>> i would add it's a region with significant displacement for several decades. you have africa dealing with its own serious spiralling crisis as well. 200,000 people have come from sudan from the two areas of blue nile into south sudan, just in the last two years. so these people are now pearled. there's always greater danger once the families are displaced and once they're moving into countries with fewer resources and some are already fragile because of pressures of dealing with so many displaced populations. let me thank you as the ranking member, you have done some tremendous work over the last

year. at this time they're recognizing. i would like to thank the witnesses for sharing their insights today. 2011 i led a resolution welcoming the independence of south sudan, and urging that its leaders address some of of the long standing challenges in order to put them on a path towards long-term stability. and just three years down from the date of the referendum, as you mentioned. secretary, deeply dispinted by the senseless violence, by the rapidly expanding political challenge in south sudan. a thorough engagement. ambassador booth is showing and for our ability to step up to the plate quickly. and start, if you would for me,

secretary, with just a quick summery as to why south sudan matters to the united states. why this crisis matters to people of the united states. >> thank you for that question. for 30 years the united states has been supporting the people of south sudan. for south sudan became an entity. supporting the right to exist. the right to freedom of religion. and their fight against the government of sudan. we birthed this nation. and there are americans from all walks of life. me e-mail is up since this started on december 15th from americans concerned about what is happening in sudan. i've not gotten a single e-mail from someone saying don't spend

your time working on this. and so we do hear as a nation about this country. we also have a significant population of sudanese americans who have thrived in our country. but who have an abiding interest in sudan. it goes without saying that we care. we have an interest. but we also have an interest in maintaining piece in the area and making sure there's no space that extreme it groups can take advantage of. i think if we leave it, it could become a problem. and then it becomes a bigger problem for us. >> i agree with you that we have both values priors. a new fragile democracy. we want to see it launched and healthy and successful.

does the united states stay the course? do we remain engaged in a leadership role as we fight for democracy? and as the negotiations are moving the forward, there is a serious fire immediately. i hope there will be a broader focus. including corruption chrks is one of the main challenges. what role might the united states be asked to play monitoring the cease fire. what additional resources might we bring to the table or be called upon to bring to the table to make sure they're successful. and what additional resources, if i might ask, in both the administrative networks do we need to be deploying in order to be effective in our humanitarian

relief efforts. a relief efforts. >> again, thank you for that question. i'll turn to my colleague. we've been viewed by both sides as an honest broker. we been acse other sides. and so i think we probably got it right. and we're looking at how we can support the efforts to ensure that there is peace, and each side honors commitments to a cease fire. we're looking at what sources we may have available to support the effort. >> on the humanitarian side, as i mentioned earlier we've added $50 million in addition to what was already $318 million portfolio. if this conflict persists, if

the needs continue to be this urgent, we will start running into tough choices given the rising cry cease that we have with syria, the typhoon that we just responded to. so thanks to the very important support of congress, we were able to do what we needed to do last year. as we look ahead, there will be again tough decisions and the need for the support of all of you in order for us to maintain bloebl humanitarian leadership. >> this is a great example of how it makes it possible for you to indeed effectively and rapidly respond. my next question has to do with the regional actor and global actor. what sort of messages are we sending to him about the role

that we welcome or we hope that uganda might play in what you make of as motives and what are the challenges with uganda. and my last question is, what role does china play? the chinese have been quite active in the region and stability rather than picking sides. >> uganda initially went into -- went into south sudan to support needed infrastructure. so they provided troops to secure the airport. and to secure the road to nimily to ensure that their citizens were able to come out safely. we do know and this has come up

as an issue of the talks that the ugandans have indicated, and they said it publicly, that they support the government of south kiir. that they have an interest in the region, and they want to ensure that a democratically elected government is not overthrown by violence. it has caused an issue. it got announced very early on after the summit? that they would support stability in the region, and would be prepared to do so militarily. so this is something that we're watching very closely.

their actions do not lead to greater conflict they have indicates to us that they strongly support the peace process. they support the negotiations. but in the meantime they will continue to provide a stabilizing force in juba. >> on china? >> on china there's a chinese special envoy who is in adis. he's been working very closely with ambassador booth. they have the interest. >> thank you very much. thank you. i appreciate working with on this issue. he had many of the same questions that i wanted to ask. with regard to uganda, they moved in quickly with troops to secure exit of their citizens

and whatever else. they did it as a neighbor. the government of south sudan, they were asked to come in. >> the peace keeper troops in there, what countries make up those forces right now. we have recently just bangladeshis. we have some kenyans. >> thank you, with regard to the oil revenue. there are some reports that i see say that production is down 20%.

