chairman of the house committee on foreign affairs. for the members who will be joining the committee upon organization, please know that i do not take those responsibilities lightly. during the 112th congress, this committee will be confronted with some of the most pressing foreign policy challenges of our time, from ensuring rigorous enforcement of sanctions against iran, to providing effective stewardship of american taxpayer dollars, in foreign aid and state department programs, to instituting systems for accountability at the united nations. i fully intend to work with all members of the committee and the american people to confront these challenges directly,

responsibly and effectively. it is fitting that the first briefing hosted by this committee would be focused on sudan. today, sudan is truly at the crossroads, beginning on january 9th, millions of south sudanese participated in a referendum to determine whether africa's largest country would remain united or split in two. given the violent eruptions that's imperiled implementation of the peace agreement for sudan over these past six years, many doubted that this day would come. yet the vote preceded after decades of repression by a genocidal regime in khartoum and a war that left 2 million people dead and 4 million displaced, the people have realized their

right to self-determination. unfortunately, the hardest work is yet to come. first, the results must be cert feed and accepted. though khartoum has pledged to accept the outcome, it has a long history of reneging on its commitment. the stakes are high and both sides have spent the past six years preparing for war. second, outstanding issues relating to the implementation of the cpa must be resolved prior to conclusion of the transition period in july 2011, including the demarcation of the border, citizenship and nationality, wealth sharing and resource management, including for oil and water. division of assets and debt, currency and security arrangements. third, the future status of the oil-rich obeyay region must be resolved. it's a lit match in a pool of

gasoline and continued failure to resolve its status all but guarantees war. likewise, the popular consultations in blue nile must proceed in a manner that addresses long standing agree vances. these areas are awash with weapons and tensions are high. a single security incident could set the entire region ablaze. finally, we must not trade peace in darfur for independence in the south. it appears the administration may have forgotten key lessons from the past. prior u.s. efforts to reward the sudanese regime for signing peace agreements while the regime simultaneously supported genocide in darfur blocked humanitarian access, and stalled implementation of the cpa were broadly condemned.

in the words of then senator barack obama in april of 2008, and i quote, "i am deeply concerned by reports that the bush administration is negotiating a normalization of relations with the government of sudan. this reckless and cynical initiative would reward a regime in khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments." yet the obama administration is following the same misguided concessions. i do not intend to minimize what has been accomplished inside sudan, delivering a timely, credible referendum was an incredibly hard task. but again, the referendum is just the start. the true test of the regime's commitment will extend far beyond the july 2011 date and far beyond south sudan. thus, i am deeply troubled by the efforts to advance normalization sanctions is,

relief and debt relief. the bulk of sanctions mandated by congress are linked to peace in south sudan and in darfur, given recent developments in darfur, the certification requirements for easing of sanctions cannot be met. i am particularly concerned by suggestions that the administration may remove sudan from the state sponsors of terrorism list by july 2011. removal from this list is not a gold star that can be afforded to advance an unrelated political objective. this is a serious matter with repercussions that directly impact our most vital national security interests. recall that the previous separation d-listed north korea in exchange for nominal concessions relating to one nuclear facility. almost immediately upon win thing prize, north korea reneged on its promise to implement a transparent verification regime,

withdrew from the six-party talks, and brazenly resumed its proliferation activities. today, north korea reportedly possessions one or more highly sophisticated uranium enrichment facilities and according to the united nations, is supplying iran, syria and burma with nuclear and ballistic missile related equipment. the u.s. must proceed with extreme caution in our deal wgs the sudanese regime. the potential birth of a new nation in south sudan will have significant ramifications beyond the region. the united states has played a major role in bringing the parties to this point, and it is in our national interest to see that the process advances. the risks are high. the challenges are daunting. but the achievement of peace in a region ravaged by war is an honorable endeavor. i welcome the opportunity to work with the administration and

responsible partners for peace in sudan toward this end. i now turn to our ranking member, mr. burman, for his opening remarks. >> thank you, madame chairman, and thank you for calling this timely briefing. i want to begin by congratulating you on your new position as chairman and congratulate the new subcommittee chairs and i look forward to working with all of you in the 112th congress. at the outset, i would like to commend donald payne and other members on both sides of the aisle for their leadership on sudan. especially their efforts to focus the world's attention on the unspeakable atrocities committed by the khartoum regime against the people of south sudan and darfur. their work on these critical issues inspired two major pieces of legislation. the comprehensive peace in sudan act of 2004, and the

accountability act of 2006, along with a number of resolutions condemning the regime for crimes against humanity. this past week marked a historic moment for the people of south sudan. who fought a 22-year civil war to arrive at this moment of self-determination. while we do not know the official results of the referendum, it is clear the vote will almost certainly result in independence for the south. as we consider this milestone, it's important that we remember the late president john mabior, who led the sudan people's liberation movement and army through the long civil war. a terrible conflict that resulted in the deaths of over 2 million south sudanese and the displacement of millions more. before his tragic death in a helicopter crash in july 2005, he negotiated the comprehensive peace agreement with khartoum. that agreement provided for the

referendum and other events we will examine today. after his election in 2008, president obama undertook a bolder view of u.s. policy towards sudan and set out a new vision. this new strategy required significant changes in behavior by the khartoum go. it demanded verifiable progress of a settlement between the north and south as well as progress in darfur. the president's new approach was great with great skepticism by many of us in congress, in part, because it directed -- it required direct engagement with a sudanese government that committed genocide and other gross violations of human rights, to carry out the new policy, president obama appointed retired air force general gration has special envoy to sudan. gration assembled a team and developed a strategy to realize the president's vision.

our first witness today also deserves great credit for his efforts to complete the road map that helped deliver khartoum's final cooperation on the cpa and the referendum. today, we can see the results of the obama administration's hard work. a major goal of the co comprehensive peace agreement has been chiefed. there are many outstanding issuing to resolve before independence is finalized in july. a referendum on the status of the oil producing region is yet to take place. an agreement needs to be reached on the sharing of oil revenue, the division of nation debt, the delineation of orders. there's also the issue of citizenship. should the south vote to form an independent state, there are fears that northerners could be left stateless and vulnerable to

political violence. and there is the issue of peace in darfur. we must not forget the across sis that have taken place in that region of the sudan. in 2004, congress and the bush administration declared that the events in darfur constituted genocide. in 2008, the international criminal court indicted omar ha sue el bashir on genocide and two counts of murder. i'm encouraged that president obama has remained focus on darfur and intends to revive the stalled negotiations between khartoum and the rebel groups in darf darfur. the people have taken a major step toward self-determination, but there are many difficult days ahead. the new nation will face a large number of challenges from building the basic institutions of statehood to economic

development to the reintegration of the returnees. there is little capacity to meet these daunting challenges. if south sudan is to flourish, then the united states, the united nations, and other members of the international community, must continue to assist the people of that nation in their transition to independence and democratic rule. it is important to realize the efforts of the united nations development program to make the referendum a reality. the u.n. dp supported voter education, delivered ballots on schedule and helped to establish and equipment nearly 3,000 registration centers and trained over 8,000 staff to manage those. these efforts and the efforts of u.n. peacekeepers in south sudan, underscore the extent to which the u.n.'s work can support u.s. foreign policy efforts and contribute to peace and security. we would not be where we are today in out sudan without

hard-nosed american diplomacy, the active involvement of the united nations, and targeted u.s. foreign assistance programs. i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. >> thank you, mr. burman. i would like to recognize for three minutes the chairman designate of the africa global health and human rights committee, mr. smith of new jersey. >> i want to begin by joining mr. burman and congratulate you on assuming the chairmanship of this committee. there are crises everywhere. and we look forward to all of us on this side of the aisle and the other side, as well, in working with you in finding tangible solutions to the many vexing problems we face. so congratulations, madame chair. i thank you for calling this timely and important briefing to examine the historic events occurring in sudan. i congratulate the people of southern sudan and join them in

celebrating the completion of the referendum on the future status of their country. the u.n. monitoring panel assessed that the process was well organized and credible, and that is commendable given the serious time and resource constraints that preceded it. however, the voting last week marked only the beginning of what promises to be a long process, fraught with peril. it will take several weeks for the votes to be transmitted from the nearly 3,000 referendum centers to county and state levels, and on to khartoum before the results are announced. if the south has voted for secession, then potentially volatile issues remain to be resolved. among the most prominent is the demarcation of the border, including the division of the oil reserve region and fertile land. the sharing of oil reserves as well as debt and the question of citizenship are some of the other major challenges still to be addressed.

and the establishment of a permanent peace in darfur remains an elusive goal as violence intense fies. i personally am concerned about the return of southerners residing in the north to the south. i was informed during a hearing in september that humanitarian agencies at that time were not prepared to handle mass movements in sudan. unless this assessment has changed, such movements could lead to a severe humanitarian crisis and have a destabilizing security impact on the south. those southerners who remain in the north against their will is another troubling concern. beginning in the 1980s, militias conducted slave raids in the south, taking mostly women and children to the north to serve as labor and sex slaves. the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement failed to address this issue and 35,000 southerners

remain in the north in a state of forced servitude. this must be acknowledged as a priority and the freedom of all slaves secured. finally, i look forward to hearing the views as to what the impact the referendum will have on the north, assuming a vote for independence. the government of sudan allowed it to proceed and stated it will respect the outcome. but given its track record, it is not a basis for optimism. >> thank you, mr. smith. i would like to recognize the ranking member designate of the africa global health and human rights subcommittee, mr. payne. >> thank you very much. let me commend you for your attention of this committee. let me thank you for holding this critical meeting on sudan being the first hearing and i think it's appropriate. let me express my appreciation to the witnesses who are among the most knowledgeable people on so you dan.

