reform should take but there was broad agreement that u s development and diplomatic initiatives are not living up to their potential in part because they aren't receiving the resources they need but just in part in recent years dozens of reports articles and speeches have made the case for strengthening the capacity for u s civilian agencies there are many good reasons for doing this but perhaps secretary of defense robert gates put it best in the landon lecture at kansas university last november when he said having robust i quote having robust civilian capabilities available could make it less likely that military force will have to be used in the first place as local problems might be dealt with before they become crises the foreign assistance reform debate in washington is focused largely on the merits of creating a cabinet level department of development that's certainly an important issue that we'll have to examine but it's important to remember that there's a pressing need for reforms across the board not just at the top of the organizational chart in the next administration strengthening our element and diplomatic capacity must be a priority substance should prevail over structure the next  administration and congress will have to develop a consensus on what needs to be done to strengthen the nonmilitary tools we use to further our national security goals we can't let the discussion begin and end with how the boxes are arranged rebuilding us development and diplomatic capabilities requires more funding more people and better legal authorities despite modest increases since nine eleven the international affairs budget remains dangerously underfunded and still fall seventeen percent below what the united states spent in today's dollars during the cold war compare what we spend on diplomacy and development to our spending on defense and you'll find that the total international affairs budget for fiscal year two thousand  thirty nine billion dollars is roughly equal to the increase in the deal budget d o d budget between two thousand and two two thousand and eight and two thousand and nine to emphasize again the department of defense budget increased from one year to the next by about the same amount as the entire year's budget for diplomacy and development investments in our diplomatic economic and development programs are critical in strengthening america's capacity to engage the world many of these programs provide the basic resources that american diplomats and development experts use to promote fundamental american values freedom democracy rule of law increasing funding  capabilities to address the challenges that face america in the twenty first century we can't transform our diplomatic and development corps to meet these challenges without significantly increasing the number of trained and skilled foreign service officers devoted to development and diplomacy since the end of the cold war the backbone of america's development and diplomatic might agency for international development and the department of state has been substantially weakened by staff cuts hiring freezes and consolidation while this administration has taken small steps to reverse course there are still only six thousand six hundred professional foreign service officers today in the state department according to secretary gates this is less on the personnel of one of our carrier battle groups like a time when the united states is engaged in two massive stabilization and reconstruction efforts and countless other emergencies  barely has one thousand foreign service officers compare that number to the height of the cold war when they had more than forty five hundred foreign service officers with expertise in engineering agricultural development rule of law civil administration need to experience foreign service officers with robust language abilities and expertise and smart skills such as job creation education engineering and good governance the next  resources needed needed to build a core of educated experienced people who are willing and able to work in a wide range of countries from the most able to those that are impoverished or increased funding and the number of people in our civilian agencies are major steps to rebuilding civilian capacity however more money and people without the appropriate effect of legal authorities who only do so much next year i hope that we in this committee will begin an overhaul of the foreign assistance act of one thousand nine hundred sixty one as part of this endeavor will look at improving the personnel procurement and other authorities to ensure that u s diplomats and development experts can operate effectively in washington and in the field example for us to consider a good example of what i mean about the glass of water analogy because the number of direct hire employees has in fact been cut in recent decades this is where the glass  you compare staffing levels with the totals of earlier years and the types of employees today and there is certainly a question as to how much of our program management we should delegate to contractors and many observers also rightly note that our foreign aid programs are dispersed across many departments many agencies as such observers rarely seem to emphasize however that those additional agencies also have additional civilian staff an additional resources of technical expertise it may well be the case that such dispersion version of programs across our government calls for better coordination but we should be sure that while we examine the question of coordination of agencies we don't overlook the fact that there are other capacities out there besides  be playing a constructive role in supporting our aid programs today and that is something we may want to explore in more detail perhaps the specific hearing in looking at u s foreign policy today we should not look back to  night sixty one the year that the agency for international development was created as if it was something of a utopian age it was simply a different age with different circumstances we certainly need to consider the evolution of our foreign aid programs but we should we should also look abroad to see how other donor countries are addressing the developing challenge challenges of this age at the start of the twenty first century as the title of today's hearing notes germany and britain for example have independent centralized aid agencies and others such as france and spain have aid agencies that are subordinated to  foreign ministries sweden has an international development cooperation