others saying that it stops completely. what do we know at this point? >> the latest information i have is that many of the oil wells have been stopped. i don't know what the percentage is. there is some oil left in the pipeline. most of the pumping has ceased. >> the only option that the pipelines go through sudan, or over land by truck on coast, that's not much of an option. it never was. and no other industry in the country to speak of really. i think the largest industry outside the oil industry is a brewery. so not much to fall back on. this is one of the first examples i have seen where the u.s. has actually taken the

prohibition that congress has placed on aid to countries that undergo a coup or new governments by virtue of a coup. if this is a coup and succeeds, this will be a cut-off of aid. are we using that as leverage now against the opposition forces? >> we said to the opposition that we will not support their efforts to violently overthrow the government. that would include aid programs. i have to be careful. we're not talking about the programs of the people that support sudan. right now all of our support to the government of south sudan, all of that support is not being

implemented because we can't implement it. so we're not doing any programs right now. i would suspect at a point if this violence continues that we would suspend that supportment. >> those programs, if they were to be implemented now, what percentage of them are in the humanitarian area? that would not be affected by our restrictions. and is it a real threat to nose in opposition for the vice president's forces or whatever that aid will be cut off? >> you know, i don't think it's a threat that works. if either of these sides cared about their people, they wouldn't be fighting. and we have told them they stand a chance of losing all support from the u.s. government.

>> to make a sharp distinction between the humanitarian funds that are in need from the development activities, some of which went directly to support government capacity building and standing up of the new institutions. they're put in separate categories. >> some of the development categories to improve the lives of the people, is that a fuzz zi area? or is there a clear distinction as to what is humanitarian and what is not? >>. >> there's always a distinction that directly assists people, such as health facilities or health programs or the community based reconciliation programs that we've conducted. that's the consideration that would come into play should we need to. >> can you give me some idea? we're saying're going to cut off

aid. if this succeeds, for example. if this coup does succeed, how much of our aid will still flow? can you give me a percentage? i know there's some fuzz ziness. that's why i'm wondering what will go to a u.s. if a new government comes in? >> let us get back to you with that information. i think it will take additional consideration. but we will be happy to get back to you on that. there's an inability to conduct the programs in any case just because of the confusion and the violence that's under way. it's the humanitarian programs that we're continuing to push out and able to ensure that aid is getting to people. >> with regard to china, this is the first time china has issued a statement with regard to security concerns there.

china tends to, when they invest, they invest in human capitol as well and have personnel there. is their concern the safety of workers there? have there been casualties among those who are in the country? foreign workers? >> i have not heard that there have been any casualties that the chinese have suffered. but many of them are working in the areas of oil production, and all of those people have been evacuated out. and so for that reason the oil wells are not operating. >> is china doing anymore than making a statement? that's the first time they've gone that far. but have nay done anything else? >> they are actively involved in the peace process in the addis. i understand they've been holding meetings with various parties there. and they certainly have been

working very closely with the ambassador. >> well, thank you both. that's a tough duty and i know you are working hard. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here. i'm sorry i missed your testimony. you may have talked more about th this. can you talk about to what extent we're cooperating the u.n. and others on the ground and how that's working and whether there are ways to improve that or how concerned are you about what's happening there? >> we're working very closely with the u.n. and with our key allies, including those who have been long strong partners on south sudan. the u.a.

the eu of canada. we are in almost daily contact in nairobi and through our headquarters conversations. the u.n. country team is leading the charge in terms of coordinating the overall assistance, and seeing when the opportunities arise to get aid into the compounds. the ngo community is very courageously still operating many of their programs. there are ngos doing protection patrols inside the compounds, for example. so there's active close coordination. as i said earlier, one of the bright spots in the middle of a lot of bad news is there's a history of the action in south sudan. born of necessity, but it gives us the capacity to respond. as one can in tough situations.

