everything we want. everything we want. we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. often i mr. president, too often in thii chamber and thiss congress, people insist on having it their way or take a highway.m unfortunately, that prevents us fromhi doing things that areat absolutely essential to the mr. president, economists project if pass this package could reduce economic growthmuca next year by as much as 50%. men that would mean millions o jobs, mr. president. to those who say, let's just cuddle this, they've got to think very carefully.s what isisk the risk to the econy of the united states?wherwe've m mr. president, just to review where we've come from, the

federal response to the crisis i believe has this successfully pulled this economi back from thenk brink. we were headed, i believe, for financial collapse. economic growth has returned, not as robustly as we would have liked. but nonetheless it has returned. in the fourth quarter 2008 last week forget, in the most recent quarter, it was a positive 2.5% that is aa remarkable turnarounn in the same can be seen on the jobs front. in january 2009, this economy lost over 800,000 private secto. jobs in one month.0,000 job in one month we lost another 700,000 jobs. the next month another 700,000 jobs. the next month, almost 650,000. and we fast-forward t to today, november 2010, 50,000 jobs werer

created. eeat is a dramatic turnaround s and we can see month after month after month, we all have positive job growth. t mr. president, this economy hasi turned in the right direction and done so in quite a dramatic way. we've also seen the rebound in the market. the stock market and a will of 647 back in march 9th 2009. mi're now well over.no and economic growth and job creation and the stock market but we have seen dramatic improvements. we've seen things that are quite unpopular. program. mr. president, this economy still remains too weak, too fragile, unemployment stubbornly high at 9.8%. tarp, by the way, without t.a.r.p.,

without stimulus, the bests r including alan blinder, the former deputy chairman of the mk fed and the chief economist at moody's, mark sandy, saidut without t.a.r.p., without stimulus today would be 15%.8 8 million more people would beo. out of work.o say mr. president, despite some who say these have it with t.a.r.p.v and stimulus, i believe the evidence is quite clear theyeore have worked, but more needs to y be done. as we enter the holiday season, can't forget that one in six americans is now unemployed orm. underemployed. creat and so, we must do more to create jobs. in a recent speech to the european central bank, federal reserve chairman bernanke wentre about as far as he could go on e the question of fiscal policy. and he urged congress to do more stepelp the near-term economy, while at the same time taking

steps to bring down long-termhe deficit. here's what he said. thenited on its current economic trajectory, the united states runs the risk of seeing millions of workers unemployed or many underemployed for many years. as a society, we should find that outcome unacceptable. bothe monetary policy is written in support of both economic stabili recovery and price stability. the day our limit to what can be achieved by the central bank alone. a fiscal program that combines near-term measures to enhance growth with strong confidence inducing steps to reduce longer-term structural deficit would be important complement tf the policies of the federalhair, reserve. the chairman, i think, has a fed right. he is clearly saying the fed k alone is not in their actions are not enough to keep the recovery going. congress also needs that. it needs to act in the near-tere

by taking steps to generate economic growth. and it needs to act on the long-term challenge that putting in place a plan to bring down deficits and debt in the medium term and in the longer term.ne e this package, the one before ust will ensure that middle-class taxpayers are not hit with a tax increase at the start of thell f it extends for two years. all of the 2001 and 2003 taxhe cuts. and by the way, by far the mostx important thing for the economy as the middle-class tax cut.ima that is what is critically important for the economy. the e tax cuts for the high andy could either do or not do. there may be stimulated, mildly stimulative. according to cbo, they've pretty loping for the buck in terms of economic growth. b that's the high impact tax cuts. pretty low bang for the buckkage according to the congressional

budget office. this package also expanded child tax credit and earned income tai credit for working fliamilies. x the american opportunity tax credit for college minimum tax o fixf, otherwise millions of people would b be getting a tax hike completely unintended ander the r&d tax credits and otherso, expiring tax provisions. pacge, so mr. president, this package, as a package, according to the best economic advice that we cae get it will help economic growth, will help job creation created many as too manyjobs in additional jobs in the next i year. thr package also includes three critical measures to help the economy. it includes a payroll tax cut for working families. this will provide a twotion in percentage point reduction anduy employees social security payroll taxes. a worker with 40,000 income would save $800.

this measure is widely recognized as one of the most effective ways to boost near-term growth. in fact, i asked cbo last year, what are the most effect steps we could take to promote economic growth. number one, interestingly inrance. enough, extend unemployment insurance. as in this t package. , a payroll tax holiday.in but then this package., in fact, as i indicate, thisplon package is an extension ofce unemployment insurance benefits. after current level for 13 months. this wil will prevent 7 million workers were working on tripecoo losing unemployment in 2011. economists also read this measure as high on bang for the buck as i indicated. it also includes a business expense provision, allowing businesses to write off 100% of capital purchases in 2011.ses t

this is a useful incentive to get businesses to start spending again and could generate more than $50 billion in additional investment in 2011 and a can cbc this measure as high on bang for the buck.xamples here are some of the examples o. the tax-cut benefits provided by this package.f a mother with one child with $1100 tax cut.e with a married couple with 40,000 almost income will receive a tax cut on almost $2000.00 and a married couple with 2462at income will receive a tax cut of more than $3300. mr mr. president, mark sandy,rmer campaign has examined the this package this package the fiscal policy compromise will be good for

next year. the spending increases will provide a substantial boost to growth in 2011, ensuring that a the still fragile economic recovery evolves into anomi self-sustaining economicope expansion. the deal surprisingly broad scoped meaningfully changeshe tm near-term economic outlook.thehe at occluding to mark sandy, whoe chief economist for moody's.s mr. president, those concerned about the deficit as i am, job s one is to get this economy growing more strongly. a deal that is job one.term plan to but we've got a pair that can deal with the long-term plan tot dead. provision in this package and particularlyvi unhappy with is f estate tax provision. i support the continuation of the 2000 level within the estate tax exemption at 3.5 million pet

individual or 7 million perourae couple and the rate of 45%. at those levels, only one quarter of 1% of states would be subject to any estate tax in 2011. one quarter of 1% of the seafood effect could. means that means 99.7.5% of them estates would be exempt from ani estate tax under the levels thad i am proposing and did propose in the budget. unfortunately under the the compromise package, certain of our colleagues on the other side insisted that the exemptionfo id level be raised to 5 million f r individuals or 10 million for a couple with a rate of0 35%. 35%. this will reduce the number of t estates subject to thehe estate tax to one seventh of 1%.

it adds about 20 billion to the cost of the package over twoyeaa years and it will do absolutely nothing to generate economiclute growth and to create jobsmiclysi according to the economic analysis made available to us. , if made permanent, thisould provision would add $100 billion in lost revenue to the treasury over the next 10 years. p $100 billion more than the package that i propose. fiscall i don't think that's fiscally harmful. i don't think it's wise and i don't think it should be approved. while we need to pass the overall package to give a near-term boost to e the econom, we must give it with the growina debt. gross federal debt is third expected to reach 100% of thedoe grossst domestic product of thin country in 2011, well above the 90% threshold that manyne p. economists see as the danger

zone. one of our nation's leading economist, dr. carmen reinhart came before the president's fiscalth commission.tly she had recently co-authored ast study of the impact of debt by more than 20 countries over the last 200 years.hat government that has the share of the economy exceeds 90%, economic growth tends to be tn f about one point lower than itso debt levels were not so high. be but don't be misled by one poine lower. that sounds like nothing. the economy is growing typically a 3.5% now, one point last would be about one third less economid growth. so we need to understand the consequences of debt are lowere. economic growth for the future. mr. president, our long-term

debt outlook is even moredget serious. according to the congressional budget office and the federal debt could rise on the current trend to almost 100% of gdp by 2054. that is a completely unsustainable course.y i personally believe the deficit and debt reduction plan i assembled by the president's fiscal commission on which i w serve pay-per-view way forward, re even though the plan did not the receive the necessary 14 of the guarantee votes in congress. it did receive the support of 1h of the 18 commission members, which is more than 60% of the panel. 60% here we could pass anything. but on the commission, we commsioners required 14 of 18 of the congris commissioners to agree to assure a vote in congress this year. and by the way, the 11 who t supportedhe the plan was

democrats, fiv completelye bipartisan. five democrats, five republicans and one independent. that outcome proved that to democrats and republicans can alleng come together and solve this challenge.al here's a quick overview of the fiscal c commission plan.des uc provides nearly $4 trillion d in deficit over the next 10 years. it lowers the deficit from a percent of gdp in 2011 and 2.3%i in 2015 and 1.2% in 2020. t it stabilizes but that by 2014t mm lowers it to 6% of gdp by 2023 and 40% of gdp by 2035. soc the recent forms of social 75 security to resolve its policy for 75 years of the program on a more sustainable path beyond the next 75 years.s it includes fundamental tax reform making the tax code

simpler, fairer and more efficient while also raising more revenue for deficit a reduction. so now we have a responsible and realistic a partisan plan on tho table and national attention is focused on the issue. it's up to the congress and the precedent, text ore maybe the most important of this plan. here are the key elements included in the fiscal eenditu commission plan. one, eliminates or scales backcr tax expenditures that areent run currently running $1.1 trillion a year and lowers tax rates. that will promote economic growth and dramatically improve an america's global competitiveness. and the next attacks code moretm progressive. commissions illustrative taxer g farm plan demonstrates how eliminating or scaling back taxr expenditures can lower rates. mr. president, this plan is a

beginning. it's got to become law in order to have its full effect. mr. president, i hope very much her colleagues will consider supporting this plan, the taxdet plan before us and the deficitio reduction plan that needs to bef an integral component of a long-term fiscal plan. i think the cheery meal before.i >> senator from estonia's regnized. recognized. y >> thank you for your very kind and generous words. since i announced i was noting r running for reelection, i've been o been overwhelmed by the nice things spoke sveeven vein abouto me. there is nothing like being not eulogized while you're still yol breathing. but to make good friend, mitch, it's been a long time since we sat back in the corners not quite ready for prime time exce, players. while it never made it to prime time, except of course when

best-selling author on the jon stewart show. you certainly have arrived. he led us to many difficult and retracted to be relative.eenage you've been agile, disciplinedgi courteous negotiator with the good sense of humor. you kept us together in manyr oy tough foes.s lea at least this much is possible to keep fortysomething different independent lines altogether orn as i like to say 40 frogs in a wheelbarrow. i thank you, mitch. i've occasionally comes to her perm, i realize that.and yr i've always appreciated your intelligence committee leadership in youryo friendshipa you and alain are very close we friends of linda in mind that we wish you both the very best for the future.nnounced well, two years ago i announced my retirement to the united states senate. that time is coming. i have toco begin by thanking as

my colleagues and constituents for making this job one of the c best a person could hold. t there is no greater honor than being given the trust of the people at home t representy them.s every vote is cast in every issue on which it worked. of for more than two decades of membership in this world's greatest deliberative body, -- sometimes delayed body, i've de participated in my shared debate. when i first came to the senate, never win.remer you now thanks to to the kurdspl and resolve of former president ronald reagan, millions of people now live in freedom. and during this last year,ates especially come it seems thehapg debates will have history shaping consequences. america's face many challenges in the l past six years. the longest recession since the great depression, wars in rroris afghanistan and iraq, continuing battle against terrorism and the