agency under its foreign ministry but it directs a great deal of its aid funding to an investment capital fund rather than the more traditional aid programs denmark has decentralized aid program transferring much of the management and decision making to overseas offices the european union's program has a complex structure having three directorate general working with one implementing agency japan's international cooperation agency may soon merge with part of japan's bank for international cooperation and whether these examples might ultimately impact the development of our own aid program is unknown but i raised these examples to demonstrate that while some countries are trying to centralize their aid operations others are going in a different direction decentralizing them and the way that they choose whether centralization of decentralization would certainly have an impact on staffing requirements so i ask our witnesses if they could share their thoughts today regarding their proposals for a centralized u have much less legislative oversight over their aid programs and while that makes it easier for the department of international development to long term plans and implement them with little objection from the parliament well we want that as a model for american for the american congress to follow and finally as we move forward with possible reforms of our foreign assistance act and i congratulate you mr chairman for taking this be i want to get right quickly as possible to the witnesses so i'm going to shorten the introductions a little bit but by and large i mean the special treat very talented people one who clinton and before that i was undersecretary of state for management in the early part of the clinton ministration as well as the leader of the transition team after the the secretary of state distinguished service award in one thousand nine hundred ninety our second witness is peter macpherson welcome him back to the committee he's now president of the national association of state university c d s and land grant colleges and president emeritus of michigan state university he chairs the board of the abraham lincoln study abroad commission and is the founding co chair of the partnership to cut hunger and poverty in africa a number of other key positions he took leave from is he retired as president of michigan state university after eleven years and then but took leave during that time from april to october of thank you very much mr chairman and i appreciate your opening remarks you certainly did set the stage very well for this discussion and i'm delighted to be here with you to mcpherson he's a great public servant and i've had a friendship with him that goes back to my time as a good minister and he would call and give me a shoulder to cry on on occasion and sympathize with the tensions of that job in president bush's concept of national security and i believe it's a concept shared across partisan lines that we need a defense department that is strong state department strong and a development reduction in force close twenty seven missions overseas and it was happening at a time when the world was breaking down into very into smaller units and there was a great deal of strife in the world ethnic differences were coming out new countries were emerging in the eastern bloc and a great deal of religious conflict obviously sounds very familiar today because that's what's happened happening continue to happen  i found myself having written an article in the washington post saying in essence that our challenge in national security challenge was that the world was disintegrating into societies and fail states that really weren't making it and that that was becoming a major national security challenge few weeks later someone wrote an article basically using basically suggesting that conditions rather than malicious human beings were the cause and that that was a false doctrine i think i never meant to say that malice wasn't a factor in the world but that conditions disadvantage in other words poverty is a condition that makes violent conflict a lot more likely our military professionals are bringing this to our attention and i think that's why both sides of the aisle were paying a lot more attention to this  more agile state department that focuses on the diplomatic mission and what is that mission is obviously solid analysis or policy making it's representation it's negotiation and it's crisis management when i was the leader of the transition team along with the secretary of state warren christopher we put in place some efforts to streamline the state department it was much too big t too many functions that are not consistent with a diplomatic function the consequence is that you have functional bureaus all over the state department that need to sign off on a decision takes far too long to get a decision memo to the secretary of state frankly i don't want my secretary of state having to worry about contracting i want my secretary of state worrying about the crises that exist in the world and attempting proactively to prevent those crises so that's one thing i would do and i suppose that's different from the perspective of some but frankly i often have said this during the time when there were proposals to really merge a idea and the state department said you know the secretary of state should have to worry about these kinds of issues in any case that's one recommendation the second recommendation is that  or the entity that handles foreign assistance needs to be rebuilt and it is broken there's no question about it maybe the spaghetti analogy is a good one but there are too many agencies in this town that are doing foreign assistance that don't have people on the ground that don't understand the culture that they're dealing with who basically are pursuing their domestic mission overseas means that basically we can take a strategic approach working with other donors working international organizations working with countries on country strategies and overall global strategies and coordination is a major factor so i think that's one point i would make about what needs to be done i'll get more into this in a minute third the development mission should always be in sync no question with the diplomatic mission if in fact the development mission is the mission of prevention undertaking sustainable development over a long term means that the state department will be reinforced and be able to handle the crisis situation but  more important aspect of this that most people don't focus on it seems to me is that we