>> obviously some of the stories that have come out have been in the atrocities this women and particular challenges facing women. women and children. can you talk about whether there are specific efforts around humanitarian assistance to address the concerns. >> again, against the backdrop of a lot of security constraints and impeded access to the degree that humanitarian workers are able to reach the populations. within the displaced communities. some of the real effort has been to get medical supplies, food and water to these spontaneous settlements of displaced people.

so the humanitarian and protection needs are hand in hand. and one of the most important things that we can do is improve the security situation overall, which my colleagues talk about in terms of increasing mistruths, and most of all, having improved access in peace negotiations. >> there was a report on the news this morning, criticizing our efforts in south sudan as being, as our having not been tough enough. i don't remember the exact phrasing. but that was the gist of what it was saying. some of the new leaders. and not expecting enough of them. and whether there are other things that we can do to help put pressure on those leaders to encourage them to resolve the situation? >> thank you. i think we have to keep the pressure on.

but even before this started, our ambassador had made numerous statements concerning her concerns about the situation. she has been in regular contact with the government as the political situations started to unravel, almost a year ago. she was making those statements. he indicated to me that in congressional testimony in june. and also we have continued to express the concerns, both to bashar as well as to kiir. >> and you talked about uganda and the role they're playing.

there are situations for good or bad that we should be concerned about. >> i think we should thank the ethiopian government and the kenyan government who have been actively involved in the negotiations, working to bring both parties to the peace table. the presidents visited south sudan, visited juba, and impressed upon the president the importance of sending a delegation. i know they are speaking on a regular basis with and pushing the government to release the detainees. they have been working closely with us to look at ways that we can support the efforts. and so i think the efforts have been extraordinarily positive.

we have also talked to many countries in the region concerning additional troops for the u.n. and all of them are looking at ways that they might either move troops from one -- another peace keeping force to provide support to the u.n. in south sudan. and pretty much we're asking them to run from one crisis to contribute to another. >> thank you, thank you mr. chairman. >> senator cain has been patiently waiting for his opportunity. >> if you patiently wait, your colleagues ask all your questions. that's not a bad thing. you get to hear the answers to the questions you want to ask. just a few things. to what extent is the motive? is it more of a collateral consequence?

>> i think it's probably both. i know fighting in the north, the rebel forces clearly want to maintain or gain control of all resources, and the government is fighting tooth and nail to retain those resources. and certainly any government that wants to take over power will be looking at the oil resources as resources they would want to have contributed to the efforts. and we've made very, very clear, that if there is a violent takeover, those oil resources will be sanctioned. >> and pick up on questions the senator was asking about the delivery of humanitarian aid. some of your written testimony. tell us about that. i want to make sure i understand. it sounds like the challenges

with the delivery of humanitarian aid right now are mostly security challenges. there's not other kinds of challenges that are making it hard to deliver the humanitarian aid that we want delivered. do i understand your testimony correctly on that? >> i would say security plus logistical. >> can you talk about is that? i think you testified about the security side. that would be helpful. >> so the nile is a virtual highway for moving supplies around. and all the barges have been commandeered and are unavailable to move supplies. there are very few roads. we have to work against the rainy season. typically on an annual basis. those are shut off during the

rainy season. there's a lot of logistical supplies. we have funded additional flights so the u.n. can fly to the spaces where we have a concentration of displaced people. they're otherwise not very easily reached. so it's expensive. it doesn't let us move as much as quickly. so it's security compounded by logistics. >> when does the rainy season start? >> it will start in may. we have until may to position for the following year, or we will face increased hunger around the country in addition to the consequences of this violence. >> i would love it if you would type the committee informed about steps we should be taking or working with the administration to support the humanitarian aid.

thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, senator, very much. ambassador, there have been points of atrocities by all sides of the conflict in south sudan with mass graves discovered in reports of newer civilians being murdered or belonging toe the wrong ethnic group. i was especially daddened by a report that members of the south sudanese army had targeted newer civilians on the basis of their ethnicity. given the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars of assistance that the united states has provided to south sudanese forces since 2005. this creates disturbing questions. the united states has suspended security assistance and training in december.