and many fight to be competitive in the k global economy and many more. as they look back, the successes that we have achieved during myr time here have come becausele people of goodwill were willing to work across the aisle for thf common good of our nation.illedt as i address the floor today,ith i'm filled with memories of the many colleagues with whom o i. worked over the years.d mento one stands out my memory. one was my best friend and mentor in the united states senate took me under his wing as and treated me and my family ise close friends.. and that of course is the late senator ted stevens. he was unflagging in support of his principles and everyoney clearly knew where he stood infr the i.t. with the very fact it appropriator because he knew how to compromise. and i could only hope that my colleagues and constituents knoi where i stand and i to know thas working across the aisle is the

this body.h right after i arrived here, i had the pleasure of working witt achieve the acid rain training compromise and the act amendments of 1990. with wendell report for a national guard caucus anda that's a pleasure to work witht pat leahy to ensure they are told should national guard are prepared to serve emergency needs on the home front and participate in our national security missionsy abroad.have on the appropriations committee, i really enjoyed the success ofn that i work owi work you barbara mikulski patty murray to ensure the public outfit is the needs of the people is supposed to serve in the communities in which they live, providing partl supported assistance from theg homeless, particularly veteransn and stopping my point poisoningn in children and oldat publicave

housing buildings across the bot nation. arbor night also gave us the need of the 21st century. agricultural biotech elegy.endi we did that with congressionally directed spending and theci national foundationen for scien with dianne feinstein on budgets we put the senate intelligence committee back on a path of bipartisanship that achievedix passage of the first intelligence reauthorization in six years. especially all my republican colleagues my sincerest thanks g and appreciation for sticking cs with me as we negotiated our way through some tough compromises,. like the phrase we've had.eloor but when the help america vote act came to the senate floor in 2001, extensively to cure problems with punchcard voting in florida, but most of us republicans thought was an effort to discredit the election of former president bush.

olleagues, not to bill blog the bill, but to use it.cha not only to make it easier to te go, but tougher to achieve. spr or move to the floor, got to the senate for a picture of a ssouri springer saying it beenificatio, registered to vote in st. louise missouri, to make the point if we have positive identification it would've been much r more difficult for ritzy to register, were certainly to go. our w chris dodd with whom i'veo worked on many children's family issues and who work with us on the hot bat told me that he nevere wanted to see a picture f a t dog again. so i autographed picture and gave it to them. i trust he still has it in his w trusted memory, box. in p right now, wearing cage on thetp senate floor in passing a bill that looks at historic tax truly increases. house a truly hope the house will be looked to pass the bill for

signature by president obama so we can begin getting the economy to look again in preventing eveg more job w losses.ck assuming we can do it, the new congress has to put our economys back on a sountd footing.ent we must and the recent trend of the push for government overspending and passing a burdensome mandates on states and s the other.e safety excessive regulations that gos beyond reasonable safety and environmentalco restrictions are agriculture, energy, and many other areas of the economy and y stopping badly needed developments that we in thiscomn country need.or and the size of the debt has been increasingly concerned and others across the nation. we have a debt problem that is caused by spending, not by having taxes too low.ing i'm courage to say there's been more discussion of having a fat

tax with lower rates, eliminating a wide range of productions, credits another tax bill earmarks. akring so would make it easierom for all americans to fill out tax forms ofmi eliminating andai figuring them out.e of t and i think you should enable us to put more of those resources a into what we really need, our ce rt speaking of job creation, ii app think there are tremendous opportunities to export trade. ipod president obama's call for main street to create jobs. i looked over at iic and his m continued leadership in to see congress moveov forward promptly to adopt the trade agreements with korea, colombia and panamat for intermediate term future, it's essential the united statet participate in the transpacific partnership with cuts on the side of the pacific to take down barriers to trade an increase expert job opportunities. colleagues know i'm insane into southeast asia

which is not well understood by too many a americans, but the entire asian region provides ace opportunities for a better american jobs retrievedxpanding investment across the pacific. with expanding economic growth,t it is an economic star power, in fight against insurgencies in o other countries ultimatelyus hea necessary to protect us here atm home. the as i mentioned here in the book that the leader was kind enoughe to mention that we see trade and investment education exchanges to build stronger communities ae a necessary step is to use military action to stop in thep midst by the threats, theer, str combination that makes strongerk comest either allies. i think smart power is no better

demonstration, no better objecti to me international curt agricultural development team.aa military cards than in women str with turkey missing in a strongn private sector expertise in a wide range of activitiesde and lped r helped reestablish a profitable agriculture name for her, while. they were maintaining security. by the end of first amendment, growing season, illicit poppies production had dropped to zero s and named her heceart, which had been the second lead poppies tha producing the nation. i think we have tol expand that with more national guard units, but also seem better coordination.vilian not only a our military forces overseas, the civilian assistant to moscow with them. effor we must continue our efforts ins the outback region, giving al qaeda and its related terrorist allies and then challenge place to develop recruiting and

training camps,of the command-and-control units. one of the greatest challengespy however is the publicly daterom announced summer 2011 withdraw from afghanistan. they stole her enemies they are. and we need to wait until next not b summer to put our allies, the car is a government on those come as we may not be there to protect them after 2011 summer. just as important, it tells the local sure leaders, communityxto leaders that we will be there the taliban if they cooperated with us. there must be a message from the white house, widely disseminated, but we'll pull out cond of afghanistan only when conditions on the ground security.gh point of m high point of their legislatives career really couldn't impetush in 2007 when i went with senator biden on the congressional,

delegation of koto afghanistan. we were told that the intelligence limitations in s the old foreign intelligence survey should not - as a great threat to our troops as well as those of us on thehea ground. i worked as the leaders said from that point until the summer of 2008 but the strong supported by republican colleagues and aos workable compromise across t the aisle whose developed, which gave intelligence agencies the access they needed at the same time extended the protection overseas from unwarranted e-m uttersection of message by abilb telephone and e-mail. as a result we current have they ability, but we must go to workr quickly to make sure that other provisions of vital intelligence collection measures not authorizations do not expire without legislative extensions. for the united states

ourselves -- our homeland, our essential and we must prevent di the release of gitmo detainees were they may return to the battlefield.our the fact the one for detainees already have come back is a frightening figure because we ad believe many more who will come back in a few that one of those may conduct an attack on the united states. we need to have a law of war, to which allows us to hold them. as a final intelligence, the the recently scandal has shown us do would damage the internet can o l effdiplomatic efforts as wel as the safetyor of those inplace dangerous places we work with. n the even greater threat we see is a continuing cyberattack on military intelligence and private sector critical

infrastructure. introduce with myd colleague from utah, r sec orrin hatch, we've introduced cybersecurity bill which willoow establish a cyberdefense to allow private sector entities tl cooperate with government sysm,r agencies to protect our critical financial system, utilities and mostic of all our communication systems b from attack at the battle is underway and we need every effort to stay ahead inheg developing attacks on hoping the private sector protect theirn information. in closing, i'll tell you ii'ven worked in all possible party combinations. andn i've been in the majority and in the minority. i've been fat and thin and being thin and in the majority is a whole lot better.or, with in my two terms as governor, hse with 70% majority about the house house and the senate, they explained to me how bipartisan which ship works. i figured out during the second term, which enabled us to do, tg better.ennd my most successful term in

office come the general both tht received passage above legislative priorities, so now my colleagues will permit the party will play nice.. i would follow up on the leader's comments about a littld scuffle i had a pat moynihan. n. i never talked about it. we never said anything publicly until now.came fast but he did later on become fastg friends.s used to tease me about settingfo upr boxing messages so we can raise money, but i didn't take him up on that. are but in the a world today where enemies are real and seek to the ststroy others come its importse remember there's a lot of real estate between the political opponent in a true enemy. .overnment we expect a serious s debate were ideas compete in tho

best ones prevail. there'll be issues or people oft good conscience cannot come u together, but let us never that which cannot be done interfere with what can be done. even in the world, vents in the world and the press will continue to challenge us,he terrorism, growing debt.rn i nearly 24 years ago sworn in ass u.s. senator. honored to work with you andies others about priorities facing our country and many more. beena public service has been a o blessing and a labor of love fot me. i look forward to the next chapter of my life. r there are ways to servlet oficee office is only one of them. i plan to continue fighting form missouri and national priorities from different vantage point here through 40 years in publict life, i've met many wonderfulisd people. i've visited every area of the county, of this day, every term i served in office. i

the people i've met in office and the people i've worked withe have made the job so rewarding g and decided to stay longer.f m the people of missouri at that my most trusted invaluable advisors. i thank them for giving me support, helping to identify not only challenges, but the solutions. in addition to my colleagues ano friends, there are too many tofe think, but let me just give you the first of may patient family, my wife linda, my life come achg time taunted terming sam, daughter-in-law, margaret, and my son sam, whom i regard as my personal hero for a service and intelligence officer in iraq. m and thanks to all who work forff me inic my office, on my committees and those who pelted with clinical activities,ears. hundreds of thousands over the years. started, others had passed away. fortunately, many are stillkeinm

here. the i think my political adversariei for keeping it simple and the media for keeping me humble. missouri 72 jefferson city for missouri 72 jefferson city for three times into washington d.c. four times to represent them. there is no bigger honor.less i've been truly blessed to be entrus entrusted by them with the d responsibility of public office and maintaining back from the bottom of my heart. [applause] >> when the senate returns at 11:00 a.m. eastern time, the debate on the tax package but the final vote later in the day. watch live coverage of all senate proceedings here on c-span 2.