ambassador limon who did a great job in south africa and nigeria. special envoy williamson, who, with the state department and u.n. posts, was a great envoy to sudan and mr. ishmael, who fled from darfur and has been a great advocate for justice. let me thank all of you for your commitment and self-determination to make this day a reality. today, sudan is at the crossroads. a week long referendum has just concluded. by all accounts, the outcome is clear. crossroa crossroads. the people of south sudan have chosen independence. my friends on the ground have replayed stories of remarkable moments that illustrate the hope and excitement that lies in the heart of the south sudanese. policemen looked around and told me in line, i crossed a river. come join me. a pregnant woman while online to vote gave birth and was later able to cast her vote for the

sake of her new baby. as i reflect on the 20 years that i've been working with sudan, i remember many pivotal moments of my own in the congress struggle to see the people of south sudan exercise their right of self-determination. i remember my first visit to a town year the ugandan border which was the frontline of the struggle back then helped immediate negotiations between two factions. it was then i first met dr. john garag father of south sudan's quest for economy as well as a young military commander who is now the president of the government of south sudan. upon returning from that trip, i along with other members introduced a resolution in the house calling for the right of self-determination for the people of south sudan and it passed this body. i recall over a dozen visits to south sudan in the darfur refugee camps with representatives it lee and wolf

and tancredo along with senator feingold, senator frist, senator brownback, all dedicated members of this institution at that time. after one such visit in 2004, i sponsored a resolution to call the world's attention to the atrocities in darfur which passed the house overwhelmingly the first time that the congress recognized on going genocide while it was going on. i recall visits to nairobi in 2004 and 2005 and the negotiation nags culminated in the signing of the cpa on january 9th of 2005 in nairobi where i witnessed that. i will ask that the rest of my statement it be added to the record since the gavel has been hit, but i do agree that the abby yea believe should be involved before sanctionsing are

released. we see what's happened in india with cashmere still a question. we don't want abiya to be a question 20 years from now with fighting going on. >> as the new members will know, it's embarrassing to gavel down the gentleman from new jersey and both gentlemen from new jersey because they are the leading experts when it comes to africa. we are well served by having members smith and payne with us. i'm sorry for the time restraints. . we are very privileged to have two distinguished panels before us today. i know everyone is anxious to hear what they have to say. they are the experts. i will encourage members to read their biographies in full in your packet. we'll begin with ambassador princeton lyman who has just

returned fromming the referendum process in sudan. the ambassador was appointed by secretary clinton in august 2010 to lead the u.s. negotiations support unit in sudan. prior to his appointment, he was serving as an adjunct senior fellow for africa policy studies at the council on foreign relations and as an adjunct professor at georgetown. he has a long distinguished career in government service is, deputy assistant secretary of state for africa, u.s. ambassador to nigeria and south africa and assistant secretary of state for international organization fairs. he has a p.h.d. in political science from harvard university and has published numerous books and articles on foreign policy, african fairs an, economic development, hiv/aids u.n. reform and peacekeeping. ambassador lyman, the floor is your yours. thank you, sir. could push that little button there.

>> thank you very much, madame chairman. thank you and the members, ranking member congressman berman and all the members here for holding this hearing and making this one of the very first issues of your chairmanship and of the committee this year. this is a terribly important issue. i recall prime minister mellis at the u.n. meeting in sudan in september saying and his man who faces a lot of crisis in his neighborhood saying that the peace process in sudan was the most important in all of africa. and it's an indication of how widespread the implications are of having peace in that area. thank you also for the work that congress has done on this tisch. all members, the legislation, et cetera. it's made an extraordinary difference to send a message to the people of sudan how much the united states cares, not just

about the politics and the strategic aspects of it, but the welfare of the people who have suffered from war during this long period of time. we had a good week, madame chairman. we had, as you described abcongressman berman and others have a referendum that even a month or two ago we doubted could come off this well. it came about peacefully and all the observer missions whether the arab league, the africa union, the u.n., ndi or others all saying this was a credible fair effective referendum. it took a lot of work. a lot of diplomatic work, a lot of wonderful work by the united nations. and u.s. aid assembled an extraordinary team of ifus, ndi, ira, the carter center all working together to give the

referendum commission the technical support it needed against all the odds to be ready on january 9th to pull this off. so there was a lot involved here. and a lot of people deserve credit. but as you said in your opening statement, this is just one step. there's a lot of hard work left to go. one of the issues and congressman payne emphasized this and others have as well is abiya, a deeply difficult stlug emotional issue in sudan he's politics and its history. even during the referendum, we had instances of violence in that area that was finally brought under control with the help of the u.n. and the meeting of the parties, and there was an agreement signed this past weekend that should permit the beginning of the migration security for it and other arrangements to contain the situation. but the underlying issue of the future of abiyy remains a very

critical one. it's an issue that can probably only be solved at the level of the presidents, of president bashir and we hope that action will resume on those negotiations very shortly after the referendum. there are other processes. there are the popular consultations that are very important in blue nile and south cordoban. i'm happy to say the consultations have started in blue nile. i will be visiting that area next week to witness some of those consultations and we hope south core doe ban will be able to start soon after the elections in that state. as you've all said, are a whole range of issues that the two parties now have to get down to working. if s a ifs are as you know, much of the oil is in the south. much of the infrastructure for

exporting and refining it is in the north. people live along that border some 30% of the population, and they go back and forth all the time. there needs to be a solution to the oil sector to citizenship issues, to what both parties have called soft borders and how they'll operate. security arrangements, currency, et cetera. a lot of work's been done. a lot of technical work has been done, but now the political work has to start on bringing these issues to a head. now, you've mentioned the question of our relationships to sudan. and particularly to the government of northern sudan, and it's a very important issue. part of the discussions that have been going on for the last month is how the u.s. relationship with northern sudan played into the negotiations. and there was a very strong feeling that until there was some sense of our own

relationships with the sudan and the future of sudan, there would be an obstacle there to the negotiations themselves. but something equally important that i've discovered in my time there, i've met with leaders of the opposition in the north, i've met with women's groups and youth groups and what i find is that the people of northern sudan are terribly worried about the outcome of the cpa. they feel that they're going to be ban donned. they feel that it will lead to war. they feel that it will lead to economic deprivation and they want to know what the future is for them once the south is gone. and that's an important concern because instability in the north or chaos in the north is not going to be any more in our interests than to chaos in the south. there has also to be political transformation in the north. that's part of the dream, if you will, the objective of the cpa,

and it hasn't really happened. we want to be engalged in the north. we want it to be successful and strategically stable, and we want to see prosperity for the people there. we have put out a road map for normalization with northern sudan after the cpa. and i can assure you that it is based on actions. it's not based on promises. the first step only comes after the government accepts the results of the referendum. and as the president said in his letter to senator kerry which senator kerry presented to the sudanese was that the president would begin the process of withdrawing sudan from the list of states sponsoring terrorism but they would have to meet all the conditions under that law n and they would also have to

complete the negotiations which you've all well described for the balance of the cpa. and there has to be progress toward peace in darfur. so before we can even complete that process and certainly before we would come to congress and discuss the possibility lifting of sanctions, steps would have to be taken, concrete steps by the north. in the meanwhile, a great deal has to be done on helping southern sudan. it is an area, as all of you know, devastated by war. extraordinarily poor with almost no infrastructure to speak of. you fly over southern sudan, you see very little agricultural activity. you see almost no roads. you have very low educational base and a thin administrative structure. a lot of donors are working on that problem. we are the major donor.

our technical assistance this past year to the government of southern sudan is about $430 million. other donors are contributing just under $700 million to developing the capacity of the south. a lot of countries are involved, kenya is the biggest trainer of technical personnel. the uk, the european union, norway and others and china has begun a development program in the south. but it's going to be a long, hard struggle for the south to meet the expectations of its people. we've done a lot and we'll continue to do a lot to build up their capacity, their ability for conflict resolution within the south, their ability to deliver in education, health and the other areas of which their people expect. now, i'm not -- darfur is not my brief.

general grathion was just in darfur their past week and he's joined now by another colleague of mine, dane smith, who will be working on darfur in the same way that i've been working on the north/south. but i don't want anybody to get the impression that the administration is either forgetting darfur or sacrificing darfur to the cpa. in fact, there's a good deal of interaction in sudan between the two. there has to be peace in both places for sudan north and south to succeed. i'm not the expert on darfur, but i know that work is under way to try and bring peace to strengthen unament, to increase access for the humanitarian organizations and bob all, to get a credible peace process. and i'm sure generalgration would be happy to brief you on all of that. let me conclude on one important

issue raised by congressman smith, and that is the condition and the future for the southerners living in northern sudan. there's quite a few, as you know. stims of as many as 1.5 million. since the beginning of the cpa in 2005, 330,000 people very returned to south sudan. just since last august, 150,000 have returned. and more are returning all the time. what we found was that the process was erratic, not very well planned and the states in the southern part of sudan not prepared to receive them or get them to places where they could earn a livelihood. so we've worked now. we and the u.n. to try and regularize that process. we went to the government of sudan and said weigh need access to all the places where the southerners live in the north. we didn't have that access before. we have it now.

we and the u.n. and international agencies can now go visit the southern population in the north, find out what they're planning. unhr is going to begin a registration process and try and make more orderly the process of departure. second we're working with the government in the south to come up with more realistic timetables and plans for absorbing that many people in what is as a very poor area. so, i just wanted to assure you that this is an issue high on our list, and we have been given assurances but we'll monitor it very closely that there will be no reprisals against those people. but it does raise one final issue that i can -- you've all mentioned. that's the citizenship issue because the question is what happens when the south becomes independent to southerners living in the north or northerners living in the south. the government of sudan, the ncp, has said that they will not

support dual citizenship for everyone. and that's a right of a government to say that. but what we and others have argued is and both sides have agreed in principle is that you cannot create a situation of statelessness for anyone. therefore, there has to be a period of transition during which southern sudan develops its own rules, regulations and procedures for citizenship and then southerners who so wish can access that citizenship if they choose. these are -- these are very important issues both for the stability of the country and basic human rights and it's one of the critical issues still to be negotiated. madame chairman, happy to answer questions. >> excellent testimony. and we will begin our question and answers now. but i just want to remind our members pursuant to long-standing committee

practice, i will be recognizes you by seniority. for those who are here when i make the sound of the gavel and then by order of arrival for those who arrive after the gavel. so there's an incentive to get here on time, boys and girls. i'm pleased as punch to have so many members of our freshman class on our committee and to make a public declaration of how pleased i am. among the freshman members of our committee mr. duncan's name. i will yield my question and answer time to mr. duncan from south carolina. >> mr. duncan is recognized. >> thank you, madame chairman. ambassador lyman, thank you for coming to address the committee today about the sudan. just have a few questions because we're concerned about terrorism in the world, concerned about national security and can the administration credibly certify

to congress that sudan has permanently seized support for fellow state sponsors of terrorism, including iran and syria and designated foreign terrorist organizations including hamas? >> first it, madame chairman, i forgot, i submitted a fuller statement for the record, if that's okay. congressman, that be part. >> without objection, thank you. >> thank you very much. that will be part of this process that would begin and it's a process whereby the relevant agencies in the united states government would be examining that. i think the requirement is to look at it over a six-month period to make sure that sudan would meet all the criteria under the law regarding counter-terrorism. that process hasn't yet begun because the president hasn't announced it, because it's conditional to even begin that process based on the acceptance of the results of the referendum. but i assure you that that will be done and that the