under what circumstances will the security be allowed to resume? will there be consideration now paid to the fact that we need assurances? that our resistance in training will not be used to commit human rights violations. >> thank you for that question. we have been really saddened by the events that have turned this fight into a battle that is ethnic in nature. and particularly that is happening inside of the military. we have asked the u.n. about the information on mass graves. they've not been able to confirm those. . we hope to get them out in the field so we can collect that evidence and be prepared to deal with the evidence in terms of holding people accountable.

but without seeing the evidence of the mass graves, we do know that there have been extraordinary killings, both in the north and up and around juba. and this is something that has you all worried. >> this raises serious questions an how we will imp plemt programs that provide training with the sudanese military after the actions have been made public. >> so here's my question to you. in january of 2012, president obama added south sudan to the list of countries eligible to buy weapons for the united states during fiscal year 2012 the state department reported that it had authorized commercial sales of $9 million worth of u.s. made military equipment to south sudan. including military electronics and missed related technology.

more than $3 million of equipment was shipped. in contrast, the european union maintained an arms embargo. will the state department suspend or limit the sales to south sudan, given the risk of u.s. weapons being used to commit atrocities? >> at the moment, we're not implementing any of those programs. let me get back to you with a full answer to that. my inclination is to say that that will likely be the case. but i prefer to get back to you with more details. >> the administration in general is in the process of loosening the regulations that government exports. most could be done without a license or legal requirement that the state department review the sales to make sure they will not fuel armed conflict or harm

human rights. the press has reported at one point the administration was seriously considering loosening patrols on guns and ammunition, since they were not critical to maintaining a military foreign intelligence advantage of the united states. can you give us your opinion, madame ambassador, whether or not we do need a careful review of armed exports in general to assess the potential for them to be used to commit human rights violation that is critical to protecting civilians, not only in south sudan, but in other countries in the world. >> i can speak on south sudan. i will certainly take your question back. my view is in south sudan we are suspending the implementation of the programs and we'll be

looking closely at any support we provide them in the future. >> for my part, i think the union is closer to where we should be on these issues. i think the united states has to step back. because the long term implication of anything that we do can be profound. if we start selling nuclear power plants to countries that have long-term instability issues, or we sell arms to countries that we know have much higher probability than not of being turned around and used for purposes other than those which were originally intended. then we have the responsibility to reevaluate whether or not it makes any sense going forward. and finally the overwhelmi inii majority depend on rain. temperature has increased. rain has decreased in the last several decades with negative consequences for agriculture and food and security.

we know that that then creates a threat multiplier inside the countries like sudan. can you talk about that in your opinion, as to what we can do as a country to help to reduce the long-term impact of climate chang change. >> it's specifically in areas that have chronic poverty overlayed with the continuous shocks of droughts and floods and the changes that you're identifying. we've made progress in kenya and ethiopia and somalia. and we are moving the forward in south sudan. we are seeing the disruption of all of that. that's the case when you have conflict that roles back conflict and gains. hopefully we can resume that and

enable greater management of risk and greater adaptation to these changes so we get ahead of the kind of natural disaster cycles. >> you get into a very bad negative feedback loop where it's a very very thing that caused the problem. the smaller and smaller natural resources and that makes it more difficult to solve the problem, the original cause of the problem. >> that's absolutely right. understanding how to manage the conflict is critical for the programs. we've done a lot of the work in the community level throughout south sudan. we are not getting widespread reports of violence among communities. so far it's armed actors, and we would love to brief you on the resilience programs. >> the only problem we know, the

absence of resources related to climate change further exacerbate the ethnic con flicks. they're fighting over less and less, which makes it easier to list the ethnic brethren and again, i would urge that human rights be a factor that is much higher in priority. i think it's time for us to have that re-evaluation. >> let me thank you. you bring some very critical issues. some of the questions that have been raised about who in our continuation of assistances, why this committee voted 16-1 in a bipartisan basis to create a language to deal with the circumstances. my hope as this bill moves the forward that the appropriations committee will look at the language, and if not, they will have an opportunity to consider the language on the the floor. the state department cannot be in a position of picking and

choosing by having a standard that's universal for national security. i think that's incredibly important. >> thank you again for your testimony. i'm just listening to a lot of questions here. and in the opening question you mentioned that bashar did not undertake a coup, in your opinion. that forces went to his home. he left and then this began. then on the continued basis, talking about no aid if there was a coup at any time or a volatile, a violent take over. i hope, and i've seen juganda i reporting thousands of troops may help the regime. i hope all the players and ourselves are are putting enough pressure on kiir to solve this.