>> delegates to u.n. conference in cancun, mexico uncover change to succeed the 1997 kyoto protocol. at the state department, special climate change envoy todd stearns briefed reporters on the conference. he's introduced by state department p.j. crowley. this is 25 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon and welcome to the department of state. it is of course a very sad day here at the state department. we have lost one of our own and

a legendary figure in richard holbrooke, who could fill a room, including this one as he did many times and took great pleasure in engaging the press in advance of whatever was he was working on, whether with peace in the balkans, you know, peace in congo as u.n. ambassador or most recently peace in south asia in the context of afghanistan and pakistan. a number of world leaders have already checked in today to express their condolences to the department and to the holbrooke family. obviously, will have more details as they determine, you know, funeral arrangements and memorial services for richard. and he was always known as richard. the first to start out our briefing today, we have another special envoy, todd stern has returned from a climate change

negotiations in cancun and just wants to put what happened in perspective. so we'll start off with todd. >> thanks, p.j. and i second what p.j. said about richard holbrooke who was a good friend of mine and actually very supportive of our work on this issue and if they personally, so sad day in that regard. let me turn to the events of the last couple of weeks. over the last two weeks, representatives from more than 190 nations met in cancun for the 16th conference of the parties of the u.n. framework convention on climate change, with the goal of reaching agreements to advance or click of efforts to meet this challenge. in the early morning hours of saturday in cancun, the parties largely achieved that goal. this result is fundamentally consistent with you is subject to his. throughout the year, our

strategic conviction was to elaborate on the party in progress made last year in copenhagen by many of the world leaders including president obama, into such an outcome fully endorsed by the conference of the parties, all the nations of the climate treaty, as the copenhagen accord obviously was not. the results in cancun agreement advances each of the core element of the copenhagen accord. specifically it advances the core elements of the parallel manner. it outlines a system of transparency with substantial detail and content, including international consultations and analysis that was the negotiated price from the copenhagen accord. and this will provide confidence that he countries pledges are being carried out and helping the world keep track of the track were on in terms of reducing emissions.

the agreement in cancun also launches a new green climate fund with a process for setting it up, creates a framework to reduce deforestation in developing countries, establish as a so-called technology mechanism, which will include a new technology executive committee and a technology center and network. and they will also set up a framework and committees to promote international operation on adaptation. the u.s. is pleased that the party show the flexibility and pragmatism is necessary to make in each of the various cover until they post a number of quite difficult challenges that is anything but clear for a lifetime that they were actually going to get this agreement. but guided by what was really outstanding and the maximum team for parties work for the various

problems with patience and pragmatism, allowing us to reach the result that we did. this package obviously is not going to solve climate change by south, but it is a very good step in a step is very much consistent with u.s. interests will help of the past in the world done the past toward a changing to stopping climate change. and i'm a and any questions. >> can you explain to a lay person why they shouldn't conclude that cancun basically punted the hardest issues, which is to say mandatory emission caps, until next year when there's nothing particularly to suggest that there will be any more success on that issue next

year? >> that's actually not what happened. the issue that was rolled over to next year is what happens with the kyoto protocol cap, particularly for the people of this negotiation is there are two negotiating tracks going forward. one is the kyoto protocol that doesn't involve the united dates because were not part of it. and the issue there is will there be a second so-called commitment. if kyoto, the first being 28 to 12 and the question is do you go on for you. after that? there is a lot of eagerness in the part mostly of developing countries, although not only to have such a second. and there is a lot of resistance from a number of parties like japan, australia, russia, can admit to having such a. free pretty understandable

reason. again, we don't take a side on those. we are culture without the kyoto position gets resolved. you can understand how the tents on the part of some countries to want to go into a second. , giving it the second kyoto. would only cover 20 something percentage of global omissions. you don't make them it's from major developing countries. still, it is again a very passionately felt issue on the part of both developing and developed countries. so the issue they are is where the p. binding caps. again, kyoto is not the lurcher agreement that coverssome of them include finishing commitments from the u.s., china, india, brazil, pedro. on the track at the moment, while there may be on the legal

treaty down the road. that's not happening i think anytime soon for the reason that were not prepared to enter into legally binding commitments to reduce their emissions unless china and so forth are prepared to do that and at the moment they're not. it's a little bit of a complicated answer, but it's a complicated question. >> let me just ask you, climate is changing around the globe, and as you can see outside, including south asia are you saying disasters saddam and all of that. what have you done since the last tsunami is an earthquakes and all that as far as india is concerned and south -- the region are quite what are you doing? anything with -- for those tsunamis in the area? >> in the region?

well, first of all we are doing things certainly in the region. this is a global problem that we are -- the purpose of the global treaty is precisely this is one of those issues that obviously has local effects. i mean, if your problem in your region that's local, that unlike other kinds of environmental problems we have local air pollution. climate pollution is the same whether the pollution is in india or as they say in indiana. so it is a truly global problem, which we are trying to do it and we do have significant aid programs with india and other countries in the region. one of the little just kind of point of fact, earthquakes and tsunamis, tsunamis coming from underwater earthquakes as i understand it are not -- maybe one of the rare phenomena that we find that we see that

actually has nothing to do with climate change. earthquakes are not climate change. >> are you working on something or asking to put some kind of system that we have in the u.s. here and so on? >> yeah, i can't speak authoritatively on all of the systems we are putting in place, but i know through agencies like noah, the u.s. is doing a lot in that area. [inaudible] >> i think india played actually a particularly constructive role in cancun. i think that india was very much faithful to its own national interests in favor of to its role in the g-77.

but at the same time, creatively looking for solutions to difficult issues in the negotiation and and a weight that could bring an both developing countries. developing countries are not a monolithic movement at this point. there's a 31, africans and the developed nations, and states and so forth. i think india really played a particularly role in trying to find solutions that would bring everybody to the table. one good example of that is on the issue of transparent he, which was very important. it's important because if you don't understand -- it's great for countries to make budgets, but it's important for all countries to have confidence in each other that the pledges are actually being carried out and implemented in so forth. it is an important issue, it

can, very different views that india found. india made a proposal that i think people fundamentally came around and ultimate language wasn't exactly in the suggest, but it was quite important and it did that. yes. >> given the way major industrial countries feel about second commitment period koto, and what you just said about the u.s. position of finding agreement under the commits presumably, then what is the best the u.s. hopes to have been in durban? >> when you know, from our point of view, what just happened is really very significant. already, it outlines -- a kind of lays out the structure of an international agreement and all of the crucial areas. these are what the language that was used last year was politically binding. it think that's a good way to look at it is not legally

binding, but these are serious decisions made under the auspices of a legally binding treaty. these are all decisions made under that kind of umbrella of the u.n. framework convention on climate change. governments do not take these things lately. i think what she could have, what i would hope to see his country start implementing. i think they already are starting to implement their medication pledges to put in place following the elements, the outlines a few of those negotiated in cancun, a system of transparency, set up institutions and the adaptation institutions that were agreed to in cancun. set up a system for increasing assistance to avoid deforestation in the late. you can do all these things. not only could do all these things, the program there. as we've agreed to do to start implementing them further elaborating on these things.

and you know, the day will come in the future when countries can come together in a legal format. but you can get an awful lot of time on the way to that, so we're trying to do. >> phil jones, the director of the climactic research unit at university's anglia, he told bbc news that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995. what would be your reaction to that data? would you agree or disagree with those findings? >> well, i'm in a scientist i'm not going to comment on that. i don't agree with what he said. i think if you look at the warming that has been recorded on a steady basis over the last 20 years or so, you will see a very significant rise in

temperatures over time. it think if you look at the last 20 years come u.s. someday make it 15 or 18 warmest years in history having happened during that period. so i think there's a very broad consensus of scientists who see a marked warming trend and begin a few large percentage of scientists who studied this area, which would be bad to human egg dvd. yes? >> i'm wondering where you see the process going from here. coming out of character and even with the treatments agreements have to be discussed over the next year. do expect old another in the near future aquatics >> i think there's going to be a lot of work you will need to be done this year to carry out and

implement various agreements that were just made. in some areas, there's a whole set of new guidelines that need to be destiny to be written in transparency areas is a good example of that. there's a lot of work to be done to flesh out the technology agreements and so forth. so i think -- i mean, i certainly don't have a whole vision of 2011 laid out yet since we just finished this agreement 48 hours ago. but i think clearly the implementation of the elements of agreement that just happened will be an important piece of that. as for major economies, i'm sure that we will be meeting them, but we don't have any time you. >> high, two questions. along those lines, what is the u.s. specifically need to do? what is it will not next year to move this process forward and

sort is the corollary to that, a number of senators have expressed an errant about even arguably modest international financing commitment by the u.s. how do we move forward kitimat? >> i think the u.s. will this coming year will be much like the u.s. role busier, which is to be a variant of player in setting the agenda and working with countries and really every conceivable grouping and to try to push for pragmatic and meaningful steps forward, which is what we did this year. we were i think anyone would say quite central players in the diplomacy in 2010 and i think we

will continue to do that in 2011. with respect to financing, look, the financial promises that were made in the first instance in copenhagen and continued in the cancun agreements are extremely important and they are a core part of the deal. obviously the fiscal situation is exceedingly tossed in the u.s. it's tough in europe and other places as well and we are going to have to do the best we possibly can to carry out, to make good on for instance the sasser pledge, which was part of copenhagen and reiterated here. in the second instance to work with parties to set up a good structure of the good architecture for the new green fund that has been agreed on.

and then the slightly longer term -- on the slightly longer term fraud to continue thinking through how sources can be put together for the $100 billion -- the commitment to the goal of mobilizing that many from all sources of public and private that we made by 2020. again, that joint commitment. and it is a commitment that is commissioned and meaningful action in the area of vindication in transparency. that's a lot to work on. yes. >> on the issue of china taking on binding commitments, the u.s. position still that china has to both signed on to those binding commitments internationally and

take on real reductions or is there something short of real reductions of the u.s. could accept as part of the treaty? and on the mrv issue, it seems like your comments since the cop decisions have been adopted was pretty positive towards the mrv and the ita issues you are so strong on there. i'm wondering what is missing there or would you still like to see strength in her down on an issue was the u.s. decision-maker pretty satisfied on mouse? >> let me take the china question first. our position on china is that china needs to make significant reductions in its emissions. before china or other developing country is on the stage goes be relative reductions against the so-called business as usual path that they would eon.

so when countries, whether it's china, india or others are growing at six, eight, 10%, and you can't slam the brakes on completely and say you got to be making absolute reductions tomorrow. it could work. because don't forget, while the critical direction that we need to move on is to separate growth from the path of omissions, so that growth goes up, but emissions can still go down because we've had so much of your energy coming from low carbon sources and so forth. at this stage in life, the movements of emissions is very much linked to the movements of economic growth. so you're not going to get a chinese economy growing at 10% to have the blues zero reduction in emissions. but what you can have is a very

significant reduction against what they would otherwise be doing. and so that is the focus and then it's been our focus consistently. it's really the only rational focus that she could have. we're not calling -- i mean, it is not so much that we are calling on china or india to make legally binding commitments right now. what we are saying is we will do legally binding commitments even if they are so magical, if the emerging market countries do that also. they're not ready to do it. not so much they were criticizing them. dishes that we say, you know, that's where we are globally, then we need to push forward but in the kind of politically binding structure that we're doing now. and we're comfortable with that. we can do it either way. we're just not going to have a completely asymmetrical system. so that's really what we mean in terms of both of the real

reduction in question and the binding question. with respect to mrv, i think we've made a very good start. i think the elements we cared about are in the cancun agreements. so those elements still need to be, you know, still need to be used as the architecture or the outline for a set of guidelines that will kind of spell out in a little bit more detail how this thing works. but our focus, the real issue, the debate in cancun was do you just agree to ica with a 50,000-foot agreement on principles that it will be facilitated and nonpunitive and we'll figure everything else later, which we said coming up, unacceptable because we don't have any idea where we're going. ..

strong expectation of a wheat leo binding track in the lca part of the agreement. i think that the lca agreements made it clear a legally binding outcome wasn't being off the table and that is still something that could have been, in the agreements been done in cancun were being done without prejudice, juneau, to the prospects for the legal agreement or content of a legal

agreement, and we agree with all of that, but that is different from saying that there is an expectation that next year or the year after there is going to be a legal agreement, so i think that the hot issue that remains on the table with respect to something legally binding right now he is on the kyoto track and the lca track leaves absolutely open the possibility of a legal outcome but i don't think such an expectation for immediate resolution of that. you know, you asked five, ten years -- i'm not going to put a time frame on it. i think it depends on how things develop in ways we might just not be able to predict right now. again, united states is not against it but we just do not believe in the old world kind old paradigm where all obligations go to the developed countries and not to either the major developing countries, and it is for a simple reason.

