at embassies? i say that because we represent those people. these are our people were killed by terrorism. even though i voted for president obama twice, i have to tell you, that left a bad taste in my mouth. i think it was a major mistake. i think history will not become for that. but he was the president. he had the right to do it. he did after the election, by the way. another question -- does your colleague at the end of the table have any comments? mr. newberger: my partner -- he has lived through not all of it, but most of it. c-span,eing filled for be warned. >> can you explain why there is a difference between trying to when sovereign immunity you are protecting your citizens in a foreign country like where the embassy is located and a case like the saudi case where you are claiming terrorism within your national borders? that is what we call a setup. my firm isare clear, not involved in the saudi part on either side. so, we don't have a stake in that all. one of the principles that allow c

now, 40% of all children attending afghan schools are girls, and usaid has built 16,000 schools in the past 16 years. >> the fact that these girls were able to change the narrative about afghanistan from war to opportunities is a tremendous achievement on its own. >> battling robots is a far cry from the battle being waged at home. trump weighs whether to send in more u.s. troops, nearly 10,000 are already stationed there. these girls say they are worried that caliban could return and deny girls like them access to an education. >> yes, we are worried. many families don't want their girls to go to school. they don't want to take the chance. i'm happy that my family sent me to school and help me get into prestigious programs. >> even if the war sometimes looks like a stalemate, today in washington, these girls on the afghan robotics team look like they already one. in washington, jennifer griffin, fox news. >> bret: is the republican bid to repeal and replace obamacare officially flatlining? and what about just repeal? we'll ask the panel when we come aback. >> then we finally get a cha

no, but your new friend is coming with usaid shirley. >> oh, okay. so she came, and then that's how everything started. >> so it did. it was to be an overnight, the girls were told. a little fun. they'd stay with shirley in her los angeles motel room, return the next mornin that was the plan, said shirley. but shirley lied. >> we got in the car, and we never went back. and my life completely changed from that point on. completely. >> this woman took you away. >> yes, and this was -- >> you wanted to be taken home again? >> never went back again. >> do you remember that feeling? >> yes, i wanted to go home. >> she had been kidnapped. must have been. there was no little girls' overnight in shirley's motel room. they stopped there only to pack some belongings, hit the road and a blissful childhood entered the fog of history. the memory of the beautiful bedroom. all she had to confront the nightmare just beginning. >>> coming up -- a 4-year-old on the road with her kidnapper. >> i knew that everything that was happening to us was completely wrong at a ve

do with a conflict over water and wawater sources in the region, d that conflict we also know thatt usaid played a role. so we didid not expect the atta. we were traveleling back from te community when a vehicle passed as at high speed. ofblocked the road in front us and men jumpeped out witith machetes and also o threw rockct us, trying to attack us. as we escaped, they pursued us. thenexplain driving and who the people were who came up behind you, as best as you could ascertain, and then what happened, whwhat they came out withth, what their weapopons we. so i was traveling back from the community with the coordinator of organization for copinh and also the driver of our vehicle, as well as the secretary of copinh who was sitting in the back of the car. the people that attacked us, we don't know them. them.was quite joe of ththree of the attacackers had machetes. the fourth one was the driver of the vehicle, the most aggressive. amamy: what do they do when they came out of their car, when they came out of their vehicle? >> the three men with the machetes, they came out of their car and

inter-american development bank , usaid, world bank, others have funded the international work. , thes been foundations justice department feared -- department. the justice department funded an independent evaluation of chicago's work. >> one more question. is your problem in milwaukee? we have a big crime problem there. >> we are not working in milwaukee at this moment but we are in discussions with them. we have been asked to work them. >> who are you talking to? >> my staff would know better. i believe the health department and hospital centers. >> let me know about that. >> is certainly will. >> i will ask the gentlewoman from texas if she wishes a second round. if so, she is recognized for five minutes. >> i would be delighted, thank you for your courtesy. let me ask specifically about houston. are you in houston? let me publicly extend an invitation for two or violence to visit and have us pursue the opportunity. i thank you very much. let me first of all thank our colleagues that were here. i want to pursue the line of questioning, and if i might make a comment feared -- comment

and the interamerican development back, usaid, the world banks, others have funded the internationalork so it's been foundations and robert wood johnson foundation has founds this justice department dish should say the justice department funded the independent evaluation of chicago's work. >> okay. one last question. is your program in milwaukee -- we got a big crime problem there. >> we're not working in milwaukee at this moment as -- but we're in discussions with them. we have been asked to work with them. >> who in milwaukee are you talking to? >> my staff know better. i believe it's the health department and the trauma -- hospital centers. >> okay. let me know about that. >> i certainly will, sir. >> i will ask the gentlewoman from texas if she wishes a second round. if so she is recognized for five minutes. >> i would be delighted. thank you for your accurate simple let me follow the chairman's lines and ask, are you in houston? >> no. >> so let me publicly extend an invitation for cure violence to visit and to have us pursue the opportunity. >> be happy to. >> i thank you very