administration will then consult with congress on the results of that review. >> just a follow-up, what do you make of the independent or open source reports that iranian arms in sudan enroute to hamas and the gaza strip? can you help with that? >> i can't comment on that, congressman, but i can assure you that those are the kinds of issues that will be looked at in this review process. >> reports of bashir's strong relationship, hamas leadership inaccurate? >> i'm afraid i'm not in a position to comment on that. i again say that the agencies in the u.s. government are going to examine all of that as part of this process. i apologize that i'm not in a position to comment on that information which our agencies will have to determine and verify. >> we look forward to the time

that you can comment on that. thank you. >> i yield back my time. >> thank you very much. thank you for that maiden voyage. welcome to all of our wonderful freshmen. i'd like to yield five minutes to our wonderful ranking member, mr. berman. >> thank you, madame chairman. and i'm -- i'm going to follow your lead and i'm going to yield my five minutes to the punitive and i think soon to be ranking member of the african subcommittee, the long-time chair of that subcommittee and my great extent one of my key mentors on the issue of sudan, mr. payne. >> mr. payne is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i've lost -- for yielding and ambassador lyman, the -- the aeu

was very involved in this egan which is as most of us know the east african intergovernmental authority on development which has several east african countries, about six or seven, kenya, uganda, et cetera. how -- and they were very involved, as you know, in the actually in the negotiations in navasha. how strong do you believe that the au and egad will remain in t the -- in sudan as they move forward to the more difficult times? >> i think the roles are going to be different. the africa union is now charged with overseeing the post referendum negotiations over the issues we talked about. and the high level panel that the au has created to do this is headed by former south african president nbeki and with former

ba ruddian president and former nigerian president abu bakker. they have a sta staff and over seen the structure of the negotiations. we in the u.n. worked very, very closely with them and republican official observers in those discussions and worked very closely with them on the negotiations. egad now plays i think a different and more political role, the e gp app d summit some weeks ago was a very important step in confirming assurances from the government of sudan about the referendum and proceeding with the cpa. they are not as active as they used to be in navasha and elsewhere in the actual negotiations. >> and how do you see the, as we know abby yea is certainly a very difficult issue to confront but also as you know, the blue nile and the southern states

have also some question about where they really belong. what is your take on those two states? >> well, the cpa did not see the popular consultations as the same as for -- abiya was accorded the right of self-determination to see if they wanted to be part of the north or south. that is not included in the reference for the popular consultations. what the consultations are supposed to do is determine how the cpa has affected them and how their relationships both internally and the state and with khartoum should take place. if i can describe it it, good governance consultations rather than self-determination consultations. and what we are pleased about with blue nile is the tremendous amount of interest taking place as those consultations get under way. people are coming forward, civil societies coming forward. and they will look very

carefully at both the governance of the state and the way the central government impacts on their lives. as you know, elements in those states fought on the side of the splm, but they live in the north. and they're part of the north. so the question really that's being posed is, what kind of political structure will we be seeing in the north that accommodates their interests and the interests of everyone else in the north. >> and the final question about egypt and the nile, egypt can be very, very constructive. or they can be very destructive. during this whole conflict. the nile is something that egypt feels concerned about. how do you think the negotiations regarding egypt in the north and other countries will go on the nile? >> i think it's -- it's not a secret that egypt was very concerned about the whole

self-determination vote and the implications of it, but toward the latter part of the year, egypt became very supportive, and just prior to the referendum, president mubarak along with president gadhafi came and urged the government to go ahead and go through with a referendum and follow the dictates of the cpa. and i think the attitude of egypt is that they're going to work with the new government of southern sudan. now, water, as the chair woman said is one of the issues to be negotiated, how the water is managed, the nile which cuts through both southern and northern sudan are going to be managed, access to water, amounts of water. those negotiations have not gotten very far and they will be important and clearly and egypt will be watching them very closely. >> thank you very much. the chairman of the global and human rightsing is recognized. >> thank you for your

extraordinary service and leadership. let me ask a couple of questions. you mentioned the first step beginning the process of removing sudan from from the state sponsor of terrorism list. ambassador williamson and i was serving with him when it was a commission in geneva and he led the effort on getting the focus on genocide being committed in darf darfur. he makes a point in his testimony that we must make that determination purely on the merits, not till there's some other political considerations. it sounds like that's the process you're going to pursue. i would like to hear you say in your open words or further elaboration. secondly, churches play a key role, perhaps even a sprawl role in the provision of humanitarian and development aid and in in promoting dialogue mediating crises. will the faith based sector in the new republic of southern sudan, if that's what emerges

here, receive a significant amount of money toe immediately have a high impact on health care delivery and the like? thirdly, it the icc chief prosecutor said that bashir may have skimmed upwards of $9 billion. is that true? what do we know about that? finally, i mentioned in my opening about the 35,000 southerners who remain in the north in forced servitude. in the mid-1990s, i held a hearing on slavery in sudan. was roundry criticized when i had it. but we brought out the point and i even had a mother who told the harrowing story of how they broke into her home it, stole her son, kidnapped her son, gave him an islamic name and then he became part of a slavery regime. what are we doing about that? . >> thank you very much, congressman. on the first question, with regard to the state sponsors of terrorism.

first and foremost, they have to meet all the conditions under that law. so it has to be on the merits of that. but secondary, we've also said that the final step has to be in the contempt of their also meeting the conditions of the cpa. so it's first and foremost is they have to meet those criteria and then second, when we would take a step would be when they've also, if they meet all those criteria, that it would also have to meet the criteria under the cpa. on churches, i don't know the exact plans but i will say this, they play an extraordinarily important role in southern sudan, as you know. and they have been very important in conflict resolution and i think they'll play a major role in the development side. there's no question that one of the elements of society -- i'll just take a second to say something that has bothered me about the peace process.

it's not been terribly transparent. it's been carried on between two parties but civil society hasn't been brought in very much. i think now as we move forward, there must be much broader transparency and involvement of civil society in what comes next and that very much includes the churches. on the 9 billion, i've seen the accusation. i haven't seen proof so i can't say. on slavery, it's a very, very bitter memory for people who suffered that. that includes some people in the abiya area. clearly, the independence of southern sudan if that's what the vote will show may an leavate that problem and other security steps. but clearly that has to go. if it exists anymore. but the memory is there and i know people who have spoken to me about the bitterness they feel about it. >> finally let me ask one final quell with my time. are there sufficient resources

sable at the unacr within our own government to assist the southerners in the north to register them to mitigate the incidents of retaliation? what kind of numbers are we talking about in terms of funds? >> the southern sudan government talks about another 500,000 or up to 500,000 people coming. so that would be another 350,000. we have made it a very, very strong part of our diplomacy with the north that no retaliation or violence takes place against the southerners in the north. we have backed them on this over and over and over again and so far, that's been -- they've respected that. and they claim they will respect it. but the future of those people in terms of citizenship and economics, et cetera, is still an important consideration. now, unhcr is just beginning really now that it has access to

start to register people. there are sufficient stocks of emergency supplies to handle people when they come south, let's say to get three months supply of food its. the problem is, how well these people can be inte integrated for long-term development. some of them aren't farmers, et cetera. this is sthung we very under discussion with the government southern sudan. that to me is becoming the most serious challenge. so far, we've been able to work in the north without any retaliation against those people. >> thank you so much. so please yield to the gentleman from the new jersey, my good friend, congressman sears. >> thank you, madame chair. congratulations. ambassador lyman, as i listened to you, i sense hope in your voice. that this is going to succeed.

but as i listen carefully to what you say to me, excuse me, to the committee, i'm not as optimistic. there's no from structure no way of feeding. there's a referendum in the country. what can we -- what steps can we take to continue to encourage the peace and i worry when you split this country, we don't have a good experience in contemporary. the tensions are still there. and i worry when all this money comes in to try to help, i look at haiti and the atlantic infrastructure. sorry, but you sound optimistic, but i'm not as optimistic as you are. i do hope that we can continue have so many years of war that i doe p do hope that this leads to

peaceful in the future. can you just tell us what we can do? >> you caught me on a good week. a couple months ago i was much less optimistic. i'm very encouraged this referendum has come off and what i think it signifies for the future. look, there are several different peace problems. one is peace in the south itself. where there have been clashes in the past. proxy supported by the north, et cetera. now, we are working hard to build up their security capability. by that, i mean their ability to you manage conflict to manage local issues, communicate better coordinate better, et cetera. lots of people are -- lots of countries along with us are training people, et cetera. president kir has promised a very inclusive political process in the future for a new constitution in the south. he must follow that path.

otherwise, there will be dissension and there will be trouble. i'm reasonly optimistic that they'll rise to the challenge but i think it's going to be a good long struggle. the other danger is in the continuing tensions that will exist from time to time between the north and the south. one of the points we've emphasized so much to both sides in the last few months is don't support proxies. that is, that the north doesn't support proxes in the south and vice versa, that the south doesn't support proxies in darfur or someplace else. it's a very important part of keeping peace and they've got to resolve their tensions in other ways. i think that the hope for peace in the area comes from their inevitable interdependence whether it's in the oil sector, it's the trade sector, et cetera. both sides need each other right

now. and both sides now are not interested in going back to war. and if we can build on that and they can build on that, it's not going to be perfect and there are going to be crisis and there are going to be threats but i guess i'm more optimistic now than i was a few months ago. >> and the other issue that i have concern is, you talked about the oil. obviously the oil in the south. and the north is going to feel that they have been excluded of this wealth. how are they going to just -- i just don't see them sitting back and saying, well, you have this referendum. you keep oil. and i'll stop the water from going south. >> actually, the leverage is greater because all the pipelines to export the oil are in the north. >> okay. >> so what they've had to do and the norwegians have been extremely helpful in laying out all the complexities of how two

countries with shared resources can work out a fair compensation. during the cpa, they split the oil revenues 50/50 but that was temporary. now there's a question of whether the south will keep that ratio, whether they'll pay a fee for the use of the pipelines, et cetera. those are the details they've got to work out. now, but they kind of need each other on the oil. the other thing which is very important, again, we're grateful to the norwegians for this analysis, that oil isn't that great. >> over the next five years, it will decline substantially in output. both sides have to develop an economy that is less dependent on oil. and that's an important reason for them to turn their attention away are war. >> thank you very much. into thank you. the gentleman's time is expired. the chairman designate of the oversight and investigation subcommittee, mr. rohrabacher of california.