55% of global emissions are already coming from the developing world. the next 20 years this way to go up to 65%. all of the growth emissions is coming from the developing world. we are the largest emitter. make no bones about that. we have to act. we recognize that. and the developed world generally has to do that. but if you are trying to think about how to solve the problem going forward, it makes no sense to perpetuate that hard division. i think i've exhausted you. [laughter] thank you very much.

the u.s. institute of peace posted a discussion on sudan's january 9th referendum vote on independence for southern sudan. panelists included representatives from the northern and southern sudanese government as well as analysts who work in sudan. this is an hour and a half. >> welcome to this even gone sudan. it's an important point in

sudanese history. i am david smock, senior vice president here. my most important role is to ask you to turn off yourself phones. please do so. as you all know, and did that is the reason you are here today, the referendum in southern sudan and referendum are scheduled for january 9th. but many issues remain to be resolved. registration in southern sudan has been delayed, and this raises the question of whether the january 9th date can be met. no progress has been made on the referendum in of also holding the referendum there is even more question. once the referendum in this office concluded, questions may arise of the credibility of the

referendum. assuming the referendum is concluded successfully and the results accepted, and the secession is the outcome of the vote then many other issues remain to be resolved to insure a peaceful transition including the question of citizenship, assets, sharing oil revenues, border delineation and so on and what to do about abiya as a contested issue. the workshop today will be addressing these issues and with the help of these distinguished speakers, they will help us think through what might be to happen in the next few months in sudan, in southern sudan and abiya to read our first speaker will be from the embassy of

sudan, ambassador fatahelraham ali mohamed with the rank of the ambassador. prior to serving here on washington he was the executive director of the sudan national assembly speaker's office from 2004 to 2006. from 1999 to 2004 he was in the embassy incident and prior to that he held other positions in the sudan foreign service. >> good morning. thank you, mr. smock, for giving me this opportunity to share in this forum. as you know, the referendum is a

product of the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement. the historical achievement that brought the end to 50 years of war which began before sudan gained its independence. it is the fruit of joint effort in the long course of their negotiations that stand great lengths of time. the government and splm with the support of the international community and represented by the community were able to come together and produce the steel

document that called for implementation of time sensitive benchmarks. they represent the stage of this implementation process that began january 9th, 2005. it must be understood that the primary objective of the comprehensive peace agreement is to secure lasting peace. it is within this context the upcoming agenda people's consultation and the last election must be here. therefore, the issue is not necessary about occupation. rather the vision of building a solid piece which the logical

outcome of the execution. there have been challenges in preparing for the referendum as we have all witnessed. however, after some delay in southern sudan, the commission was eventually formed and it has been able to do a tremendous job so far. we are currently at this stage of where southerners are registering through sudan and the diaspora including those in the united states. we should be encouraged by the fact that despite logistical, financial and all difficulties that are in this process we have

somehow been able to overcome. there have been complaints already that just ended. it's important that the forces leading up to the referendum is currently carried out credibly because only free, fair and transparent process could deliver a real outcome. and really the biggest challenge is in a political process such as always a bitter political the atmosphere. regrettably, some political figure has been creating this year the environment. this attitude essentially put

emphasis and highlight the reason for the corporation. instead, review and try harder to create conducive atmosphere for the negotiations. the negotiations led by a joint political committees headed by the vice president of the southern sudan government deployed a great effort and solving the afghanistan reissues. these efforts are supported by the african unions such as who continues to work to resolve many issues facing the process.

the united states have been able to create significant role in assuring the process move forward. the united nations and arab league play a significant role in supporting the process as well. abyei has been so far the most contentious and challenging issue. the commission for the area has yet to be formed. it was just over a month before the work could take place. the two parties have been negotiating for some time and yet very slowly making progress. the biggest point of difference is the question is of who should

be allowed in the referendum. and despite the provision regarding this and the situation effort, the two parties have yet reached agreement. the government position is to give the people living in abyei and others the right to vote. border demarcation is also another sensitive issue. so far, 80% of the border has been defined. it is important, however, to finalize the process because it would help maintain and if the decision happened to be the choice of the sudanese. without clear orders, clashes

between the northern and southern forces might be unavoidable. the referendum issues, these include citizenship porth sharing and national debt. we have an ongoing meeting on these issues. they could be challenging but through the negotiation and the good corporation, they are solvable. a peaceful environment would help of facilitating these negotiations. finally, the leadership of the two parties have expressed on numerous occasions that the determination must be to all and to accept the outcome of the

referendum. the action has so far been consistent with this promise. yet, many activists and journalists continue to be off war. this is absolutely counterproductive and we never held the peace process. the role of the international community and of the u.s. is first and most to help peace flourish but the peace cannot be attained by such means. furthermore, i think it is important to stress that should

the outcome result this cooperation, northern and southern will maintain cordial relations. it is important to remind ourselves that even during the war, the sudanese move across the country in search of job security and have been able to establish with the communities. these ties cannot be easily detached and would remain beyond separation. therefore, the efforts should be focused towards clearing any potential obstacle that spoils the project peacebuilding. it must seek to resolve issues that could prevent the flourishing of peace between

communities. thank you. [applause] thank you. the next speaker is ezekiel lol gatkuoth who's head the head of the government of sudan in the u.s. based here in washington. previously from 2002 to 2005, he was deputy representative and coordinator of the chapters in north america and then a in june of 2005, he was appointed as the representative for north america prior to his assuming a position of the head of the mission here in washington. >> thank you very much, david

smock. [inaudible] [laughter] designed for him and the ambassador. [laughter] good morning. before i start my remarks, i would like to recognize those who came from far away, like the ambassador who is here with us. he is visiting. maybe you can stand up and greet people. [applause] we have also a talented musician who came from southern sudan to mobilize in the u.s. [inaudible] we are also here together. you can stand up and you can see

them. [applause] thank you very much for or deny the easing -- organizing, david. i will try to be brief but when you're talking about sudan it is difficult to be brief. sudan is actually the largest country in africa, population of 40 million people. southern sudanese has been struggling for the last more than 40 years. the first war was 1955. the war of independence in did in 1972 with an agreement promising them that they would have a referendum in 1982 after ten years. that agreement did not last. it was dishonored by the party

or person who was then the president of sudan. then we went back to the war again in 1983 and then later to find the objective of the war. in the state of war and independence, he decided to say that it is not only southern sudanese who are marginalized that or other people in the east and west and even in the center. so we were fighting for a transformed sudan. that war lasted for more than 21 years. that's what produced the tpa in 2005. and the cpa was meant to address two issues. one is to transform sudan into a better sudan for all of us, democratic operation. that was the objective number one in the cpa to be objective number two is for the people of

southern sudan to decide their future through sound information. where are they going to be? are they going to be part of the north or they can form their own independent state? leading us to the referendum, the referendum started. we are so happy with the administration. it went so well and it is not only us alone. the u.n. secretary-general ban ki-moon formed a team and issued a statement, and i quote, it was transparent, free from organized manipulation. this is what they said and many others are saying the same thing

we have registered over 3 million in the south and outside in khartoum almost close to 300,000 also in diaspora, so if you look at it, we are registered more over 60% registered, those who are eligible to vote are registered over 60%. however, despite the successful registration people are having to make sure the process is discredited, people are filing lawsuits and many ahead of those complaints, but to us i think they are baseless because it isn't for them or for us to judge the process, but other people who are monitoring the process. but yes, there are general

concerns and happen to listen to those. the issue that is the process is now moving forward. even though in the south we have conceded enough. it was transferred and 05 to number sudan together with other counties. in 1918 and 1932 the two countries were transferred back to southern sudan. so in the cpa there was a protocol come antonette pravachol we are preceded us splm and back to southern sudan

there was a referendum so that nine of them were transferred in 1905. they can vote and decide their future if they want to be part of the north for the comeback to the south. those who are deciding that do not mention. they were mentioned to have that passage and grace and access to water. it is very clear now we are not moving forward, but the splm is committed to making sure that we have a breakthrough if that means we are going to pay a ransom we are willing to do that so there are more people that can decide their future freely. and we are also asking the community to continue supporting bob process headed by the hi

implementation panel so that the basis for addressing this and also the arbitration because dan peterson, sorry, don was the one having the commission and was supposed to define the border of our being and was submitted to the presidency and we were supposed to move and those who were stated it has to be binding on the two parties. then we went to the hague and the mandate was basically saying the systems who were transferred in 1905, the one to be

identified in the than the arbitration made it clear and we know the residents in that area, but we are calling for the community health so that we can have a breakthrough. and this is leading me to the issue of the citizenship. the referendum issues are many. it is involving the security arrangement, citizenship, treaties, legal issues and financial economic resource issues. these are the issues we are addressing now with the north. so far, we've managed to have an agreement in principle but we are going to address the rest of the issues except the issue of citizenship. the issue of citizenship is very clear that there are some people who are threatening southerners who are in the north of that if you were going to register your most vote for unity, and if you

vote otherwise, then your citizenship will be terminated and then you will stay there. our commitment is we will protect the rights of northerners in the south and even before and investors who are investing in the south we will not terminate or mistreat them. we are basically asking the same thing from the north to the same because people might want to decide to stay in the south or north. maybe you are working there and have a good job and would like to stay there, so i think it is the responsibility of the government to make sure that those who decide to stay there are protected and the benefits are given to them. i know in the southern sudanese they are turning in big numbers to the south because of this year that they are actually

having in the north. people are being threatened and we are worried genocide will be happening after their freedom. but we are happy or partner in the north also to come southerners in the north. we have no capacity to receive the big numbers returning from the north and we are appealing to the community to help us so that those who are returning can get services. we are providing whatever we can as a government, but of course if we are receiving over a million, then definitely you would be receiving a lot and wouldn't be able to manage. in conclusion, southerners are

going to vote, and it is very clear now since we have the registration have done without any problem it is very clear on the night of january southern sudanese are going to go because the hardest part is over. the hardest part is the registration. now the ballots are being printed by the u.k. company and they promise they will deliver them before the 25th december and when they are innocent and then they will distribute them. so on the ninth of january, 2011, we are sure the referendum will be conducted. there is no need for the request for delay because we are finished with the hardest part. it is very clear the southern sudanese are going to vote for separation for simple reasons.

we have failed to transform sudan into a better sudan for all the fuss. if sudan is transformed so all of us are first class citizens. then there is no reason for us to be fighting this country but for the last five years, he is still there and ezekiel is staying in this country and with the status have to be protected there has to be established for me to protect myself as an on muslim in khartoum women are being denied their freedom because its dressed inappropriately to those who are defining how you can dress so doesn't list sudan as is the together the only thing we have to do now is make sure that we are peaceful so that we are committed to this and we will continue to have relations with

the north, and this relation will be the best because now we will rediscovered ourselves that yes we need to honor ourselves because the north need the south and the south meets the north. i will stop here. thank you very much. [applause] thank you, ezekiel. our third speaker is zach vertin with the international crisis group. his first assignment with icg was the u.s. efficacy office in new york starting in august of to the six, and then in september, 2009 he moved to nairobi as the analyst for the horn of africa with special response to these for southern sudan and moved between nairobi and southern sudan with regularity.