need a stronger voice for development in the international economic circles of government and that means on trade and finance issues you're going to find it surprising that i say this but develop overrated development is an essential ingredient in poverty reduction but it is insufficient if we for example w the country to improve exports and its productive capacity and we deny that country access to markets either in europe or the united states or undercutting the development mission if we for example subsidize cultural products which we do and we help we help countries to develop their own agriculture sectors basically where contradicting ourselves we're not achieving coherence in policy now i don't expect that some of these issues that are obviously domestically politically very sensitive are going to be won by an eight administrator who is arguing the case for the developing world in the councils of government but what i would expect is that at least that argument should be made because poverty cannot be alleviated and poverty is a very serious national security problem that cannot be alleviated unless there is more coherence of policy with respect to how we deal with those developing countries it can't just be development that reduces poverty it has to be a combination of development more enlightened finance policies   able countries to grow and to create a productive capacity and trade policies that make sense all of this leads me to conclude that a new cabinet department for international development cooperation is needed but i agree with you mr chairman that form should follow substance and we should focus on the substance here i also believe very strongly that it's a president's prerogative to propose how he wants to organize government obviously some of this will require congressional approval and it has to be a convincing case that is made so we should put this question of what the structure should be and focus on what the substance should be at this point and that leads me to my last point which is that congress can help this process along by passing a new mandate for both the state department and for a new authorization bill now i've been very encouraged to see the debate over the millennium challenge corporation i supported that as a means of getting more  money into poverty reduction efforts but the eligibility criteria that were developed for the about sixteen different criteria maybe there are too many there but they represented  development and it was bipartisan support for that so perhaps taking that maybe consolidating some of these and creating goals is the best way to approach this at the current time the it's basically a concern about there's less concern about results despite the government and results act and it seems to me that congress should be much more concerned about holding the executive branch accountable for results and you have an opportunity with a new authorization bill it seems to me to focus on the broad strategic goals of what our poverty reduction mission or development mission should be and i strongly recommend that you continue to pursue this one more point on this though there are development mission overseas obviously has to assume some degree of risk most of our development missions are in countries that are good partners to the united states in terms of pursuing development occasionally however there are going to be states wherein there are opportunities but the government itself isn't a good partner  think about some of the states today we should be working for example with opposition forces in zimbabwe and we are in fact there was a commission called the failed states and us national security commission on which i served a very important commission that indicated that we had to be making investments in risky countries as well so there probably ought to be a separate account which basically encourages creativity and entrepreneurship as opposed to simple compliance a nd there are going to be risk in doing that but it seems to me that it's part of our national security objective to try to deal with these difficult situations and try to avoid more failed states that can be exploited by terrorists as we have provide security in these situations it should be the role of the state department to negotiate the disputes that exist to try to find a peaceful resolution of the problem but it should be the role of a id it seems to me to provide humanitarian relief to provide transitional assistance through its office of transitions initiatives and eventually as quickly as possible move into long term development so at least with respect to post conflict situations  seems a bit easier perhaps to define the missions of each of the three unfortunately because of a lack of resources the military has been doing too many of the roles that the civilian agencies ought to do in these circumstances and and that has not worked out and in many cases we haven't provided the kind of security that would enable civilians to do the job that they need to do in post conflict situations finally it  is an urgent problem the poverty problem is growing forty plus percent of the people in the world live in poverty it is it is enervating it is debilitating it is destroying the international system and it is creating a great deal of anger and alienation that in turn turns to violent conflict the poverty situation is going to continue to grow and therefore i think it's very urgent that you undertake this mission and i would hope that by early next year when we have a new administration whichever party it would be important for congress to work with that new administration during the transition to come up with legislation i don't think your mike is on a series of things happened not necessarily in this order because they overlap but the decision to have the work in russia in the new republic in effect be controlled on a and i as i detailed and in my written comments and i think that's had some very bad consequences one we've cut back our missions abroad worth focusing on the fact that the u s government despite the big increases in the last few years are percentage of total global is much diminished  issue which i know in some ways you can over dwell on but i believe figuring out a new a new understanding for the next generation of how these structures are to work together is for either of you i think for my education perhaps for other members of the committee when we talked about the diplomatic and development functions are being pitted against one another and and mr edward you you spoke to that