>> thank you very much, madame chairman, and mr. ambassador, what's the population of sudan both north and south? >> oh, i was afraid you were going to ask me that. there's about 8 million in the south and what in the north? >> 38 million overall thanks to rich. 3 million overall, about less than a third in the south. >> i'll tell you when i worked in the white house, he had all the answers, as well. i just want you to know that. so 38 million all together. and how much have we spent in sudan? >> since the cpa, overall for all expenditures, peacekeeping and everything else, we've spent $10 billion. >> how much? >> 10 billion. >> we spent $10 billion. >> much of that for peacekeeping and relief because of the wars and the displacement its. >> is that just us or is that

the overall spending? we spent $10 billion or. >> we, the u.s. >> we and how much has been spent then? we spent 10 billion. how much have the other philanthropists of the world spent? >> the peacekeeping they contribute to a formula in the u.n., the formula they always contribute to. >> right. >> on the economic side, i know, for example, the other donors have been doing about $700 million a year in the south. >> uh-huh. >> i don't have the figures for what they're doinging in darfur. i can try and get those for you. >> but your guesstimate would be that we are the biggest contributor and almost 50% maybe of what's been spent? >> we are clearly the largest donor. i'll try and get you more accurate percentages. >> what fortuitous day for you to be testifying because president hu from china has just

arrived. i was wondering how much the chinese have actually contributed to this effort. >> well, the chinese, of course, as members of the security council pay whatever their share is of peacekeeping costs as permanent members of the security council. they also have begun a development program in the south. they also contribute a fair number of peacekeepers to the u.n. peacekeeping force. we don't contribute soldiers. they do. >> right. >> they have -- some engineering companies, et cetera, in the peacekeeping operation. they are, of course, as you know, big investors in the oil industry in sudan. >> right. and they've -- but you don't know what they've spent, and i think that's significant because it's my understanding that the chinese perhaps are benefiting greatly by their association with the government in the north and its? >> there's no question that oil

has been a successful investment for them. now that the oil lies largely in the south, they understand they have to develop relationships in the south as well and they are beginning development promise, road programs, health programs its in the south. >> let me just note that -- first of all, did the -- do you believe that the chinese have played a positive role in sudan? is that what you would tell us today, that by and large, chinese have played a positive role there over the years? >> i think they're playing a more positive role now than they played before to be perfectly candid. i think they were very resistant to sanctions on sudan. and so there's a history there. >> and -- excuse me one moment. they are opposed to those sanctions because they had a direct relationship with the tough guys who are running the country.

isn't that right? >> yeah. >> and the guy who's signed contracts for who gets to benefit from the oil? >> there's no question about that. now more recently, and they do most of their diplomacy behind the scenes. they don't work in concert with the rest of us envoy who's meet all the time. they have done some facilitation on the peacekeeping side. they contributed peacekeepers and they have been supportive now of the referendum process. they've been openly supportive of that. as i said, starting to do more in the south. >> i've only got about 30 seconds left. let me just note that we are entering a new era. government. we can no longer afford to have atarilyian and a half dollar deficit. we figured that will destroy our country and entirely if we are going to be investing 10 billion dollars in a corrupt with 38 million people, $0 billion for

38 million people and see that perhaps another country perhaps an adversary like china is benefiting greatly from our investment. those are the things we need to pay attention to. and we will be. thank you, madame carom. >> thank you so much. because the ranking member had given his time to mr. payne, now mr. payne is recognized as the ranking member designate of the africa global health and human rights subcommittee for his question. >> thank you very much. i'm doing better under this new setup than i did under my own. >> well, well discuss that later. >> let me continue i think on the china discussion. as you indicated, china was very, very noninvolved, as you know, and there were several meetings that were held with the chinese, the congressional black caucus actually met with the ambassador and kind of had a pretty tough meeting with them and they asked for a second

meeting. they had never been in darfur. they were still selling weapons. they just had no interest in the problems of sudan. i had the opportunity to go to beijing and the second in command of the government of china asked a question. i asked a question in the great hall once again about what were they going to do. since then, as you've mentioned, they've september people to darfur. they've started participating in u.n. peacekeeping. how do you think china will react and do you think they will be a true neutral party as this process moves forward? >> i think the chinese will have -- you know, i don't want to speak for them really but they have a stake in the oil sector. they have a stake that those are chinese companies that own a good deal of the infrastructure

as well as their share in the oil industry. they're very concerned about that. they want to make sure that whatever is worked out between the two entities on oil protects those interests. and, of course, they import oil from sudan so they want the stability of supply. i'm pleased that they've begun development programs in the south. i think that's very important. i think we need every donor we can to help in the south. how they will progress in their relationship between the two, it's a little hard for me to predict. obviously they will want to have relations in both countries to pursue their interests. >> now, in the south, the south has the potential of a great agricultural program if they get going. at one time, sudan was the breadbasket for all of africa and with the oil.

are we looking at developing, helping them develop that agricultural sector as we move forward? and secondly, what does khartoum have left? what would their major resources be? are they industrializing and manufacturing? >> there it was a conference in nairobi some months ago which the u.s. was a major participant, immigration was there and others just on agricultural development in the sou south. it will have to be a focus. they have the potential but it's not being realized at all. so that has to be a major part of their economic development. no question about it. you go to juba now and all the fruits and vegetables are come from uganda. you know the potential isn't being realized. in the north, they too have to develop the agricultural sector. they import a lot of food which they shouldn't. and they are now turning more

attention to the food sector knowing oil revenues are going to go down, that they very extraordinary economic potential. they're getting investments from arab countries in the agriculture sector. i think that's going to be one of the major areas they look to, as well. >> thank you. there's a lot of new technology on getting water out of the desert now and that should be -- i have agreed to yield the blaeps of my time back to the rampging memb i hanking member who i think has a question he would like to ask. >> i thank you, mr. payne. and madame chairman. i just wanted to thank you, ambassador. i was sitting here thinking i came to congress 28 years ago. it you you were a key figure in the africa bureau at that time during some incredible times, the fight against apartheid. the other conflicts in africa going on. the role you played there and later on as ambassador tore

south africa and the new south africa. in southeast asia and in africa, former soviet union, the places you worked there. your role before that at aid, assistant secretary for io serving both republican and democratic presidents. you really do give the term "diplomat" a great name with your stellar service that you would come out of the academic world, i don't know if that's retirement, but to take this on is a great tribute to you. thank you. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. >> you're very kind, congressman. thank you so much. >> i'm employeesed to yield to the chairman designate of the terrorism nonproliferation and trade subcommittee, mr. royce of

california. >> ambassador lyman, do you have a long association with struggling with these problems on the continent of africa. and we have many ngos who are here today, as well. one of the things that comes with that experience of long being engaged with these types of regimes is it gives did you an important historical check on your assumptions going forward. and in particular in dealing with khartoum. which has broken promise after promise. when dealing with somebody like bashir who is in power not because he's a peacemaker, he's in power because he is the most ruthless. when looking at that situation, and i've seen firsthand the result of that ruthlessness. in sudan in, darfur, sudan, i

remember we had a night line" camera crew we took in to interview some of the survivors of an attack. and i remember a town, tinay, that had been bombed from the air. that was not an talk by the john u we. i enter interviewing a young man who had lost his hand. he had lost his hand to the john. >> you we but with his other hand he was able to draw pictures his other kids did have these antonovs that had bombed their village and of mechanized armor which was from the khartoum government there to support the jan. >> you we'd in the attack. so in looking at this, the ngo community i think is very

hesitant lug to reach assumptions that all is going to end well. in one particular regard, there is an issue ta all of us are concerned about and it has to do with that issue of the state sponsor of terrorism list because joseph coney of the resistance army could not have abducted 0,000 children and abused so many over the last 20 years and made child soldiers out of them without the armaments he got from khartoum. and without being able to send his fighters up to khartoum to be patched up without the support that he had. they didn't allow people to go into south sudan to take him out. when we had the opportunity to do it. soap the question i have is have you made it very clear to khartoum that any support from -- for the lra would prevent them from being taken

off the terrorism list and basically that for you, this is a red line? that's my question. >> i can say categorically we have said that any support of them by proxies or other such entities would preclude our following through on that. >> very good. >> and in general, i would say in dealing with the regime, the way forward is for them to understand that this is the way for them to go forward because it's worst for them if they don't in terms of peace in, terms of any thoughts of prosperity. >> we have the historical record and we have the fact that for ten years, between '94 and '05, sudan is the only documented supporter for the lra. and we have a u.n. report in

november, last november, that lra commanders reached out to sudan's military in darfur for support. we don't know much more than that other than that happened. but i guess my last question is, what the state department certify to congress that there are no links between the government in khartoum and the lra before taking them off the terrorism list? i guess that's a little harder question. >> it is a harder question. i'll get you a definitive answer because i have to talk to people who do that kind of analysis. i can tell you this. i have discussed personally and i snow generalgration has the lra with the government mand it very clear that any support with the lra would be -- that's a horrific group. >> the note of horrific group probably on the planet and the

fact that the khartoum government would support it -- ambassador lyman, thank you for your service. >> thank you so much. the gentleman from florida, my good friend mr. rivera. >> thank you very much, madame chairman. ambassador, in our administration's enthusiasm to engage local authorities and roll out basic materials and services as a conflict mitigation strategy, having appropriate safeguards to prevent waste, fraud and abuse been implemented? >> one of the things we're working on most is intensely with the government of the south which is where most of our development assistance is going is exactly that. that is to get good financial controls, good budget controls. et cetera and we don't put money through the government without those kind of assurances. so we're watching that very closely. this is a young government in the south. and getting better controls,

better financial controls is one of the top priorities. also doing that at the state level because resources have to be sent down to the state level. so we're working with the state governments in the south to make sure they have those controls in place. and we will continue to do that. >> thank you very much, mr. ambassador. a couple other questions. what is the sat us of the scr subpoena fly away teams that have been deployed to south sudan and what are they doing exactly? >> those teams are out visiting and staying in areas throughout the south. whether there are conflicts developing in the south, whether the state governments are capable of dealing with them so that proper assistance and responses can be made. it's kind of a -- it's kind of an extended outreach for the united states to know what's happening out there.