>> thanks very much david for putting this together today for my sudanese friends to join us. i've been working about the last year-and-a-half i do travel between khartoum and nairobi. i am something of a nomad without cattle. these guys have clearly said the foundation here. i will just briefly touch on two issues, sort of status of the referendum itself. and also the post referendum arrangements which have been discussed. these two issues are obviously inextricably linked. first, i left sudan about three weeks ago as registration started in must say to the end of october and the beginning of the registration on the 15th of the timber there was a

remarkable surge in preparations and the commission itself deserve credit for pulling the together and confounding what seemed like a probable delay at that stage. now as has been mentioned registration was completed a week ago, preliminary lists are now posted for reviewing the appeals process is underway. no official numbers yet, but as has been mentioned on the order of 4 million on the south, 115,000 the north and roughly 50, 55,000 in overseas voting that continues official numbers that's probably later this weekend aggregation is somewhat difficult given the terrain in the areas and access to the far reaching referendum centers. the training of staff begins today and will go on for the next two weeks regarding the polling process itself. what are the immediate challenge is at this stage? as ezekiel mentioned, one of the

biggest hurdles has been cleared of holding the registration itself. the extended registration of the week titans the time line. weigel vlore originally set out three months between the final voters listed voting in a matter of hours between the final day and the beginning of the voting. no polling procedures as of yet much like the russian process. obviously you for of the accusations of interference and problems with registration that have been leveled. several groups, both of the ncp and a handful of others have launched a handful of complaints with the commission challenging irregularities, problems of the regulation, denial of access to certain groups. so of those have more of a basis to others and some of them are not terribly well founded, but in some sense i see this as being the groundwork. for those folks including and

those people who don't want to see the referendum go forward or would like to protract the process, this isn't some since leaving the ground work. should they decide to pursue that route. so efforts must continue to push ahead with the appeals and polling process and every day we get closer to the sort of referendum treatise on the track and is gathering speed. every day we get closer it becomes harder and harder for those still would like to postpone or deny the process altogether. but i would like to focus more on a the post referendum agenda because i think simultaneously pursuing the get answers on this broad agenda is not only critical for peaceful transition, but may also serve to remove the immediate obstacles of a referendum itself. progress now towards the series of arrangements for both military south could help remove these obstacles and also the impact of the referendum outcome

the talks the region started first through the talks didn't jump start the process. what followed was a series of talks in khartoum weeks ago, and there was a lot of talk about whether or not those talks achieved progress. i think they certainly did and more direct talks than at any other stage before the poster for an agenda but at the same time the bar was pretty low and as the president told the security council and others after those talks the pace remains cause for serious concern. the panel led did reconvene the talks last week and again started again yesterday, but we haven't seen other than some new engagement at the level we have not seen a lot of progress. those talks are center of a framework document prepared by the panel which is about a 30 page document addressed as most all the post referendum issues

and also a series of the outstanding cpa issues. samore dealt with in concrete terms and those that would have a more immediate effect on the population such as citizenship and others in the more general terms and the document seeks only to frame the discussion that must continue between january and july. we shouldn't be under any illusions of all of the post referendum agenda can be negotiated now and more to the need to be that there needs to be a mechanism in place so that after the referendum after the results, the process can continue because once the referendum in substance once the referendum is done the sudanese parties will have to wake of the next morning and say now the real work begins from year to july and beyond. among those issues in terms of what i believe the sudanese parties can establish these lines on, first of all oil is a contentious issue in sudan but i have long argued i think because of the mutual reliance of khartoum and revenues 98% in the

south and 60%, north and some sense - khalil was the greatest disincentives to the new conflict and that is why i am hopeful about the immediate future. citizenship has been discussed and we need to call off the fears and protective rights of both of the southerners on the north of the northerners, south. there is concern, hard red, fear of mass explosion afterwards i think in some sense this is largely political grandstanding or rhetoric used as part of the broad negotiating in the political what was your. one thing to note for the simple it's not terribly economically feasible for all southerners to move out of the north. they represent a significant section of the economic sort of stratosphere in the north. currency, there are differences of opinion on this. certainly but economists year if there is an understanding of what how this process goes forward there could be a loss of confidence and devaluation of

currency. obviously there's enough going on in sudan the can't afford this. the wild card on the talks again it's been mentioned this mean some sense be the fulcrum on which the talks dealt. the splm would like to address these as a part of the package. the ndp is not so concerned. in one sense the have an important community that it would hope not to alienate but as has been mentioned i think in some sense they may use abyei as a bargaining tool to see with a can get in return. why we haven't seen much progress in the talks so far, two things i will mention. first, sudan has a culture of political censorship like few others and that is part of this process. what we step back to reliable talk about the insurance. with khartoum are seeking reassurances.

the ncp, there are different camps that remained about how to approach the referendum agreements. there are increasingly folks who are more resigned to the reality of the partition seeking to insure their own political and economic future in khartoum, and in that sense they are also opened with a political and security terms juba isn't supporting the opposition groups coming in on the other hand, the splm is seeking reassurance on one issue comes the conduct of the referendum and acceptance of the result, and i think that is why we haven't seen any movement and until there is some on both sides i feel we may not get very far in the post referendum agenda. so the concerns i mentioned obviously political brinkmanship and in this regard i think the in cp -- ncp, it isn't clear. a strategy hasn't miserably emerged from the ncp on how to approach the referendum and the

post referendum agenda, but in the absence i think the calculation maybe they can afford to wait and that they can only improve between now and january 9th and they may wait until the late 11th hour and try to extract confessions both from the splm and get the best possible package taken from the international community and exchange for the referendum. in this regard since we are in washington and since they are important i will mention the u.s. incentives. i think it's very good these incentives were put forward on the table, items in addition to the parties can negotiate themselves that could alter the equations, but i want to note that these are ultimately limited and i think the view in washington and elsewhere outside is different than in khartoum. these offers and incentives to have limits and the ncp feels the drug has been pulled out from under them when the u.s.

came forward and they are afraid that may happen again. past the normalization has been laid out the state-sponsored terror 82 list of opening up of licensing agreements and trade issues in exchange for ambassadors and ultimately the two big ticket items, the lifting of economic sanctions, u.s. economic sanctions and long-term debt relief to those two in particular are the big ticket items and khartoum knows neither of the issues can be resolved overnight and neither of them fall in the realm of the american executive, and in that sense they are limited. some of based on these issues the current set of state of preparations and this broad political context of the deal number of referendum scenarios can be anticipated, and i think we should note that continued stalemate on the talks could very well increase the likelihood of the less desirable outcomes and i won't go through

them here. of the international crisis group we published a report a few weeks ago in which each of the potential scenarios are outlined we pushed very hard to get out thinking the situation may considerably changed though it hasn't much in the last few weeks. last of one to mention in terms of the referendum itself and what we are going to see in the weeks to come i would like to focus particularly on the results and this period of uncertainty that is likely to follow the voting itself. my guess is we probably won't even have unofficial results for four, five, six days even a week and that period and beyond that between ten and the announcement of official results there will be premature assertions by both sides. it will be disinformation spread, there will be considerable domestic results and they may take more time than

originally envisioned, so i think it's important that there be a body and entity that steps forward and fills the void and if this is for the secretary-general panel monitoring panel of the referendum led by former president is the key. they are the natural actors to fill the void both in terms of the immediate results and also laying the groundwork for ultimate recognition of an independent state should south sudan vote as many of us expect. the recent statements from the panel are good but i think the need to continue to build and established that authority so we can look to them in that period. in this regard, i think one thing that we need to keep them honest by unified response from the african union both from the african union. this is key in addition to the panel if car to accept the

results and the path is clear toward ultimate recognition the african union and the international community will probably breathe easy. if they don't come if they choose another route, if they don't feel like they have a package of arrangement they can live with, then it's still possible. i'm optimistic this would happen but it's possible that they could attempt to challenge results after the fact or prevent recognition, and in that case you may have a split within the african union. that would have serious implications both for sudan and the african union itself as an institution and it will make the situation more broadly very difficult because the u.n. security council and the international community will be looking to the region to calibrate its opinion and response to this issue. and last, there's a lot of talk in washington and elsewhere about what is the future of south sudan look like and what is the political and economic status and the international engagement in south sudan, and i

would like to remind everyone after the referendum there will likely be two states, and i think the attention needs to be maintained on both the north, depending on all things go, they may need as much political and economic engagement to bring it back from the international isolation where it has been for quite some time, and as my colleague said, i think ultimately win nt tensions and rhetoric and concerns and emotions of the referendum by down i think fourth and south will ultimately realize that each will be their best neighbor politically, economically, socially, and ford, and those ties won't go away. a lot more to discuss but we will leave it open. thanks for a much. [applause] >> thank you. our final speaker is jon temin.

eastern a remarkable job of managing our sudan activities, speaking publicly, frequently, writing frequently, managing our activities on the ground in sudan, and jon is just back from two weeks spent in khartoum and juba and will have additional remarks to make. jon? >> thank you very much, david. as david mentioned i just got back a couple days ago from a couple of weeks in both juba and khartoum, so i am going to share some general observations many of which are consistent with what zach just said. as you will see i have more questions than answers but that is frequently the case with sudan. overall i come back with a lot of the positive impression of where things stand concerning

the referendum, despite the challenges it does seem a likely to have been roughly on time and that is certainly no cause for celebration that is cause for cautious optimism. the registration process by most accounts went smoothly. there are lingering questions about registration and the low numbers in the north in particular. there is certainly less violence in the south compared to a year ago and that is a definite positive. to cut through the punch line, i am weary of any prediction in sudan, but i think that the the return to a big north-south war is not impossible but not likely. i do think that skirmishes around the border for some time are probably a pretty likely thing that we do need to work to avoid and minimize. there does remain a sizable gap between khartoum and juba in terms of expectations of what is going to happen over the next few months. my sense is people in khartoum

are coming to grips with the likely result of the referendum, but there is still lot of people in khartoum who expect a delay in the referendum and the next that legal challenges and we are already seeing some of those legal challenges, and as zach mentioned, i also believe that fundamentally ncp hasn't paid some of the court decisions about how they want to treat this process, how they want to react and those decisions are of course central to how those are going to play out. in the south of there is a conviction among most people the january 9th is going to be the day. i thinks so. i'm not certain. this does put the splm in a little box if they have a short delay because they are so adamant about january 9th. if there is some sort of a delay i think it would only be acceptable if the message comes from the senior most physicians within the south. even then, that could be seen as somewhat of a broken promise.