as i listen to the questions and answering, it feels like most of the pressure is on the other side. and i just hope the pressure is being applied in a very balanced way. and you don't have to respond to that. but just in listening to the answers, i'm not sure that would come out in this testimony. >> we'll move onto the second panel. you're excused. and with thanks to the next panel, i will introduce for their patience and the input that they'll have before the committee now, ambassador who served from 2011 to 2013 and previously served as the u.s. senior adviser, a human rights activist and cofounder of the enough project to end genocide and crimes against humanity and

kate, who has served as the assistant administrator for africa and mission director. let me -- evidently you all know each other very well. handshakes and kisses are being shared. so let me again thank you for your patience, but your testimony is incredibly important. we ask you to summarize your statements in five minutes so we can have the dialogue with you. your full statements will be included in the record without objection. ambassador lineman, i'll start with you. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman and all the members of the committee here, this is a tragic situation.here. this is a tragic situation, and it's important -- >> one moment. >> i'm sorry. >> if we could ask those who are leaving to do so quietly and exit the -- so we can hear these

witnesses. ambassador? >> i was asked to talk about the context and origins of this crisis, but let me make, if i can, two comments about some of the issues raised earlier. i think the importance of strengthening the u.n. peace keeping operation, as was discussed here, it's absolutely vital that the people who have sought protection under the u.n. be protected, and that structure there needs a great deal of help. it will take more than the u.n. resolution, a lot of work, and i hope the u.s. can provide logistic and other support to get the troops there. the mandate is there, but it needs to be activated. there has to be a much more aggressive role in protecting civilians, and eventually monitoring the cease fire. so i appreciate the attention that's been given to that. the second thing is i want to point out that the work of the

special envoy don booth and the work of ambassador susan page in juba. they are on the ground working this issue all the time. but their presence there in both places sends the message that the u.s. isn't walking away from this crisis. the support to juba is very, very important and i'm glad it was emphasized in the testimony. i want to talk about the run-up to this crisis to illustrate the weaknesses of the institutions, the political and the military institutions in south sudan, because it's important that as we look ahead to how these issues are revolved, it's not simply a reconciliation between two men or even return to the status quo, because the underlying issues, the

underlying weaknesses are going to take something much more and it's going to take a much more active role by the international community in solving these problems than we had before. let me just describe two trends, two developments that led to this crcrisis. one, going back a year and a half or more is the uneasiness or worry within the ruling party about the way the country was being governed. there was not attention to the party by president kiir, not even to the president. it was more on the basis of a st. paul group of advisers. and even more disturbing, relying more and more on intelligence and security people to harass opponents. journalists assassinated. others being pushed out of the country. became a major concern in our relations with south sudan. so there was a real concern about that governance. and then the second challenge

came from mushar, challenging he was going to challenge for the presidency. he is a very international figure. he split in the '90s, fought against it. there was a major massacre. these things haven't been forgotten. so the party was faced with a dilemma. if you don't give him a path to the presidency, there could be a crisis and a split. if you do give him a path to the presidency, other people will be very upset. instead of having a party capable of doing it, president kiir went the other direction. he froze and eventually dissolved all the party mechanism. he treated the elements from both of these crises as just direct challenges to him and as and as inciting unrest.

not because these people now mostly in detention were support ing mushar's presidency. but the way these issues were not being addressed. instead, by december, president kiir dissolved many of the policy institutions and it was very clear there was no resolution taking place. then we had all the unraveling. i emphasize this because when we look ahead, it's not enough to say well, we just reconcile. there needs to be a process that gets at the basic structures of governance in south sudan. enough protection for democracy and human rights. for how parties are supposed to operate, etc. the constitutional process in south sudan has not moved forward. and that gives us a vehicle for dealing with a lot of

participation from civil society, the churches, etc. in a new constitution for south sudan, there would be proceed the next elections and maybe bring new leadership to the country. there should be an advisory committee from the u.n., the u.s., africa union, etc. the same goes for the economy. there is an oil driven economy. there has to be a much more dynamic relationship between the international community and south sudan over the management of the economy and how people can be helped. otherwise going back to the old institutions will not be sufficient. we have invested the united states heavily in this process. between sudan and south sudan,

since 2005, the united states has spent i estimate around $12 billion in peace keeping, in darfur, in humanitarian activities and the birthing of south sudan. we can't turn back on this. it's going to take a lot of time and effort. if we recognize the fundamental weaknesses in these institutions, we and our partners can start to address this. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. pendergast? >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member corker. this has been crucial to development of u.s. policy to sudan for years, now even decades. i think having this hearing sends a really important signal to the people of south sudan that we care and we're watching very closely, so i thank you for that.