to make sure that the potential for conflict in the south which are serious, are being addressed, that we know what's happening, that we have good information and they've been effective over the last couple of months. >> what types of program funds are they administering? to what end are they supplementing directly? are they employing contractors or providing support tore local institutions? >> they're only providing information. it's up top u.s. aid and other programs to then help with those states and help in their security. the fly away teams are information-gathering teams. >> a few governs questions. is the administration planning to certify that an elected government has taken office to justify every moving restrictions on u.s. assistance to sudan under section 67,08 of

the state foreign operations and related appropriations act of 2010 as carried forward? >> assuming that that he voted for secession, they will not become fully independence under the cpa until july. then we would have to have a legislation with the congress that would authorize assistance to that entity. we don't have to do it right away because independence becomes. >> will the secretary of the treasury also be moving to make such certification to provide debt relief to the regime? >> debt relief is -- there are sanctions against supporting debt relief and it depends on how the debt is divided also between the north and south. if some of the debt is souped by t -- assumed by the south and they become an independent entity and i would want to the consult with the congress

closely on this we could support the south in doing that. but any general debt relief, assuming that the north carries much of that death, there are sanctions and they would have to be removed for us to support action on that relief for the north. >> thank you, madame chair. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much. the gentleman's time has expired. now i would like to yield for our last -- no, we still have one more. the gentleman from ohio, mr mr. shabat. and thanks for subbing for me this weekend, mr. shabat. >> happy to do it. i appreciate the opportunity to do that and are you loved down there. there's no question about that. so we appreciated filling in for you. mr. ambassador, thank you for your time here this afternoon. i know you've answered a lot of questions. just a couple that i have. retive to the referendum and

assuming that it goes the way that virtually everyone believes that it will and that the vote in the south is to essentially secede, could you, and i know you've already talked about this to some degree but could you discuss again what mechanisms are expected to take place relative to the oil revenues and wealth sharing and that sort of thing in the disputed areas? >> the two entities face some choices on how to handle the management of the oil sector. one is to create a joint management of the sector. i don't think that's going to happen but that's one option out there. another is to have the south take an equity position in the infrastructure in the north so they're part owner as well and the economics works out that way. a third option is simply for the south to pay a fee for

transporting the oil through the pipelines. and there are a number of variations on this. all of which i owe what limited knowledge i have of this to the norwegians who have laid this out in great detail for the two parties. so they will choose among these potential ways of cooperating. and then it the political decision is how much does the south pay to the north. is there a premium for peace to put it bluntly in what they pay. and that's going to be the political side of the negotiation. on the other issues, there are working groups on all the other issues looking at them technically. for example, on currency, if both countries move to a new currency, how do they do it very carefully not to destabilize the other, because you can do that. and they've agreed in principle that they won't destabilize each other. but then the question is, what's the timing? how do they do it in the proper

way? so there's a working group on that. similarly on borders there's a working group, but the decision there's are very political because there are five disputed border areas, most of the border is agreed, but five areas disputed, and they haven't agreed on how to solve the dispute. and that's now a major issue to be resolved. >> thank you. and then another area, mr. ambassador, when i -- i was here for 14 years and gone the last 2 so i've gotten a little behind in the last two years. but i've been to the darfur region on two different trips, one on the refugee camps in sudan and the other time the refugee camps in chad. and at the time things seemed to be simmering down somewhat the to the extent that the attacks h had been, shall we say, limited compared to where they had been previously. although many people were still in the camps. has there been any progress of

people moving out of the camps and back to their villages? or is it too dangerous in most places for that to occur? >> again, i have to apologize because darfur isn't in my brief, i don't have the updated details. i don't think there's been a lot of movement in that regard. there was some violence very recently between the south african -- sudan armed forces and one of the rebel groups that displaced a lot of people additionally. but i would defer to general grace when he's here and my colleague dane smith to give you a more accurate up-to-date. darfur i'm not that familiar with. >> i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino, which is a much revered name in miami, yields his time, and we thank you so much because we're so short of time so we're going to say thank you very much, mr. ambassador, for your time.

get back to work. we're going to shoo you out of there. and i'm going to welcome ambassador richard williamson and omar isshmael and i'm going to give you the briefest introduction. gentlemen, i am going to be rooufl ru lugeless with my gavel because we want to get to the question and answer period. as you settle in, let me introduce you. ambassador williamson has served as the president's special envoy for sudan and as the u.s. representative to the united nations' human rights commission where he press for the adoption of a resolution condemning the atrocities in darfur in conjunction with the united nations commemorations of the tenth anniversary of genocide in rue wanda. welcome, mr. ambassador. i know that your book is here floating about. and omar ishmael, thank you so much. omar, you are so loved,

humanitarian, human rights activist, working with numerous organizations to stop genocide and mass atrocities. mr. ishmael was born in darfur but was forced to flee sudan in 1989. thank you, gentlemen, both for being here, and i will gavel you down in five minutes so we can get to our question and answers because we have votes on the floor in a little bit. thank you. ambassador, williamson, if you could start. >> thank you very much, madam chairperson. congratulations on that. good to see ranking member berman again. and i have to note don payne has spent more time working on sudan than any other american leader, and we're all in his debt, and as congressman smith said, we've worked together in the past. glad to be here. i think in sudan you have to first start with the fact there's been marginalization for

200 years that's evolved into discrimination, politically, health, and justice. that permeates the country and that creates instability. and the south is only a small part evof the story. second, we have to recognize that unfortunately in sudan it's too common that the political leaders feel comfortable resorting to violence as a legitimate way to pursue their political objectives and engage in atrocities. and thirdly, we have to recognize the nature of the regime, the vote is a shining moment, the sudan people deserve most of the credit. the international community, u.s. brokered the cpa, president bush, and while i've criticized president obama and his administration, they deserve credit for their initiative the last four months, the diplomatic surge, which was extremely helpful. but the vote is not the end of

the story. it may not even be the beginning of the end of the story. the contested border areas oil revenue sharing and citizenship are not just thedles o is itshe ndl dspe icov s years have been known for six years car toom has blocked progress on those issues and for the last six months, four months notwithstanding, the initiative little substantive particularized progress has been made. fourth, my experience is that the cpa, the regime in cartoom breaches commitments. look at just the cpa. they agreed to abide by the obvious aub yea border commission. the south accepted it, the north refused. they agreed to abide by the

arbitration, the permanent arbitration court in the haig and its determination of the border. that process went forward. the south accepted it, north refused. in the cpa, the north agreed to disarm and demobilize their militias. they did not. they committed to transparency and oil revenue sharing and accounting. they did not. it is important to recognize that incentives alone are inadequate. promises are illusory, and incentives without steel, without some threat of coercion, have proven a failure in the past and they will let down the sudan ese people again. underlng all of this, what is the u.s. goal in 2005? it was in part the separation, and we paid for that. it would be overpaying now to say that because haltingly imperfectly in a delayed manner

and having costany lives that we should now be overly generous for the performance of commitments made. the margin alliesation continues, the injustices continued, atrocities continued the week before the vote began in the referendum, 18 bombs dropped in the south, the u.n. certified that they were from the sudan armed forces. and the south is not the only area subjected to this. darfur and the mountains cannot be separated. we cannot rush to give benefits. the nine neighbors in china have not been helpful, but we've reached a tipping point where they see that separation is going to happen so they have been on the margins helpful. they can do more. the administration has tried to encourage it. they should. there's an enormous development chal erngs but it has to have burden sharing and the european union and others have to increase their participation.

i am concerned about a process that begins in a litany of incentives before performance, before specific agreements, before verification mechanisms are put in place, before there's monitored results. as ronald reagan used to say, trust but verify. i am concerned about it, and i fear once again the suddanese people will again be denied what they need. thank you, madam chairperson. >> thank you. mr. ishmael. >> congratulations and thank you, madam chair, and thanks to the esteemed members of your committee. i will get down to it. the united states has a crucial role to play in laying the groundwork for peace and stability in sudan from this moment forward. the southerners have come out. they cast their vote. they are going to decide their

destiny, which is going to be the separation from the mother country of sudan. but as everybody agrees, including president obama, in his op-ed in the "new york times," that the work is just beginning. so the united states should capitalize on this current momentum in sudan to address three crucial issues that will establish peace and stability in all of sudan and the neighboring countries in the region. first, the relationship between north and south must be clarified before secession formally takes place in july. this involves detailing the economic arrangements between north and south after separation, the legal status in the north and south as well as resolving the status of contentious border areas. without agreement on these issues, on the ground and among the leadership of both governments have the possibility of sparking violence. the conflict in darfur must be

reprioritized. this process has trickled along for years while violence has nen fived in recent weeks. now is the time for the peace process, one that has inched along for years with very limited effect on the ground in darfur. number three, at a time when political changes will be underfoot in both the north and the south, the u.s. should press both governments towards inclusive governance and pluralism to ensure that peace endures in sudan both in north and the south. sharing oil revenues. the currency, citizenship, border and the issue of bay are very crucial. until now, the international community has been content delae in place of this, the u.s. pre teatnap-start a far more atn, melpohe ac pceth uced the

a. the sudanese government revealed its strategy that would domesticize the political process and retain justice. we believe this plan is not only prodemocratic but that it hides the government's true intention to seek a solution in darfur. we believe the way forward is for the u.s. to help a decisive road map to secure peace in darfur based on a sound diagnosis of why efforts to date have fallen short of the mark. this will require robust engagement with the mediation team, significant diplomatic and seccal support and participation by the europeans, china and regional actors. finally, the u.s. should capitalize on the opportunity for political forum that sudan presents for both the north and the south. in the north, several of the processes that the united states should strongly support are specifically mandated under the

cpa, including a constitutional review that involves public participation as well as popular consultation in the bordering states investing in groups and depend on voices political party development and other building blocks to a more democratic future. the u.s. can take these steps to prevent future conflict in sudan. in the south we see a fragile new state that is filled with potential. it is -- in the interest of the united states, it is in the interest to help lay the foundation for good governance and invest in it. the development of a strong parliament and judiciary as well as executive institution that delivers services, share power and tax and oil revenue will be key to the peace in southern sudan. as the united states moves towards forward to urgently tt e o san spate.mibl

amicably, we must do what we can to help deliver on the promises to all sudan ease. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, gentlemen. you have proven you can be brilliant and succinct. thank you. i will yield my time to the gentleman from florida, mr. rivera. >> thank you very much, madam chair. a.m. bastion d-- ambassador, thank you for being here. wh yrsweout e it stecio 04 i in iwas. >> i was there in the '80s and '90s. >> iasasstant secretaat the time andrmando wasorng r me. he did a great b, pushed an important issue, and we should continue to put pressure on the island prison. >> thank you. thank you for your those words, thank you for your service. with respect to the road map, ambassador, pursuant to the road map presented, the administration is poised to remove sudan from the state

sponsors of terrorism list, facilitate high-level visits, exchange ambassadors, ease sanctions and advance negotiations for debt relief in exchange for cartoom meeting its own obligations under the comprehensive peace agreement. united states' leverage with regard to darfur would be reserved for lifting saipgss that cannot be removed without legislative relief. in your opinion, does cartoom care p the remaining sanctions and what realistically what leverage would the united states have if the administration pursues this course? >> first a generic oertion corema thle aege derhe mantle of legitimacy, the more they desire it. and those actions all raisento question the legitimacy of the government of cartoom. so it's beyond whatever economic benefit or other benets. it goeto theiritimacy wiin sudan a n am

concerned about being too anxious to provide incentives. remember the comprehensive peace agreement was agreed to six years ago, when i was special envoy it was my view, after meeting with the leaders often in cartoom, meetings that drew the criticism of senators obama, biden and clinton, that they had already made a decision at the time they signed cpa that they may be having to give issues th have not been resolved. we have a long way to go beyond the six-month period when separation will become a -- before we know if those commitments will be made. and i also know from my various positions in government there's a bureaucratic momentum once you start the process.