unfortunately, there is relatively little education in this house concerning the referendum, and the referenda. there are still some people confused about the difference between elections and referendum. hockley some of that can happen in the next few weeks but obviously the capacity is limited. there is relatively little in the six month transition period between the referenda and the end of the cpa in july. that is something people do need to know about. nobody so far has mentioned the recent bombings that have been disputed. obviously there are different messages from the north and south as the purpose and the reason for those bombings. they are seen as an attempt to provoke a response from the spla and so for the spla hasn't responded in any real way. i will echo some of what zach said it as well about how the result of the referendum is going to be received

internationally, and particularly with va you. i think there is a trade-off between the referendum on plan and the quality of the referendum, and that then gets to the question of response, and particularly responses from other african countries. i think there is the concern that some countries are given a reason or half a reason not to recognize the results they might take that. and that should be of concern particularly to the south and so that does raise the question of whether holding it on time is going to produce the product that is needed. i think zach is right but a lot of the world is going to kill the british response to the referendum based on the african response. that is where we are all going to look first. i think that there is probably likely to be some violence and around the referendum process, local violence particularly around the border. that can start locally. it doesn't have to be provoked by the parties.

the key is to prevent the escalation of the violence. it could be a violent place it's going to happen but presenting the parties from fleeing into that, preventing the spla and the staff and escalating it. that is where the focus should be. clearly in abyei there's little progress and negotiation that's discouraging. i -- it's been stated now there is it going to be a referendum on the ninth. i think it is some sort of a negotiated solution is probably the likely outcome. i suspect that probably comes after the southern referendum in january. from the perspective i think there are concerns about abyei being a slippery slope if they are to make confessions of their then they might be pushed to make territorial concessions elsewhere along the border. to have to keep in mind it's not just abyei that is disputed that there are at least five parts of the north-south border that are disputed and there are other potential little abyei out there

as well. there's also questions within the south as to how much they would want to give up for abyei if they are going to do that. we talk about hostages and ransom. do they want to pay ransom that might set back a new country in terms of their starting point, in terms of their wealth and so forth. that is a question that on here and others here across the broad southern population. i think the southern leadership as we to have to address. some of the questions i think are going to come up in that immediate post referendum environment, issac mentioned already what's going to happen while the accounting is underway it sounds like it could be weeks before there is a final result of the referendum and those could be ten weeks and there could be violence during that period. there are also questions about whether there is going to be a post referendum scramble for power and resources in the south and i contest the southern leadership.

another big question for me is the oil revenue that comes from khartoum to the south and whether the payments will continue throughout the remaining six months of the cpa. obviously this of this highly dependent on that money. those are short-term concerns and i want to raise just a few of the longer-term concerns i have first concerning this of. a lot of that really revolves around how long the post referendum honeymoon is going to last for the south and for the southern leadership. as we've heard there are high expectations among the southern population about improvements and tangible and professed are going to happen after the referendum and after presumed independence. those expectations are going to be almost impossible for the southern leadership and to meet. the issue limited capacity to be able to deliver services, health care, schools and so forth. there's good reasons for that limited capacity but nonetheless, the have to

increase the capacity significantly to meet some of those expectations and so one year, two years, how long are they going to sit patiently to wait for things, that is a very important question related to that is the idea of the centralization which could help the southern government to deliver some of the surfaces. it's been a lot of talk about the centralization juba but for the most part it hasn't happened in the saw fit to deliver services post referendum it is probably going to have to accelerate. another one of those later wrong poster referendum questions concerns developing the new constitution. of course is an issue in the north as well but speaking of the soft, people are only just beginning to pay attention to this question but it is of course central to having a new state and making that a successful space state. related question to the constitution is when the next

election might happen in the south. of course that is a question in the north as well. in this house your responses like 18 months after the end of the cpa to five years after the cpa. i don't think anybody has come to a real consensus on that. also questions in the south about how long the recent military and political reconciliation among some dissident groups is going to last. i think it is likely to pass the referendum, clearly that is the goal for many. but whether it will pass the referendum in the past july cremains lingering question out there. as i mentioned i think there has been notable in progress and stability in the south and that is something to be to celebrate. nonetheless, the ethnic division through the south are real and they are concerning inviting for is still a sense that some of what holds the altogether is getting to a referendum and the common enemy many people perceive in the north and those are going to be diminished after the referendum.

and so the question becomes what else is going to hold some of the self together and some of the groups that have been at odds in the past. the spla is still seen by some as a predatory entity, and that, too, is going to need reform. a lot of the reform within the spla has been put off for the sake of getting to the referendum and there are good reasons for that but at some point that reform will have to accelerate as well. those are some of the concerns, but i want to strongly echo that point as well about pay attention to the post referendum north. we spent so much time talking about what kind of state and please the south might be if there is a secession. we spent relatively little time talking about what could replace the north might be. and they are big questions. are they going to go back to some of their ways early in the regime in the 1990's or are they going to seek to be more inclusive democratic pleat? a lot of the problems of north

places now in terms of the court and dynamic or not want to go away if there is southern secession. i hear a lot of talk now about the so-called new south and north blue nile in which the popular consultation process is not proceeding at the pace some might like it might not deliver the results that could help the people in the two states. as khartoum going to try to deliver services to some of those peripheral states of course that includes darfur in the east and north as well or are they still going to focus on developing the center of the country, the so-called trial. there are no answers to these questions but there are questions that deserve attention a lot of thinking. we can't totally focus of the referendum of the south. we need to think as well with a population of 30 million people or so who are going to continue to live in the north even if there is a session.

..

>> i think it is clear that the case of southern sudan is

different than the other, the east, and many agreements of peace of which are in eastern sudan, but the comprehensive peace agreement is something different. that is it is complied in the constitution. many change the constitution between the north and south in this cpa, and it is time sensitive benchmark one by one for the agreements worth sharing, power sharing, and the final stage is one where the people will vote. that's a big decision in two countries or one country, but with regard to the darfur issue is something different. it is something -- it is from 2003. there might be a clash between

triable for a long time, but it's not an issue like the war in southern sudan. it would be something different for them, but in the other part of the question regarding the citizenship and i think my colleagued also touched on it is the fear of the people of the southerners in the north that might be having problem or hurt, i would like to assure what the leadership of the country, the president, to assure that the southerners in the north they will be in peace. they will enjoy their life, but the legalisms will be under negotiation. if there is a separation, there are two countries and eventually

this would be legal issues on the situation and the nationality in two parts of the country, but my colleague touched on this issue of protection or prevent harm, that is absolutely is not logical because when people are fighting in the south the southerners, they move to the north. they live in peace. they have -- the official government of the people. they live together. they live in peace. what do you expect if there is a real peace and there is the new legal boundaryies and situation in the two parts?

so it is -- there is no question of these people would be harmed. the president assure that and the leadership assure that. what is the legal? now it's under discussion. this is one of the issues. it is not logical to say that these people need protection. when they win the war, they live in peace so the votes of random people who live in peace. there's no reason here, and there is another question. if it come to the situation of two countries, so what do you expect? do you want to make the separation for participation in the south? that's one part. people of the southern sudan living in the north to be a staying forever, all of them.

it would be something under institution if the people they want to move, if they want to live, that depend on the legal outcome of the negotiation which is taking place right now. >> anybody else? okay. another question? yes, right here. >> thanks, brian kennedy. i want to ask about the u.n. mission in sudan. we've heard at least from the north statements to the effect that they won't be accepted in sudan after the ref referendum, and i'm wondering if the pam sees a role for the u.n. in sudan after the interim period, and if so, how will it change? thank you. >> anybody want to address that?

>> for us in the south, we want the u.n. to continue after the referendum for one or two things. number one, they can actually stabilize the situation of the referendum making sure we have peaceful disengagement of our forces and even managing the border so that we minimize scrimmages on the border. second, is to help in the south to build the capacity of the new state so that we can catch up with the rest of the world. yes, we need some help so this is where they can contribute in building our capacity and providing skills to those who need them, so i think it is very important for them to continue after the referendum and the two parties should commit to that.

>> go ahead. >> well, i'll just echo that in part in terms of the u.n. future. yes, in the south as he was speaking on behalf of the government, there's a willingness to continue that relationship, stablization including protection of civilians will and should continue, certainly there are very real concerns as jon mentioned about stability in the south once the common di nonnay tore is removed. in the north, we just don't know. it's tough to say at this stage. there was a request for additional troops to be placed along the border. the u.n. leadership originally had a yellowish-green light, and a week later they got a red light. they throw test balloons on the issue, and i think it's too

early to tell. they are certainly planning for a future mission in the south, and at least one school of thought within the secretary is that ideally you have one mission in the south and one in the north. the one in the knot that would compromise of some type of liaison platoon which somehow addresses the remaining challenge in the transitional areas, but also be incorporated with the continued peace keeping agenda in darfur. >> i'll just briefly add on the idea of some sort of a u.n. buffer force around the border out there lately. it's a good idea on paper. we're talking about a 2,000 kilometer border, and the troop number doesn't seem to be available. that, unfortunately, is not a role the u.n. can play in a really affective way, but i very much agree on, you know, the ability to provide stability in

other parts of the south in particular to focus the mission on a development effort post referendum with a lot to do there. >> over here. >> thank you, fraser group, excellent panel. i want to ask about the legal challenge for zach or jon, the legal process. is this something that's a nuisance or is it potentially a big deal? is it game changing that this would become the rational to not accept the outcome in a worse case scenario, and if that were to happen from a diplomatic perspective, is there expectation their league also would withhold recognition and then what? >> i'm reluctant to speculate

too much on that because i think it's happening all too quickly. i'm not a lawyer either, but my understanding is that one the chief complaints concerns part of the referendum legislation that says you have to have flee months -- three months between the referendum and the registration itself. that's not happening. what wins between that requirement and the requirement to have it on january 9, i don't know. that's for the courts to decide. you know, i think there was some sort of a statement from the u.s. government recently about this count cripple the -- shouldn't cripple the process, and i tend to agree with that. a lot of parts have not been to the letter of the law, but as to, you know, how these legal challenges affect international recognition, i don't know at this stage. >> i think two things. figure of all, a number of -- first of all, a number of

challenges have been issues. some are waiting and others are more politically motivated than others, and i think it's good. as they're coming out, there's pushback on some of them particularly the one submitted to the constitutional court that many argue is a seriously politicized entity, and the referendum commission and chair stood up firmly to that. i think it does -- given we don't have any extra time in the timeline that remains, i think it does present a problem potentially and could cause a short term delay. i am not as -- i don't have quite the religious zeal about 9 of january, and we need to push ahead for that, but if it is for the safeguards, it's not the end of the world, and the other issue is whether or not these come before or after the pulling itself. they can throw a wrench in the process now, but afterward if these kinds of challenges #, the

these month issue, and the issue of polling station workers being over age 40 which many are not and the number of other issues, if those come after the fact, i think they will pale in comparison of the votes we all expect. >> in the back there in the aisle? >> hi, thank you for your presentation. my question is related to the african union. the country should change it after the globalization period. do you think this is used and execute by african-american countries, and how do you think this affects africa's stability because there's separation and they will use that as an

execution for separation or sufficient. thanks. >> anybody? >> just on the sort of the precedent question and the idea that african borders shouldn't be changed. you know, i think you need to consider the context, and early in africa's post colonial history, there was good reason for that to be a rock-solid principle. i'm not sure those reasons are as relevant now as they were decades ago, and i think you also have to balance that principle against the cpa itself which was a mon knew mental achievement that ended a war and signed by a whole host of guarantors that sets out the right to self-determination, so, you know, toy not think that the

principle should stand in the way of the will of the people of southern sudan being able to decide their future. i also think that there's one often hearing the arguments of the slippery slope, and you know, if sudan slips into what's next, how many other countries in africa? i think those arguments are overblown because i don't see other movements on the continent nearly as strong as what we see in sudan. there are some, certainly you can make a long list, but the majority are pretty active if not dormant, and i conclude by saying i went back and did a little research in the ethiopia recession in the early 90s, and you can find all the same warnings about slippery slope and this is the redrawing of the african map, and clearly that didn't happen.