in your in your written testimony describe how the within the limited resources of the one fifty international affairs budget how describe how it works since nine hundred ninety eight with how we came back our assistant administrator people like tom dine who's sitting here would go over to meet with the secretary of state for europe and make sure that those budgets were coordinated and that we were we were basically getting the job done with respect to the transitions that were occurring there in eastern europe and the former soviet union so it was well coordinated but it was still closed a lot of things weren't happening and the state department needs money to perform its diplomatic mission and given that it's a crisis oriented place naturally they looked around government where could they find access and i think that's what caused a great deal of attention now the f process as i understand it it happened after i left but basically puts a double hat on the eight administrator and they look at all programs and it's under the rubric of transformational development or transformational diplomacy and decisions are made largely in washington about how that process will work obviously  with input from the country teams and embassies around the around the world i don't think anybody believes that's working very well certainly people today i don't believe it's working very well a lot of it is because the decisions are being made here and there is less concern about long term results than there is the shorter term goals which are which natural for the state department is the dominant force so the question is how do you protect the long term investments you make in development and i believe that it's very important to protect those assets otherwise you'll never do it you'll never never make those think you have to know where your money goes thank you very much five minutes to the ranking member thank you so much mr chairman mr fortenberry had a long time interest in reforming and improving our foreign assistance program so i want to thank the ranking member for the time and gentlemen welcome to the hearing i spoke with the former adjutant general of the nebraska national guard a little while back about an idea i had to create what we would call an american expeditionary diplomatic reserve corps in other words to try to rethink the model in which we currently provide foreign assistance to develop  search type capacity building by tapping into the innovative spirit of americans who many people who are in middle life want to do something but are no are past the point of joining the foreign service don't work for a non governmental organization that could be contracted with usa id or under contract with usa idea it's too late to join the peace corps but nonetheless on a temporary confined type basis to allow the expertise whether that's the expertise of a teacher or a farmer or an engineer or a banker or as you mentioned mr macpherson in terms of your work in the provisional reconstruction teams and in iraq to allow for structure like that to tap into this vast vast reserve of american ingenuity and real desire to participate and a heartfelt desire to participate and a humanitarian outrage in public service t government the general warned me he said congressman if you propose that be ready to get to receive a flood of resumes for people who would be very very interested in this now we've got a measure that has been are staying attached to the defen authorization bill now but pass this committee that creates the civilian reserve corps which i think is going to hand this capacity building but i think this is potentially a new model in how we ought to think about augmenting the work at state usa i do as well as d o t and i'd like your comments on how the potential effectiveness of the civilian reserve corps concept or how we can broaden th in a way again to tap into a real desire among many americans to do something but but it has to be structured in a way in which they're capable of a temporary under authority maybe then linked up by technology when they're back in the united states after a two week stay in country again developing a surge type capacity with experts around the country and allowing people to integrate back into their normal lives but remaining in partnership as a as a reserve civil servant basically professor might be willing to staff up some of the south african universities for example that need staff infusion particular technical i think it's a complicated set of issues if you're not careful it left but clearly they'd have to be some structure here of course people do this already universities have exchanges other organisations like the one you mentioned do but to really give a structure in terms of public service to it but allow the flexibility for americans who have this expertise but can't can't go overseas for extended periods of time but nonetheless can be linked to the partnering countries through the press of use of technology that we have available to us i think is a concept chairman if we continue peace in the world is going to come more from the state department from our mission from diplomacy as opposed to the barrel of a gun i mean we are witnessing that as we speak today much of our problems are  parts of the world obviously if we don't have a consulate in a particular city then we simply have no and we don't know what's going on there and often what's going on in the country isn't just happening in the capital city i also believe we need to have people on the ground that are working with the nationals of the country to bring about development change  we need to have if we're going to be anticipating problems we need to be looking at the people who are shaping the politics of the country at the highest levels and leveraging for power and we need to also understand what the fault lines are under the surface and that's often comes to be that the role of people who are working at the machine and of course aid missions are benefited greatly by having foreign service national employees who are nationals of the country that both will be looking seriously at this problem whoever is elected i have my preferences but my recommendation would be that we need to take major steps to show the rest of the world that we're going to reengage that international cooperation is going to be the theme of our foreign policy and i think to some extent that overcomes some of the issues that we've had in the last six or seven years and that's why one of the reasons that i strongly endorse and again the way i