again, to cite president reagan, trust but verify. we have to see more. >> thank you, ambassador. in november 2008, ambassador limon participated in a conference posted by the embassy and sweden on the responsibility to protect. according to a meeting summary he suggested darfur would be excluded from obligations inferred from the responsibil y responsibility -- position on this and does the united nations have a responsibility to protect margin marginalized populations in sudan if cartoom decides to crush all remaining opposition following a vote for independence in southern sudan? >> i think the general responsibility to protect preceded the millennium document adopted in september 2005. furthermore, i think when you look at the genocide in slow motion that continued after the

adoption of that document, it is important for the united states and the international community to step up to its responsibility. let me note, i am loathed to ever disagree with ambassador prince ton lyman who i have the greatest respect for. but in this case i do think we have a responsibility. i've noted that as recently as two weeks ago cartoom was involved in bombings in the south. they've been involved in bombings in darfur. they continue to engage in coordinated attacks. it is less intense only because there are fewer targets of rter for

international accountability of the regime in cartoom than this administration has been. >> thank you very much. the chairman designate smith of the africa global health and health human rights subcommittee. >> gentlemen, thank you very much for your testimony and leadership. "new york times" reporter jeffrey gentlemen wrote a piece roots of bitterness in a region, sudan's future, "new york times," january 15th. he talks about how most people in aub yea are armed to the

teeth. my question first is, where have all those ak-47s gone that we believe the chinese gost helped to facilitate well in excess of 100,000? are they there? are we perhaps being a little bit too optimistic about the prospects of a peaceful transition here? or what? >> i think congressman if you're dealing with sudan you have to have a fault of optimism to be able to be deal with such a difficult issue. soy have no fault there. but as you know, if it's human rights first, if it's a small arms commission of the u.n., the documentation of chai na's small arms has been irrefutable, and we can assume there have been credible reports of the flow of those arms down into regions near the border, directed by cartoom, it's a matter of great concern. i think, as congressman payne

said, we were together in aub yea when the smoke was still coming up where the charred bed remains, where there are no homes as far as you can see. and then in agook where 50,000 people were living under torn sheets during the rainy season when you couldn't walk without mud up to your ankles. the tragedy of aub yea goes on. it goes on because of the oil. the vote was good, but the tough issues lie ahead. >> yes? >> there is information that is coming from aubyea that the weapons are there and the violence can spark at any moment. you might have heard of the sentinel project that was harvard university and others have launched, and these are the eyes in the sky that are going to show us what is happening in aubyea so stay tuned. and also the small arms survey and other open source that's are

saying 55,000 of the 105,000 standing army of sudan are in or around the area of aubyea. if that is not a spark that is going to start something, i don't know what it is. we have to be vigilant to avoid that from happening. >> let me ask about the sudanese slaves. i mentioned earlier about the 35,000. any recommendations on how to liberate them from the bondage that they live in in the north? also, on debt, $30 billion of indebtedness mostly to other countries like saab di arabia and squat but also if my understanding is correct about 2 billion to the u.s. when the administration talks about the road map, cow again say whether or not you believe, because debt is certainly a part of that, lifting the designation as a state sponsor of terror and other issues obviously in there as well, could you speak to that road map, if you would, how

comfortable you of you? and, finally, just -- i'll run out of time. why don't you go on those issues. >> i will start with the road map in darfur as well as in the south because all of these issues that we are talking about are real issues. the deporter and the aubyea issue as far as the south is concerned, the debt and currency and citizenship. if you listen to the rhetoric coming out of cartoom, the citizenship is going to be stripped the day after announcing the secession. i don't know how they're going to define sudanese from others living in the north today and how about dual citizenship, something that the government gives to itself? some ministers in the government of sudan today, they hold other passports from different countries including this country, and they are not going

to allow the southerners who are born and raised in sudan as such to have dual citizenship. i don't understand that. we have to work hard on these issues. the road map to darfur, we have to revitalize the peace process and we have to have some high-level people who are involved in this because the alternative of that is going to be violence in darfur. thank you. >> quickly, congressman, the most important thing with the slave tragedy is being very vigorous to push the rule of law, which doesn't exist. it's still the rule of position and power. and second shining light on it, that's the best disinfectant to human rights abuses. the united states and others should engage in speaking out more aggressively. >> thank you very much. the gentleman from missouri, mr. carnahan. >> thank you, madam chairman. let me first just say congratulations again. we're looking forward to working

with you in this new congress and with your leadership. and thank you for holding this timely and important hearing. i really wanted to focus my time and again acknowledge this referendum. i think it causes -- it's cause for hope. the international community especially the african union, the u.n. played important roles in implementing the comprehensive peace agreement and were key facilitators ever the referendum. i guess with all multilateral engagement these efforts have been met with some criticism, but i'd like to ask our two panelists here why the u.s. -- why it's important for the u.s. to continue to engage in these international organizations to leverage the work in sudan. what have been some of the tangible benefits so far? and how might we going forward maximize these collaborative

efforts? and if we could start with ambassador williamson, please. >> thank you, congressman. i think if we look at sudan we see a long history of various multilateral mechanisms making a contribution. the igad process itself where it has seven eastern african countries, the united states britain and norway, were instrumental in being the midwife of the comprehensive peace agreement. since then there's been significant multilateral efforts with respect to peacekeeping, first the african union forces, then the u.n. forces, both from the south and in the west. they have not stopped violence. they can't. they don't have the capacity. the areas are too big. but they've crowded out the space for violence and they've given some window for peace negotiations and discussions. i think you can also look at the

assistance where it's been an international effort through the sudan consortium. i think congressman reporteren balker, about the burden sharing the u.s. has clearly made a disproportionate contribution. nonetheless, sudan consortium has involved other countries, many other countries, norway's taken the lead in coordination over the consortium and there has been that assistance. but finally, sir, if i could, let me note that the success to the degree there's been humanitarian success in sudan, whether it's in darfur or in the south, the unsung heroes are the humanitarian ngo organizations. their workers who are suddsudan well as countries from all over the world, and the nationals also participating, some risking their own lives so it has been a collective effort. i do think the u.s. deserves

note not only for its lead on the humanitarian assistance and its pivotal role in the political process, but there's a victory for the sudanease people. there have been many who helped it along through international organizations and other mechanisms. >> thank you, ambassador. mr. ishmail? >> thank you, mr. congressman. and i think the united states stands to benefit a lot from the stability in sudan. it's a huge country as it stands today a million square miles boreding nine countries. if you just consider the western country of chad, there -- it is a natural extension of sudan, and put nigeria into the equation, you'll find that about 520 million people living in and around sudan. if sudan unravels, then this whole population is going to be thrown in a tail spin.

we have seen the spillover of the lra into sudan and the spillover of darfur into chad and the destability it has created. this is very important besides the $10 billion that we just talked about here that the united states has spent in the south. they are today over $1 billion that the united states is spending in darfur to keep about 3.5 million displaced alive. that is a huge burden. if the sudan was left to its own devices and we have seen violence of of the scales we have seen before in darfur in the south, only god knows how much we are going to spend to keep some of these people alive in refugee camps, not in the safety of their homes. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you so much, mr. carnahan. mr. rorbalker. >> thank you very much. madam chairwoman and ambassador williamson was right. i would like to focus a little bit on the disproportionate

contribution that the united states is making not only in sudan but this i think exemplifies many of the crises, humanitarian crises, that we find around the world. if there's anything the last election should have told the rest of the world, it is the united states can no longer afford to do this. we are going broke, and once our economy is broken by this irresponsibility that we've had, then we will be able to help no one, not our own people, not other people in crisis. the world needs to take that into consideration, notice it, and plan their futures proportionately. i would suggest that we -- that is not to say that in sudan and other places that we've seen these horrible tragedies take

place, the heartrending murder of innocent people, we care about that, but we can no longer afford to carry as big a burden as we have. and what makes it worse perhaps -- and ambassador williamson, you seem a bit pessimistic that after this $10 billion of investment that we've made, that we will actually succeed. it's a rough road to go. let me ask you, is the road map that has been set down, do you consider that to be adequate? or if it is adequate, has it been enforced and followed? or do we need the roadmap will not succeed because it does not address the issue that's need to be addressed? >> congressman, if i could make a few points that i think are relevant. first, it's noteworthy that when the regime came to power in 1989, total exports were $500

million. they grew to 9.5 billion by 2008, almost all from oil, which is why the oil revenue sharing is crucial. second, with that sort of money coming in, the government of sudan, who designed the genocide in darfur, as of the end of 2008, their total contribution to the humanitarian needs of the people in darfur was $30 million. i think that's not irrelevant to the considerations of how much faith we should have. secondly, china gets 6% of its imported oil. they have now -- from sudan. they have now tipped where they understand it's in their interest to have stability, they should step up more for humanitarian assistance. the larger question on humanitarian assistance is