i want to move right to the solutions on page 4 of my testimony. i want to propose four ways that the administration and congress supporting the broader peace process that many of you have talked about. first way that the u.s. can help, i think, is to help expand this peace process, beyond just a deal between the guys with the biggest guns. this goes into the heart of what you're sending in your initial questions. the u.s. can play a major role in helping to ensure that the current process that's unfolding doesn't repeat the mistakes of past mediation efforts in sudan and south sudan. i've tried to document some of them in the written testimony earlier. this will require i think a team of diplomats that can be accompanying our current special envoy. let me just say that sudan -- itself, not south sudan, sudan itself has no peace process to speak of.

darfur with the mountains, blue nile, eastern sudan, all these places, particularly the first three, there are huge conflicts with thousands and thousands of deaths over the course of the last year alone, and hundreds of thousands of displaced people over the course of the last year alone. nothing is happening on that front. so we need a team, a cell i think of people to work with our special enjoy, to be able to help deepen these processes. particularly in the south, i want to associate myself very strongly with what ambassador lyman said. there are a number of layers. but then you have to bring in others. you have to get involved with the governance reforms that has to be part of this process. there are reasons why the war erupted so quickly, whether it was a coup or not, and spread to all the different regions of the country. well, there's a lot of problems, so they're not being addressed through the regular channels, so they need to be reformed.

the intercommunal reconciliation efforts have sort of petered out and need to be revived. the constitutional process that princeton talked about. and support for army reform and ddr. we can talk more about that if you want the q&a because i think it's really important. so i think their work gets backed, of course, by susan rice and secretary kerry and president obama himself, ambassador powell. they've all been making contributions in a good way, just like in past administrations we've seen that from secretary powell and others and secretary rice in the cpa negotiation. and that needs to continue. congress can be helped from ensuring that these resources are available from the diplomatic efforts, for building the kind of team to be able to undertake protracted negotiation. that's what it's going to require for the peace to have a chance in south sudan and in sudan. second way the u.s. can help is i think to reinvent the troika.

it involved the three countries, the u.s., britain, and norway. it went back to the late '90s. played a crucial role in the mediation process leading up to the 2005 comprehensive peace agreement. i think the troika can play an even more important role in the new peace efforts in south sudan and in the ongoing effort to try to build a peace process in sudan. and so, if they added another member, and that is china, bringing china into the tent in a more formal way would increase the emphasis on the parties. we need the leverage. and engaging even india would also be potentially productive. so i think a high level white house effort should be undertaken with beijing to find common ground on what our two countries can support together in south sudan and a lot of work has already been done. i don't want to say anything negative about that. but a very high level specific effort to try to figure out how

the u.s. and china can work together. i think they can do that in the context of what can be a revived troika. i think for its part, the congress can help by engaging directly with some officials from china. in exploring the ways that the u.s. and china can work together for peace in the sudans. third way the u.s. can help is to collect evidence of atrocities and to sanction the perpetrators. this goes to the heart of what senator cardin was talking about earlier. and i think we all know what that means, but there are two ways you can do it. you can collect the evidence and use that evidence immediately to impose targeted sanctions against individuals who are found to be perpetrating, suspected of perpetrating mass atroci atrocities. and you can turn over the bodies and work for the creation of bodies or the existing bodies like the icc. but the creation of bodies like a mixed court in south sudan that can work to begin to end the cycle of impunity and begin