analyze the substance it comes out suggesting that we should have a new department for international development cooperation  cooperation what a wonderful gesture the new president were able to announce something like that it would be sending a signal to the world that we want to work with people with international organizations with developing countries and the like so that's my suggestion but you know others will disagree and i i don't disagree with what peter's it's a lot better than the system we have now and i have both suggested this in our letter to the health commission so whichever way the president both for being here mr at what i want to follow up on a comment you just said that our team in the future in your opinion should be in an international cooperation can you make it simple as to what you think our foreign policy is now how would you what would you characterize the theme of american foreign policy i think that that theme has shifted a great deal in the second bush administration i think that the first bush administration that was a lot of where the only superpower and therefore we can we can get things done and we don't need to have a lot of help but it shifted and i give secretary rice a lot of the credit for that i think things have moved we're trying to work through multilateral organizations so increasingly it's becoming theme of cooperation and some progress has been made but there's a good deal to overcome and iraq is a is a big thing that and i've understood that the foreign service specifically is engaging in a program to har folks who this is not their first rodeo so to speak in the civilian sector come from somewhere things i did i was dean of professional studies at the foreign service institute training people and it is true the average age of newcomers into the foreign service has increased the amount of experience they have i think it's really benefited greatly and a lot of people are attracted to serving their country overseas and i think it's a good thing that we're taking people in at the mid career and what about former military do you see a place in an effort to recruit former military and different parts of the foreign service or civil service to service that work overseas i just want to say one thing i've worked for several former military in the foreign service if there is a criticism i would have as a former undersecretary of management for the state department i would say that management needs a good deal of help and whenever we've seen former military command they really know  programs and i think that's why the state department should be recruiting those fifty year olds that are getting out of the military that's a good it's a good source is directly responsible to your question but i think recognize for a fine thank you mr chairman i do appreciate the opportunity to have a thoughtful discussion especially in light of as both witnesses acknowledged in their testimony a new administration coming to town  next year and an opportunity for a fresh look and what will be a new start obviously on a host of very challenging international issues that  americans foreign policy faces i'm reminded of the fact is many of us in this committee have gone to the middle east and south asia and africa and other parts of our troubled world and we think about some of the rhetoric in the debate in the two thousand election about whether or whether or not we were going to be into nation building i remember that somewhat clearly and the argument it seemed to be was well you know what the role should or should not be as are our foreign policy as to whether or not we should be into the business of nation building and i would argue seven years later seven and a half years later that we are into nation building big time to far greater extent than certainly this president was willing to acknowledge when he was running for the office having said that it just seems to me when we look at the tools that we've used over the last seven years the state department the apartment of defense  which i witnessed last year and are for doing a tremendous job tremendous effort under very difficult circumstances i'd like to ask both of you to comment on and you did in your testimony but how you would really see two thousand and nine in this new start that whichever ministration comes to town will have to take in terms of how we separate the roles more distinctly more clearly to deal with the role that usaid provides or has traditionally provided and where we can make sure that our department of defense or military does what it does  transition i would rather if there are security aspects if it's important in maintaining that security for the military to build a road because they need to get tanks or trucks down the road to provide afghanistan and they're building a road schools and water systems but i don't see them but i don't want them building schools and water systems because that's not really their function because to do those kinds of things you have to be working with the civilians on the ground in the country and they would much prefer to be working with civilians from another country rather than the military force that's occupying their country so there i see a distinction and i'm saying building a road is an exception if you can justify it on security grounds but not to do the kind of transitional development work that needs to be done it seems to me by civilians with civilians from their country so that that is the role providing humanitarian relief we bring in a lot of non governmental many who don't want to be working with the military they want to be working with a civilian agency but do you think there needs to be a reorganization between the roles of state and defense in terms of how we take on this task point i'm trying to make they are trained to be negotiators they're trained to represent their country they're trained in the diplomatic now i think both sides ought to know more about what the other side does so i don't mind  africa region the hope is that they can cooperate regionally that they can open their borders for trade that they can do things together because individually these countries will make it on their own do some better than others we tried in the east africa region the countries that can produce more food to sell that food to countries that can't produce the food so we created a regional office when i was in there in southern africa one in east africa and i think it's really important to look at it from a regional perspective and it often doesn't happen because of the reasons