beyond my purview. it's up to the 435 of you and the 100 across the way to make those decisions ultimately. but i do think there is an impulse in america that is worthy, that is part of our mission that recognizes, whether it's human rights, humanitarian assistance, we have an obligation to step up. but we should be tough-minded about it, get others to step up, too, especially in these times of of economic peril. and, finally, let me just say on the roadmap on good days i'm optimistic, but my experience teaches me to maybe be a little skeptical and cynical. and i think the talk of incentives, without the talk of coercion, without the talk of steel, without the talk of being tough, is a matter of great concern as bismarck said, diplomacy without coercion is like sheets of music without

instruments. >> and no amount of humanitarian assistance is going to increase the standard of of living of anybody for any length of time unless it is accompanied by a democracy area tiezation and a change of character in a regime capable of the type of violence that you've just described. isn't that correct? >> yes, convict gresman. i think it's important to note in the south, not only do they have 80% of this oil revenue, but they have other mineral resource resources and among the richest agricultural land outside of illinois, which of course has the best. >> let me know before my time runs out, which is one moment, madam chairwoman, if we're going to help people in the future and they have this potential wealth that exists, it is not wrong for us to suggest, we are going to

help you in this crisis, but we expect to be paid back one way or the other. >> thank you. the gentleman from ohio, mr. shabbit. >> thank you, madam chair. just a couple of questions briefly. could you discuss the roles of both the african union and the arab league and all of the things we're talking about here this afternoon, and what do you anticipate it will be in the near future? >> quickly, my experience is it's been uneven. the african union understandably is worried about countries being split. there are only two african countries that have just two ethnic groups. most of them have multiple ethnic groups. they're concerned about a contagion as are the nine neighbors. but i think now that they've understood the inevitability of this, they've played a more constructive role. the arab league was unhelpful, as was the african union, on questions of accountability, but

they have helpful on some of the development issues. and gutter in particular should be singled out and the minister of state amahmoud in their extraordinary leadership in trying to get constructive discussions going on darfur. so could they have done more? yes. should they have done more? in my opinion, yes. do we wish they had done more? absolutely. but they have made contributions and more lately than they did a few years ago. >> thank you. and then finally, what can we do to ensure that the corruption which is endemic in much of africa doesn't take root, although certainly there's already corruption in southern sudan, but doesn't thrive in what may soon be africa's newest country? >> transparency, transparency, transparency, are your first three priorities. second, good governance will

require helping train a larger codery of people to run the agencies and departments of a newly independent southern sudan. and third some good green eye shades from outside donors and others try to monitor it. and ultimately, as congressman rorbalker indicated, if there is in fact a democratic process of accountability, that is useful and often determinative aspect in corruption fighting. >> thank you. madam chair, i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much. thank you to the presenters. thank you to -- i mean, our panelists and great members. tomorrow at 10:30 in this room we will be having a briefing on china. with that, this briefing is adjourned. thank you, gentlemen. responsibi.

in our view, there are some areas it's far bertha these are

done by voluntary community groups rather than being directly by public authorities. >> questions to the prime minister, andrew george. >> question 1, mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. in addition to my duties in this house i shall have other further meetings today. >> mr. speaker, they face massive reorganization while same time seeking the greatest savings in its 62-year history. respected professional medical bodies warn that giving -- warn about the risks to public service of giving -- of giving private companies the easy pickings. before pursuing this gamble, will the prime minister carefully about the coalition program which we agreed last may? >> we will listen very carefully

for the responses but making modernization of the nhs a priority, is this, we have in this country european levels of health spending but we don't have european levels of success in our health service. what we want to see other organizations to come into the nhs what we had in labour was success. >> mr. speaker, does the prime minister think it's a sign of success or failure that unemployment is rising and employment is falling? >> well, of course, every increase in unemployment is a matter for huge concern and that is why we are launching the biggest back to work program that this country has ever seen in the work program. what i would say about the figures today, of course, there are some very disappointing

figures particularly on youth unemployment and i'm sure we'll talk about that in a moment. but there are some mixed pictures because the claimant count has gone down for the third month in a row. the number of vacancies is up and also the average of independent forecasters today see growth upwards. the biggest task for this and frankly to this country is to get to grips with the long-term structural problem that youth unemployment going up and it went up 40% under labour. >> mr. speaker, after that complacency people without work, the truth is he's cutting too far, too fast and it is british people who are paying the price. now, youth unemployment, he mentioned youth unemployment. it's at the highest level yet he

is abolishing the jobs fun and the new program doesn't come in to force until the middle of the year. after these figures why doesn't he change his mind, reinstate the future jobs fund and help create an extra 100,000 jobs this year? >> well, first of all, i think it is a good idea to listen to the answer before you read out your next question. let me deal first of all -- first of all, let me deal with the future jobs fund. we looked at the future jobs fund we found out it was expensive, it was badly targeted and it didn't work. we now have -- we now have the figures for the future jobs fund. it was five times more expensive as some other employment programs. and within one month, within one month 50% of those taking part were back on benefits. hardly, hardly any of the jobs -- hardly any of the jobs under the future jobs fund were actually in the private sector. the scheme in birmingham, for

instance, had just 2% of its jobs in the private sector. far too many were make-work jobs in the public sector and they weren't solving the problem. >> this week, a parents group worked to starting a new preschool, it enjoyed cross-party support before the general election and yet i hope my right honorable friend in not wishing the new academy well and to say to the other unions a campaign vilification against those parents, time to back off. >> i think the honorable lady speaks for opening our education system and saying to academies and to free schools, you are welcomed to come in and provide a great education for free to children and to parents in our country. and i have to say it's a very big choice for the party

opposite, whether they stick with the party reform, opening up education or whether they side with the trade unions. >> leaked figures that i managed to get hold off show -- show that the -- show that the police forces -- calm down! [laughter] >> show that the police forces none of wales are going to have to cut their numbers by 1,600 police officers and staff. and the police force told me this morning that just in that one force, 688 officers are going to have disappear. the prime minister said on the second of may last year, that any front line cuts he would support, why is he backing down on his promise? >> well, i find the best way of -- the best way of calming down is reading the own gentleman's poetry to find it very instructive in all police forces are facing a difficult financial settlement. i accept that. the context for all of this is

the vast budget deficit we were left and the huge mess we have to clear up. i have the figures for the south wales police force. next year they have to find a 5% cut. that will take them back, not to some figure of the 1980s. that would take them back to the spending they had in 2007/2008. now, her majesty's group have said it's difficult to make those sorts of reductions. if he wants to ask the question, frankly he should have the manners to listen to the answer. yes, the fact her majesty's inspection says it's possible to achieve those reluctantions while not losing front line officers and that's what needs to be delivered. >> would my right honorable friend agree that the reform program that we have on social security is the first serious

attempt since bev randall to get back to the principle that to coin a phrase we should be offering people a hand up and not a hand down? >> my honorable friend is entirely right. this is an old and radical reform that basically mean that any single person on welfare would be better off in work and better off doing work. and so many of the reforms have simply moved the poverty trap up the income scale and we should always make it worthwhile for people to work harder or to work more and that's what our reforms will do. >> david simpson. >> thank you, mr. speaker. fuel prices in northern ireland chronically are rising forcing many motorists to go to the republic of ireland to fill their car which is a major loss to the exchequer. would the prime minister consider introducing a similar scheme of a rural scheme in northern ireland?

>> i do understand the problems of cross-border issue that he raises and also the problem of fuel smuggling which has been a real problem between northern ireland and the reluctant. the chief secretary of the treasury would have heard what he asked. and obviously we are looking hard at how we can help families and motorists with their fuel and motoring bills. but what i would say is this, everyone should remember the last four increases in fuel duty were all put through from the last labour budget. >> thank you it, mr. speaker. i know like me the prime minister is a fan of the british history in schools. does he think of the political history in the last 13 years are written it will allow pupils to borrow, borrow through the boom or learn from labour's mistakes? >> i hope -- i hope that we can get into the curriculum. the idea that you should fix the roof while the sun is shining.

and it is interesting what we heard at the weekend from the right honorable member. he's now had nine months to digest labour's mistakes. and he's come up with the answer. they didn't spend too much. they didn't too much. and his message to the british people, vote for me and we'll do it all over again. >> dave miliband. >> mr. speaker, can the prime minister guarantee that under his nhs plans hospital waiting times will not rise? >> we want to see waiting times and waiting lists come down. and what i'd say -- what i would say to the right honorable gentleman is the whole aim of these nhs reforms is to make sure we get the value for the money we put in. now, i have to ask him, it's quite clear now that labour -- >> i apologize for interrupting, prime minister. last week's prime minister's questions a 10-year-old constituent of mine came and

observed and asked me afterwards why does so many people shout their heads off. it's rude and it shouldn't happen. the prime minister. >> the point is this, we are putting the none, 10.6 billion extra during this parliament. money which by the way the labour party doesn't support. but we want to get value for that money because frankly today we don't have the right cancer outcomes. we don't have the right outcomes in terms of heart disease. we want to do better. now, is he in favor of reform or is he going to propose it all? >> mr. speaker, i noticed he didn't answer the question. patients want to know something quite simple. how long will they have to wait for treatment? they all remember waiting for years under the last conservative government. and they know that we have the shortest waiting times in history because of what the last labour government did. if he thinks his reforms are so

good, why can't he give us is simple guarantee that waiting times will not rise? >> i tell you how waiting times will rise if we stop putting the money into the nhs, yes. and this is what his shadow -- his shadow chancellor isn't here today. but what his shadow chancellor said about our spending plans to increase nhs spending by more than inflation every year, he said there is no logic or rationale to it. that is the answer. you get investment in the nhs from this coalition government. you'll get cuts from the party opposite. >> mr. speaker, he can't make a guarantee because he's abolished the guarantees. he's abolished the guarantees the labour brought in like the 18 week waiting list. he's taking the national out of national health service. now patients are worried. doctors and nurses say his reforms are extremely risky and potentially disastrous. why is he so arrogant to think

he is right and all of the people who say he is wrong are wrong? >> well, first of all, the right honorable gentleman is simply wrong what he said. the waiting time points that he made are written into the nhs constitution and will stay under this government. so first of all, he's wrong. the second point, is we won't be able to get waiting times down. we won't be able to improve in our public health in this country unless we cut the bureaucracy in the nhs. that is what this about. now, we are spending 1.4 billion pounds to save 1.8 billion pounds that will save 5 billion pounds by the end of this parliament. if you oppose the reforms, where is that money going to come from? >> mr. speaker, he obviously hasn't noticed that people aren't convinced by his reforms. even the gp sitting on his own benches says this is like tossing a hand grenade into the nhs.