when we hosted the president a few months ago, we asked a precise question on what's different in the cases negotiated by egad and endorsed and accepted by the african union, so there's an obligation on african states to accept the outcome of the referendum. >> i'll echo that. it's an interesting question no doubt given the way the borders were drawn on this continue innocent, and your question was part of the debate that was had, and i think we're glad it finished 8, 10, 12 months ago about this question with too much international focus in the course of the standard of the cpa and the course was renewed, and i think that debate should have been had five years ago when everybody signed their name to the cpa. this is the most endorsed agreement we've seen in quite some time, and no other

successionist movement including darfur or other parts of sudan have the cpa. my point going back on the cpa, this process, would have serious implications with sudan and much broader implications for africa, peacemaking, for the african union itself, and i don't know if there is a good alternative at this stage. again, the self-determination referendum is here, and well, you know, i agree with jon. i'm far less alarmist of the likelihood to large scale conflict in sudan is very unlikely, but when this question was raised, the one issue to guarantee conflict is denial of self-determination and forced unity. >> by the colonial borders, maybe i can also remind you that

southern sudan has been a different entity. they were governed by british two countries basically. they were forced into marriage in 1956. we were not one. if you look at israel and sudan basically, we are two in one, so i don't think the african union will object to that, definitely they know sudan very well. i think it is also true that david smock said what was said because we have two parties, sudanese and extortions, separation, and unity. they endorse that, so i don't think they likely jump away from this agreement that they've witnessed and helped in negotiating. >> also this question was raised a many time.

the african union between the negotiation that that at the time of declare ration of principle, and that time the people have a choice between war for 50 years to continue this principle. it went to many processes in sudan and the parliament and the people who accept it, and they went also with the union and there's a fine consensus for some time. there is also some legal issues we raise at that time, but the people have the sign on the epa and endorsed by the parliament, then it was constitution and accepted for the sudanese, and it was also to be african union

in mozambique and other leaders confirmed this. >> thank you. other questions? yes? >> i'm dodge fielding from the multitrack diplomacy. my question with regards to the role of china playing here and with the shifting realities there's, i would assume, and this is my question they are making overtures todd south. can you talk about china's role, if any, in this process? >> the role of china and the p-5 , yes, they are chinese and

invested heavily which is basically in the south, 80% of it is from the south. i can clearly say that for the last five years when we signed the agreement, china has been playing a constructive role in making sure that the two parties including the cpa, and the outcome is respected. you can see from the statements that they are releasing and also from beijing. the role is very positive, and in the south, we are very happy with their role, and we are looking forward to engage with them so that a new nation will also work with them and cause relation with the chinese, so the role is very constructive, and then we are also urging them is to help more so that we reach

an agreement on the post referendum issues because they are included in that, and we are asking egypt also to play a role because they also have invested areas that is important to help us. it is in the interest of the chinese and others to see us back to square one, and they are helping and have been attending many security counsel briefings here, well, not here, but their role have been very positive. >> jon? >> just to add, there's evidence out there to suggest that the chinese have come to grips with the likely outcome of the referendum. they've opened up a consulate in juba, the cbc large oil company largely invested in sudan opened up an office, and senior southern officials going to to beijing and vice vice versa.

they see the likely developments. >> right there? over here. >> thank you very much. david from the national and public policy group. it was discussed in passing at least the consequences that the referendum doesn't occur on time, and i was wondering the thoughts of the rest of the panel. is a delayed referendum politically feasible if the southerners are on time, or is it determined by political agreement? thank you. >> i'll go first and leave it to the experts after this. my sense is that as jon mentioned and it is given way that we see often in sudan and addresses the government citizenship rights within the economic activity and security

engagement and natural resources. i think there's certainly an option on the table in which some or all the territories succeeded to the south and certainly the acp looks for something in return. what that is remains to be seen. two other things. one is in some sense it's different on the ground than it is at the high political level, and i think the solution that satisfies national politics and leads is necessary, but insufficient. any sustainable solution has to solve the problem on the ground and has to have local buy-in for the communities, and certainly in the atmosphere today the harden positions of political leads trickled down to the community. i was there a month to month and a half ago, and one issue in the regard as an example of arms carrying and security, certainly the government of south sudan is

widely said that the no maddic people can continue their migrations into the south like they have for generations. you can tell them, but don't bring weapons. that issue has to be resolved. there's a standing issue that folks can't come across the border with weapons, and they don't feel like they have adequate scwiewrt if they do, and again, we're at a bit of a deadlock. until you find some solution to that, you have many groups coming south, and where they normally would have crossed the river and go in the south and unless you have pressure intensifying in an already tense environment, we'll let the cpa know, but it's a problem that needs addressing, or it will continue to fester. the way that's solved is local

level and state level agreements. that's happened in recent years and in some areas and hasn't happened in others, and again, now, my sense though there are others here from the area that may know better is that kind of discussion and discussion about arms carrying and about security of both people migrating and host communities isn't happening in the way that it did in the past. >> yes, there is a possibility that we might not be there in 011, and that's where the au is focusing on a political solution, and we think that the best way to settle this before they take this into their own hands because if they feel

portrayed by the world, by the south, and by the ncp, then definitely they will take this into their own hands by telling them you don't come. you come by force, and then we will be back to square one. i think the best is one to transfer or the people back to southern sudan because they were the ones transferred to the north. why would they be allowed to vote and they were not transferred? they were in the north already. i thought the people and the pca, it was written in english, not arabic or our language. the law is clear that the people who are transferred to the north, they are the ones to be asked to come back to the south, so it transferred back to the southern sudan by presidential decree as it was done in 1905 by

a restrictive order for administrative purposes to be an act of transferring back to southern sudan, and then the second option is to grant the rights so they continue to have access to grazing rights and also water, and if they are after the independent of the south, then all of these privileges they have been getting will be stopped. then we can internationalize this so that it can be a treaty, an agreement between the two parties saying that regardless of our outcome, the treaty will continue to have access to water and pasture, so this is the only solution that we can address the issue of before it is too late. i think it is very important for the world to move quickly. in a state of leaving it to the two parties, yes, they are doing a good job in the au to help us

reach an agreement, but i think this is where the u.s., the u.n., and the world should help us to avoid war. >> i think we have to differentiate between the area and the land which is our petition already decided, and between the movement of the connections in this area and crossing to the south and between the citizenship and the people living in the area. the movement of the crossing of the river and to go to the south, that is on something different. being a part of the north da fur is something different, and giving the vote for the people in the area which is identified

by the petition is something else. now, if you want to say that only the income folk should vote, that is not accepted by the whole people living in the area, so the government position is that the whole people living in the area identified in the area and not the southern part should be identified to work. now that is the discussion currently taking place. now the meeting of the negotiation in this point. who is able to vote? who have the right to vote in this area? the position of the center government is the whole people in this area they can vote, and other living in this area identified to which should vote in this. there is now negotiation going

on, and those people are committing and working together. the government and parties are getting together. now, we have an offer to the presidency, and we hope these people hold the forum should come to a solution which is acceptable to all people in this area. we have time for one more question. >> another question or comment to the challenge. for a big challenge -- [inaudible] without the peace agreement

there was nothing to happen, but it was to be imp plemented to make sure it's taking place and the presidency is a position because of the cpa. that is to be isolated. the discussions whatever the decree was to separate the two restrictive areas now when people negotiate, people talk about being as a part, but it's different. now the question, the challenging question is after the referendum, the presidency will end. the area that was decreed to be under the presidency is going to fall. we need to be addressed. go back to what my colleague had

just said, do we need to say at the international that led and the question that's left for them and that's why the community went on conference last month by saying we are portrayed by both governments and the international community and therefore we should take it in our own hands. that fundamental question needs to be asked. that decree in the two areas does that give restriction? thank you. >> well, i want to thank all of you for coming, and i want to particularly thank our panelists for doing a great job. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up on c-span2, two retiring senators give their final speeches, that followed by a debate on the floor on tax cuts and then a u.n. climate change conference in cancun, moment -- mexico.