to prosecute those that are committing these kinds of atrocities, as i think everyone in this committee and panel thinks, if we don't start to deal with those kinds of questions, it just leads to a deepening of a cycle of violence and impunity that we've seen, not only in south sudan, but as was mentioned already in a number of other places in africa and around the world. for its part, i think congress could ask for regular briefings from the administration. formal briefings on the evidence of atrocities and how specifically the u.s. is responding on these two areas. targeted sanctions and prosecutions. what are we doing? the fourth way the u.s. can help is to help negotiate humanitarian access. i think the u.s. has been admirable, going all the way back to when kate was running things. admirable in the way we have responded to the humanitarian crisis. we have a long history of negotiated access agreements in south sudan that we can build on. i think we don't want to wait a long time before we get those negotiated access agreements to get to people, particularly

there are people all over south sudan, but i want to highlight one group of people that are extremely at risk, and those are those refugees from sudan, from the nuba mountains who are in south sudan and have no resources to call upon. and their home area is in sudan are the subject of intensive bombings in south sudan in the mountains today. so to be able to negotiate the access up to those areas and ensure that the parties uphold those agreements is terribly important. in conclusion, track record of this commerce is moving clearly with regard to south sudan. i know i speak for my fellow panelists and so many others in expressing our deep appreciation for your continuing advocacy on behalf of the people of sudan and south sudan. thank you very much.

>> thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify in front of you today. to improve the lives of the people of south sudan has been undone. as others have indicated today, the violence could devolve further. i would like to offer a few observations on the current crisis and then make several recommendations. let me be clear from the outset, upon south sudan's independence in 2011, the united states pledged its commitment to continue to stand by its people. we should remain resolute in this commitment, not flinching in the face of recent developments. the united states's unique influence and a deep reservoir of good will in south sudan that gives it an indispensable role in overcoming the current crisis. my first observation is that this crisis was neither

inevitable nor ethnically motivated. it is a political crisis, precipitated by the failure of president kiir and machar to settle their political violences without resort to violence. they can stop it. the first priority is inducing them to do so. secondly, institutional development takes decades. political transitions are inherently messy. it's not a surprise that there is a crisis in government. it is important to recognize that south sudan was not afforded self-determination based on its capacity for self-rule. south sudan must develop its political institutions indigenously and from the ground up. it is unreasonable to expect these institutions to develop and take root in two and a half years. sadly, the government's record since independence is one of deliberate undermining and

erosion of t erosion. this is the root of the current crisis and the fundamental issue that must be addressed if and when the fighting ends. thirdly, the united states's deep relationships with the protagonist and unparalleled degree of influence and the speedometer to use that influence to broker a return to nonviolent political competition. this is not a time for incremental approaches. the united states must continue to deploy the full weight of its diplomatic capabilities on the parties directly and multi-laterally, including through the u.n. security council. the united states should move to invoke the president's authority to institution travel bans and asset freezes on senior leadership on both sides as well as prepare to extend those sanctions multi-laterally through a resolution in the u.n. security council if the following actions are not imminently forthcoming. one, a secession of fighting without further stalling or delay. the united states must foreclose a military option for either

side, including by discouraging regional actors such as uganda and sudan from directly or indirectly participating in the conflict. two, a release of the 11 political detainees arrested following the outbreak of fighting in juba. they have been targeted on the basis of their public dissent with president kiir and their participation is vital to reaching a political arrangement. three, the impartial delivery of urgently needed humanitarian aid, including providing humanitarian actors full unimpeded access to all those in need, not just in the protected enclaves of spaces and most especially to civilians caught in active conflict zones. four, full cooperation with human rights monitoring, including with a formal u.n. inquisition. neither kiir

courageous leadership is required to rise above personal ambitions and animosities to achieve a cease-fire. escaping cycles of violence is hard but it can be done. if an interim political settlement is reached, the south sudanese leadership will need to dedicate itself to three critical tasks to demonstrate accountability to its people. building coalitions to support key institutional reforms in citizens' security, justice, and jobs, expanding space for independent voices so a national dialogue is possible, and tangibly demonstrating the state's responsiveness to its citizens, particularly by drafting and adopting a permanent constitution, fostering national and local reconciliation and conducting fair and peaceful elections. prioritizing road networks and radio communications is a must to achieve any of these tasks. the united states is the largest bilateral donor to south sudan and it should remain so. significant areas of the country, in fact, are peaceful. in government, community, and church leaders in these areas are to be commended and