peter mentioned thank you so much time t of how we reconfigure ourselves and how we make the work that many valiant americans do every single day around the world count even more than it has traditionally counted over the  last eight years in order to to make good on our promise of trying to change the world i frankly like the idea of a cabinet level position for coordination and development i also like the idea of dealing with democratization peace recognizing the ability to confront issues without bullets and guns but to try and focus on educating people about their needs so let me  pose the questions i saw the impact for example one of our most difficult challenges is pakistan in terms of having the people themselves accept the friendship of the united states  because they have thought that all of the work that we've done has been military base work most favorable posture was when we went in with the blackhawks during the time of the during the time of the earthquake and we were very effective in getting the hearts and minds of people but obviously they were devastated it was not long standing how do we craft our developmental assistance not from a selfish perspective but from a real perspective i don't think parents give gifts at christmas time to children to in essence create love but it is to enhance the affection and the excitement that children have it as part of the family how do we take developmental assistance and be corrected but also bill the building blocks of friendship longstanding relationships democratization viewing the united states infrastructure as being an important infrastructure how do we do that what is can you give me again your point about a cabinet level and if you have any comment on a department of peace which takes the other part we did in the clinton administration tried to emphasize what we call participatory development and we insisted that our missions negotiate with the entities they were working with what we call results packages basically a contract saying we can achieve the following results and we can do this together i think most people in the development business understand that and unless the people of the country a participating with you nothing gets done i mean most of the development challenge is to get good cooperation from the country itself so listening to people carefully and letting our program define itself and that's been difficult because believe me the people in other countries know what our earmarks are here and they know where our money is and so they tend to sort of organize themselves to go after the money pots of money that they know are there as opposed to really thinking about what their needs are so i really hope that this committee will look at an authorization bill that provides broad strategic goals and we can get beyond  expired i know you had an additional five two are going to have to hear those additional parts i thank the chairman and i look forward to this great solution thank you i'm going to go myself five minutes we only have five two minutes because we have to be voting six or seven i'm not going be able to do what i wanted to do was go through a series of questions because we have four votes it's going to take at least forty  minutes we were delayed an hour because of our democratic caucus but here are some of the issues i hope to explore with you and i would like the opportunity to and i'll just throw them out to you now peter i have a chance because we talk about you talk about sort of the standards for countries we should be working in the m c c guidelines goals and to me that's a very appealing it's almost a  merit tested sort of a this is where the assistance will do the most good because a number of different criteria we have a government that is going to make the best use of the issue of poverty of a deviation put aside the humanitarian short term humanitarian crisis but the poverty alleviation goal here is so important that in many cases we have to work with countries that aren't going to meet the criteria put forth in the millennium challenge program and and i guess my questions which you don't have time to answer are one i'd love to hear you sort of reconcile these sort of different views and secondly i'm wondering to what extent are things we do in the aid delivery area where governments aren't performing well are the short term benefits that don't sustain themselves and therefore do we have to make tough decisions with the limited resources we're going to have no matter how much we can take out of the d o t budget for rebuilding capacity are there things that we would have to have a crying need but we're going to have to forego because whatever we do to address them because of the nature of the of the governance in that country they're going to be fixes that don't last and don't have a long term benefit and then the other conflict which both of you are very familiar with is the huge number of initiatives pressure they came from many differ places presidents clean energy initiative the prince initiative to end hunger in africa avian influenza the presence of malaria and the old fights about how much should go into child survival the global education programs what is a process by which we can deal with our i think institutional desire to have import into how and to priorities and at the same time reconcile priorities each of which is compelling on its own face and and the further exploration of the earmark area where less about an initiative than about a country and and the push for that whatever we do is not going to be absolute one way or another this body will not be capable of avoiding any earmar and if everything some member wants is earmarked they'll be nothing left for any sort of executive branch decision making in terms of already so these are these are concerns i have as well as the other issues aid has received to smooth a bilateral relationship  and on the economic side not forget the military secondly economic aid and how we reconcile the role of that kind of bilateral program take egypt or pakistan or any of those things and ways in which we can make sure that assistance even if it's the necessary griese does provide the sustainable long term benefits to the people of that part of the world and therefore ultimately does serve both our humanitarian interests but our national security interests and these are the things i wanted to already you if you if you want to we can pursue it informally if you have thoughts on these and you'd want to develop more more for the record here we can do it either way but