>> in the senate today, two retiring senators gave their final floor speeches. we'll hear from outgoing senators kent bond and kenny craig. >> senator from missouri is recognized. >> thank you senator mcconnell for your find and generous words. since i announced i'm not running for reelection, i've been overwhelmed about the nice things that people say about me. there's nothing like by eulogized while you're still breathing, but it's been a long time since we've sat back in the corners and not quite ready for prime time players, but while i never made it to prime time

other than one appearance as a very less than best selling author on the john stuart show, you have arrived. you led us through many difficult and protracted debates through all of it. you've been agile, courteous, and with a good sense of humor keeping us to the -- together on votes as least as much is possible on keeping 40 minds together, or 40 frogs in a wheel barrel. i thank you, mitch. i occasionally caused you heart burn. i appreciate that. i appreciate your leadership, friendship. you and elaine are very close friends of linda and mine, and we wish you both the very best for the future. while, three years ago i announced my retirement in the united states senate, and that time has come.

i want to thank my colleagues and constituents for making this job one of the best a person could hold. there's no greater honor than being given the trust of the people at home to represent them, and i've done my best to keep my faith holsaert with my con -- faith with my constituents. to everyone in the membership and this great body, sometime delaying body, i participated in my share of debates. when i first came to the senate, the cold war was a conflict some thought we would never win, and now to the resolve of the current president, ronald reagan, millions of people live in freedom, and during this last term especially, it seems debates have history shaping consequences. americans faced challenges in the past six years, the longest recession since the gracious, wars in afghanistan and iraq,

the continuing battle against terrorism, the fight to be competitive in a global economy, and many more. as i look back, the successes that we have achieved during my time here have come because people of good will were willing to work across the aisle for the common good of our nation. as i address the floor today, i'm filled with memories of the many colleagues with whom i've worked over the years. one stands out. the one who is my best friend and mentor in the united states senate took me under his wing and treated me and my family as close friends. that, of course, is the late senator ted stevens. he was unflagging in support of his principles, and everyone clearly knew where he stood, and yet he was a very effective appropriator because he could compromise. i hope my colleagues and constituents know where i stand, and i too know that working across the aisle is the only way

to get things zone in this -- done in this body. right after i arrived here, i had the pleasure of working with the late senator robert byrd to achieve the acid rain compromise and pass the movements of 1990. i joined with senator ford to establish the national guard caucus, and now it's a pleasure to work with pat leahy to make sure our dual mission guard is adequately prepared to serve emergency needs on the home front and participate in the national security missions abroad. on the proarkses committee, i really enjoyed the successes i've had working first with barr reach an agreement, and now patty murray to ensure that public housing meets the needs of the people it serves and the communities in which they live providing assistance for the homeless, particularly veterans

and the prevention of led-based poisenning of children. we gave a boost what i believe is the job creating technology of the 21st century, biotechnology. we did that with congressionally directed spending in the national foundation for science and budget. with dianne feinstein as chair, we put, i believe, the senate intelligence committee back on a path of bipartisanship and achieved passage of the first reauthorization act in years. my sincere thanks and appreciation for sticking with me negotiating our way through some tough compromises like the fights on fisa. when the help america vote act came if 2001, to cure problems with punch guard voting in florida which most republicans thought it was an effort to

discredit the election of former president bush, i urged my colleagues not to block the bill, but to use it not only to make it easier to vote, but tougher to cheat. when we moved the floor, i brought a picture of the dog who had been registered to vote in st. louis, missouri. if we had positive io identification, it would have made it impossible for that one to vote. i worked with senator dodd on the act and told me he never wanted to see the picture of that dog again, and i autographed the picture of that dog and gave it to him. i trust he still has it. right now, we're engaged in the senate floor of stopping historic tax increases from hitting most american families and the entire economy next year. i hope the house can pass the

bill with a signature by president obama so we can begin getting the economy to work again, and preventing more job losses. we can do it. the new congress has to put our economy back on a sound footing. we mews end the recent trenld of government overspending and passing a burdensome mandates on states in the private sector. there's regulations that go beyond environmental restrictions are costing us jobs, delaying in agriculture, energy, many other areas of the economy and stopping badly needed developments that we and this country needs, and the size of the debt is an increasing concern of my constituents and others across the nation. we have a debt problem caused by spending, not by having taxes too low. i'm encouraged there's discussion of having a flat tax

with lower rates, and e limb fating wide range of tax bill earmarks and doing so makes it easier for americans to fill out tax forms eliminating the time and effort of figuring them out, and i think it should enable us to put more of those resources into what we really need, our top priority, job creation. speaking of job creation, i think there are tremendous opportunities to export trade. i applaud president obama's call for expanding trade to create jobs. i look forward to seeing his continued leadership and to see congress move forward promptly to adopt a trade agreement with korea, columbia, and panama for our intermediate future, it's essential that we participate in the partnership with countries on both sides of the pacific to take down barriers to trade and increase export job opportunities. as most of my colleagues know, i've been particularly interested in expanding trade

with southeast asia which i believe is not well understood by too many americans, but the entire asian region, however, provides huge opportunities for better american jobs through trade and investment across the pacific, but in expanding economic growth in jobs, trade is smart power. the fight against terrorists and other countries ultimately necessary to protect us here at home. as i mentioned in the book thatted leader was kind enough to mention, we see trade, investment, education exchanges to build stronger communities as a necessary step as we use military action to stop imminent violent threats. the combination can make stronger, stab lar allies.

smart power has no better object lesson than the missouri national guard agriculture development team. military trained guardsmen and women went to afghanistan with strong expertise with a wide range of activities to help reestablish a profitable agriculture in kandahar while maintaining security. by the end of the first 10 month growing season, poppy production had dropped to 0 which had been the second poppy producer in the nation. i think we have to expand that model with more national gourd units, but also seeing better coordination of not only our military forces overseas, but civilian assistance that must go with them. we must continue the efforts in the pac region to avoid giving al-qaeda to related allies an

unchallenged place in training camps in command and controlled units. one of the greatest challenges, however, is the publicly announced summer 2011 withdrawal date from afghanistan. this tells our enemies they just need to wait until next summer to put the karzai government on hold and we may not be there to protect them after summer of 2011. it tells the local leaders and community leaders that we won't be there next year to protect them next year from the taliban. there must be a message, i believe from the white house widely december seminated we will pull out of afghanistan only when conditions on the ground indicate there's security. my point of my legislative career really was impetus in 2007 when i went on a

congressional delegation in afghanistan. we were told that the limitations in the old foreign intelligence surveillance act was a great threat to our troops as well as to those of us on the ground. i worked, as the leader said, from that point until the summer of 2008 with the strong support of my republican colleagues and a workable compromise across the aisle that was developed that gave intelligence agencies the access they needed at the same time extending the protection of rights of americans who were overseas of unmented interpretation of messages by telephone or e-mail. as a result, we currently have the ability, but we must go to work quickly to make sure that other provisions of vital intelligence collection measures or authorizations do not expire without legislative extensions.

for the united states ourselves, our homeland, our defense against terrorist attacks from prisoners of war is essential, and we must prevent the release of gitmo detainees where they'll return to the battlefield. one in four already came back is a frightening figure and we believe many more will come back, and i fear one of those will conduct an attack on the united states. we need to have a law of war which allows us to hold them. as a final fraud in intelligence, however, the recent wikileaks scandal shows what the internet can do to the safety of those in dangerous places with those we work with. the even greater threat we see is the continuing cyberattack on the military and intelligence and private sector and critical infrastructure. with my colleague from utah,

mr. hatch, we've introduced a cybersecurity bill with the cyberdefense alliance to allow private sector entities to cooperate with government agencies to protect our critical financial system, our utilities, and most of all our communications system under attack. we need every effort to stay ahead of the developing attacks and protecting information. in closing, i'll tell you, yief worked in all possible party combinations. i've been in the majority, minority, fat, and thin, and being thin and in the majority is a whole lot better. in my two terms of governor and 70% of the republican majority, they explained to me how bipartisanship works. i figured it out during my second term that enabled us to do better. my most successful term in

office, the general assembly and i both achieved passage of all the legislative priorities that we have. now, if my colleagues will perm some parting advice from an old bull is play together, play nice. i follow-up on the leader's comment about a little scuffle i had. i never talked about it. we never said anything publicly until now, but he did later on as we became fast friends used to tease me about setting up boxing matches to raise money for charity, but when i looked at his height and reach, i didn't take him up on that. [laughter] in a world today where enemies are real, the kind that seek to destroy others because of their religion, it's important to remember there's a lot of real estate between a political opponent and a true enemy. a government expects principled debate where ideas compete and the best ones prevail.

there's issues of good conscious not coming together, but let us never what cannot be done with what will be done. the threats in the world continue to challenge us, terrorism, the economy, growing debt, 24 years ago i was sworn in as u.s. senator, since that time, i've been honored to work with you and others on all the priorities facing our country and many more. public service have been a blessing and a labor of love for me, and life is more fulfilling. i look forward to the next chapter of my life. i'm neither shying from retiring. there's ways to serve and elected office is only one of them. i'll continue to fight for missouri from a different vantage point. with 30 years in public life, i've meant many wonderful people. i visited every area of the county, of the state, every term

i served in office. the people i've met in office and the people i've worked with have made the job so rewarding i decided to stay longer. the people of missouri have been my most trusted and available adds visors. i thank you for your support and helping me to identify challenges and solutions. in addition to my colleagues and friends., there are too many to thank, but let me just give you the first one. first, my patient family, my wife linda. the love of my wife, my charming daughter-in-law, and my son sam, my personal hero for his service as a ground intelligence officer in iraq. thanks to all who work for me in my office, my committees, and those who helped me with political activities, hundreds and thousands over the years. some are here and others passed away since i've started, but as

mitch said, i thank my political adversaries for keeping me nimble, and the media for keeping me humble. i thank the voters of missouri who sent me here four times to represent them. there's no greater honor. i have been truly blessed to be entrusted by them with the responsibility of public office, and i thank you from the bottom of my heart. [applause] >> all right, on behalf of myself and wife kathy to thank the people of new hampshire for giving us the great honor and privilege to represent you. this is an extraordinary body, the senate. it's filled with wonderful people. i see a lot of friend, people i've had the chance to do work with.

i admire immensely. i thank you for your friendship. when people ask me about leaving the senate and what i'll miss the most, i say people in the senate because they're special, dedicated to making this country a better place, dedicated to doing their jobs well, dedicated to serving, serving america, and so i thank you for the great honor and privilege you've given kathy and i to serve in this body with yourselves and your spueses. i want to thank everybody else who has been so helpful throughout our career, the folks here at the dias, staff, and throughout this building. there's so many people here that make this work. people working in the furniture room, people working in the hallways, our staffs obviouslies, this is a special

place filled with people who are committed to making the senate work well, and i thank them for allowing me to be a part of that, allowing kathy and i to be a part of that. i want to take a point of personal privilege here and especially thank -- i want to especially thank my wife kathy who is here today. you're not allowed to acknowledge people here today, mr. president, but i'm going to. my wife is sitting up there. kathy -- [applause] we've been married 37 years earning for -- and for 32 of those years we held office and in campaigns like those and others we've participated in, and through this whole intensity, and we all

know participating in this process, the intensity of this, there has been a rock and a solid force in our family. she's raised three extraordinary children who have been exceptional in their own right and have done exceptional things even though they are still young by our standards, some of them think they are aging, but they are still young, and their value system and their belief in this nation and their willingness to give of themselves to other people is a direct expression of the values that kathy has begin them. sometimes it's a little overcompetitive on occasions, but that's one of her strengths also, and we've been through hard times and good times, and always she's been there to be our lighthouse, and so i express my love to her and thanks.

at the beginning of the 21st century said -- >> kathy told me to the to walk back and forth like that because it makes people sick watching tv. [laughter] i'm talking to i think johnny, and she calls the floor staff and says tell him to turn around and face the cameras. [laughter] at the turn of the 21st century, and of course, he is one of the true great forces in europe throughout the late 18 00s and into the 1900s said that the defining fact of the 19th century was that england and the united states spoke the same language, but what i think he meant was that the defining fact of the 19th centurifuls that england and the united states had a value system which

believes in the individual in liberty, democracy, and markets. it was a value system that grew out of enlightenment, people like john locke, hutchenson, and adam smith, and in the 20th century, if you look at it, it was a test of that value system against the other value systems that come up over the years. it was a test of democracy, a test of democracy against totalitarian socialism, and we won. we won that test. there was also the second big charge of the 20th century was it was a test of how you would create prosperity for people, a test of markets versus communism, of markets versus, again, toal