isn't the truth, mr. speaker, that just like on every other issue, we get broken promises from this prime minister. he's breaking his promise on no top-down reorganization of the nhs. he's breaking his promise on the real terms rise and nhs funding. he's breaking his promise on a promise of 3,000 more midwives. and he's breaking his promise to put patients first. it's the same old story. you can't trust the tories on the nhs. >> the same old usual, feeble prescripted lines he practices them -- he practices them every week. i'm sure they sound fantastic in the bathroom mirror. the fact -- the fact is, as we can see, this government is putting the money into the nhs. they don't support that. this government is cutting the bureaucracy in the nhs, they don't support that. this government is reforming the

nhs so we got the best in europe. they don't support that. so that is his policy. no to the money. keep the bureaucracy, don't worm the nhs. i go back to the blank sheet of paper. >> mr. bob russell. >> i want to hear mr. russell, bob russell. >> prime minister, our government says it wants to help disabled people back to work. two years ago, my constituent, mr. robert oxley had a serious motorcycle accident leaving one leg amputated and the other leg no longer functions. a year later, he recovered. his firm gave him back his job, which has continued through the disability allowance and mobility. regrettably, those in charge including on the tribunal have taken away his dls, his mobility

car on monday. he is now out of work or will be. could i ask the prime minister where in that story do the words "fairness" all in together feature? >> i am very happy to take up the honorable gentleman's case. we have all in our constituencies seen cases where tribunals have come to conclusions that completely fly in the face of commonsense. i'm very happy to take up that case and have a look at it and see what could be done. we should -- we should do what we can to help disabled people particularly with the mobility needs that they have. i know -- i know having filled out those forms myself how soul-destroying and complicated it can be and we need to help people who can't get around to make sure they do. >> tony lloyd? >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister will be aware that my constituents in manchester have some of the worst health and brutally die younger than people in other

parts of the country. if you won't give a guarantee about waiting lists nationally will he make a solemnly and binding pledge to my constituents to at least to the inner cities waiting lists will not go up either in numbers or in time? >> the pledge i would make? -- make is this. we have health inequalities in our country are as bad as victorian times. we've had that after a decade of increased money into the nhs, but we're not getting it right. that's the reason for carrying out these reforms. if you just stay where we are, which now seems to be the policy of the party opposite, we'll get a lag behind on cancer. we're going to lag behind on heart disease and we're going to have a situation where his constituents will die longer than mine because we don't have a fair system. let's get it sorted out. >> did my right honorable friend tell the prime minister of

france last week that britain will never permit fiscal control of its economy by the european union? >> short answer, yes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister has repeated his claim that the government is putting more none in the nhs and the durham hospital trust are told they must make cuts of 15% over the next four years. why? >> first of all, let me just remind her that her own shadow chancellor says there is no logic or rational to our policy of real terms increases in the nhs. now, what we are cutting in the nhs we are cutting the bureaucracy of the nhs. if you look at the primary care trust and the strategic health authorities, since 2002, under labour, their spending increased by 120% on themselves.

on their bureaucracy. now, we can go on spending this money and not put it into patient care and better public health. i think that's wrong. that's why we're making these changes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. severe disruption to the train services in the winter of 2009 led auto urgent severe weather audit. this winter saw disruption with services leaving some stranded south of the river. a 75% cut in peak services over criticisms for my constitutes. what steps are the government going to take to shake up network rail and bring about a radical improvement to our train services? >> well, the honorable lady makes a very good point and that's why my honorable lady the secretary of transport will have an audit how they perform during the worst weather in december. there are some particular issues we got to look at, like the frozen third rail that affected so many services and she's right to call -- to account network rail on the train operators.

we want to make sure they improve the service that they provided and also the way they communicate with the public when things aren't going right. >> graham m. morris. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister see the conflict of interest in private health care companies which stand to benefit most from his health care reforms to have 750,000 pounds to the conservative party? is that what it means that we're all in it together? >> let me -- let me tell him the big difference that there will be in the health reforms between what we are proposing and what the labour government did. what the labour government did was rigged the market in favor of a few hand-picked independent private sector suppliers. that's what they did. what we are saying there should be a level playing field. and before he complains about it, he should have a look at his own party's manifesto and i quote it almost directly, the private sector should be allowed into the nhs alongside the nhs. those are the words from the labour manifesto written by his

right honorable friend. >> will tony blair's correspondence with george bush be pushed before mr. blair's next appearance in front of the iraqi inquiry. >> there's a very long-standing intention quite rightly that a serving prime minister does not and cannot order the release of papers that refer to a previous prime minister and that's why the cabinet secretary will be looking at this issue and it's a matter for him. anyone who is unhappy with the conclusions is clearly able to write to tony blair and to make their views known. for my own part, i hope this inquiry can be as open and as clear as possible so we get to the bottom of the very important issues that we're looking at. >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the prime minister will be aware, i spent most of my working life in schools and colleges. i have overwhelming evidence of the benefits of education maintenance allowances. to bring benefits to teenagers

from modest backgrounds both in terms of employeeibility skills and in raising achievement. so can i urge the prime minister to go back to his position where he claims to support the eme so we can support our economy as we move forward. >> the problem as the honorable gentleman knows we have, we want more people to stay on in school, but we have to look at the current system and how it's working. and the last labour government commissioned research and found that 90% of those on ema's would be attending school in any event. we also got to look at the context in which educational maintenance allowances were introduced to this country. this is what it is former prime minister, his parliamentary colleague, said at the time. we will fund this major advance in educational opportunity from savings we've made from our success in reducing debt. [laughter] >> is it any surprise we're having to look at these spending

programs and work out how we get better value for money to clear up the mess that we've been left? >> my constituencies are still suffering today from the disastrous top-down housing targets imposed by the last labour government. can my right honorable friend assure me that the localism bill will restore planning power to local people in colby and in east northampton shire? >> i can't give the assurance because the whole failure of the top-down housing targets is not only did they create huge unease around the country but they didn't actually result in a building of very many houses. as house-building feel to a low level. our local version will make sure where councils go ahead and build houses they will benefit from doing so. >> tom clark. >> while we all welcome -- does

the right honorable gentleman accept that there are hundreds of thousands of southerners seeking to move from the north back home and will he ensure that they have the maximum protection as well as the maximum of humanitarian aide. >> i think the right honorable gentleman to highlight what a relative success this process has been given some of the warnings that were made about the dangers of the referendum and the process that was being followed. part of the reason for that, and i pay tribute to previous governments as well, the countries who care about the sudan and want it to work well have put a huge amount of effort including my right honorable friend who was at the united nations about this. i will listen to what he said and the movement of people is carried out in the best way possible. >> thank you, mr. speaker. would my right honorable friend agree with me that as part of the nhs reforms we must tackle

straight away the facts of senior management in both nhs trusts and pct's are being rewarded for failure by being prompted or given large payoffs and it should stop now? >> my honorable friend is entirely right. there have been too many occasions where a manager in the nhs has failed in one pct or one strategic health authority and gone on and failed in another. one of the answers to this is the greater transparency that we are bringing to all these arrangements so people can see how much they're paid, what the results are, how successful they were before they go on and land another well-paid job. >> the government has announced this week that it will not be extending the uk rules around political party donations to northern ireland at this time. can i ask the prime minister could he clarify what drove that decision most? was it the security concerns or was it the lobbying of local parties who simply do not want to be exposed to transparency? >> well, i will look carefully at what she says. i mean, clearly the situation in

northern ireland in terms of security is a very difficult and sensitive one that at the moment and the government is giving it a huge time and attention to help the authorities in everything they are doing to combat the terrorist threat but in terms of the specific question she asked perhaps i can write to her and give her a considered response. >> my right honorable friend be aware that it's pretty disgraceful to lay in filibustering tactics? in an attachment -- in an attempt to delay the introduction of the a.b. referendum bill. will my right honorable friend give the house that this government will make no concessions to those who filibuster? >> i think my honorable friend is entirely right. we should not be making concessions to a budget mainly of former mp's who are supposed to be supporting the right honorable gentleman who wants the a.b. referendum to take

place. so i have to ask him, if he's so in favor of this, and so wants to stand on a platform, how has he lost control of his party? >> nick smith? >> thank you, mr. speaker. always logistics from south wales of a fleet of 270 bodies, last year they brought maybe 11 million liters of fuel, paid over 6 million in fuel duty. they've shouldered a 14% increasing fuel bills this past year. what's the prime minister going to do about high fuel bills? >> i make two points to the honorable gentleman. first of all, there is the point about the fuel duty increases. they were all part of the labour government's budget. that is a -- it's no good shaking your head. you all supported it and voted for it at the time. but there is another answer,

which is we should be looking at britain's people and see how we can help them with a discount with those who are british based and looking at that and looking at what could have been. british holidays and have been put down and we would like to get that right. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister agree with me that what has happened -- what has napped birmingham with the closure of our unit are the transfer of a children's unit in blackburn would not happen when they tack over with our gp's to take it over? >> the honorable gentleman is entirely right. under the last government and under the previous arrangements, hospital closures and decisions were driven by bureaucrats in whitehall and strategic authorities in pct's. they didn't depend on the decisions patients and gf's were making about the structure of health services in this country. that is the big change we're making.

in future the success of your hospital, your health center will depend on the choices you make with your gp. that's the big change. and it will drive a better health service. >> the money lending teams in order to encourage saving and safe lending. after all this hard work his government website assigned for vulnerable people to loan companies offering rates of 2869% apr will the prime minister meet with me for the closing? >> i think there's unity in this house that we should try to encourage credit unions and get people out of the hands of the loan sharks. that is our policy and what we want to do and i'll be happy to arrange that meeting. >> can i very much welcome my right honorable friend's

comments about the localism bill but can he also confirm that the provisions of the bill. apply to applications for onshore wind farms and one in my constituency one that has been described that's harmful to the local environment and is deeply unpopular with the local community. >> i can give my right honorable friend that the localism bill does address this issue. and as well as doing that, i think it is important that where local communities are affected by things like onshore wind they need to make sure they will benefit from those developments and the localism bill brings a whole new approach which i think is much better settle this very difficult debate than what has been done up to now. >> today there's an order before parliament to describe the tppp, the pakistan taliban. just one week into his predecessor's term in office as predecessor, the prime minister

demanded to know why he had not prescribed it. just eight months into his term in office, committee explain to the house why he's not fulfilled his manifesto commitment? >> you could put it another way, why did the last government have 13