supported in their efforts to stem the conflict spread, including through the continuation of development partnerships. an abrupt stop to development assistance will only worsen the national crisis, not alleviate it. u.s. aid has been providing development assistance to south sudan continuously since 1998. eventually through the newly independent government. the games from these programs should not be jettisoned hastily or unnecessarily. doing so will only make the task of stabilization reconstruction that much harder if and when a political settlement is reached, further harming the people of south sudan. let me conclude on a practical note. the u.s. government's ability to respond effectively to this crisis, whether through diplomacy, humanitarian assistance or development will be significantly handicapped without the presence of americans with deep knowledge of relationships with south sudan. i understand all too well the

tradeoffs between security and impact. it is imperative that u.s. government staff be allowed to return to south sudan as quickly as possible. thank you again for this opportunity and i look forward to your questions. >> well, thank you all for your testimony. some very important insights there. let me ask you, ambassador lyman, you refer to machar and other spln leaders and their grievances. was there popular support for those views, the views that they were espousing on the south sudanese? >> i doubt it. those were kind of inside what we would call here inside the beltway kind of arguments over authorities in power, etc. but one area that was getting quite a bit of popular attention was the harassment of human rights workers, of journalists, etc. that was raising a great deal of

concern inside south sudan. the challenge from machar did, of course, reverberate through because of the history. and i think people recognize that that challenge was going to be a major one to be managed by the government. >> now, the composition of the government delegation is interesting to me, particularly since nile was once part of a faction that opposed garang and kiir's vision for south sudan. what might the composition of the delegation mean in terms of larger regional dynamics? >> you know, it's -- you have really three parties a year. you have the government, president kiir's supporters. you have machar's supporters. and you have this group of

detainees who are not either. that is, they are looking for a broader party role, a broader use of the party mechanisms and authorities. and to make them part of the negotiati negotiations, you have to enlarge those negotiations to allow for views other than just the two contending parties. but you need to do that to give them a role, because there are two things that have to happen. after a cease fire, you have to have an understanding as to what the government's going to look like for the next two years. and that means that those people now detained, and president kiir, and people from machar's side, have to agree on the structure of a government over the next two years. meanwhile, you have this -- what i think a broad constitutional process that delves into the

longer term issues of democracy, human rights, and governance. so this is a complicated negotiation that has to take place. and it needs to involve people who represent several different points of view, both from within the ruling party and outside. >> and that observation brings me to mr. pendergast. after the security council's approval of additional peacekeeping troops for south sudan last month, you commented that the political and diplomatic elements of international responses to most african conflicts have been slow and ineffective. which have put more pressure on peacekeeping missions than they have the wherewithal to fully adept, to which they're totally unprepared. can you talk about this? i'd like to go into greater depth of the context of the current situation in south sudan.

and why it's important for the peacekeeping missions to be accompanied by very rigorous diplomatic engagement from members of the international community, particularly the united states. >> thanks, senator. yeah. you look at the three biggest missions today on the african continent, south sudan, darfur, and eastern congo, american taxpayers on the hook for almost 30% of -- or well over $3 billion a year in supporting peacekeeping missions there. but in all three of those cases, you could argue the corresponding political investment was not equal to the investment in the deployment of military force. in south sudan, everyone has discussed that there has -- there was probably not enough international efforts undertaken to try to prevent the conflict

between -- and i agree totally with my fellow panelists, this political dispute, which goes back, of course, decades between the two factions that are now battling. the lack of an international engagement, a deep engagement, a transparent engagement to try to prevent conflict i think is something we need to look at. in congress, we didn't have much of a political process for years until finally the u.n. appointed mary robinson and the u.s. appointed senator feingold, the former members of this committee. and now we're starting to see the construction of a credible, serious peace process. and b, the deployment of real force that helps change the game on the ground in eastern congo. and in darfur, we have this endless peacekeeping mission that -- made absolutely no progress in dealing with the political roots, the political drivers of violence throughout

sudan. so i think that's where we really are missing -- we invested a great deal. sort of the old military adage. if all you got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. we just keep throwing these peacekeeping forces into these situations without investing the preventative diplomacy. now princeton was the special envoy for the united states. and when he was in office, until march 2013, he was actively engaging with the parties in south sudan and helping to prevent a deterioration. but there was a long gap between his -- the end of his term and the beginning of the next one, and there isn't another country that's really engaged like we are in that kind of preventative diplomacy. no headlines. nobody cares that people are out there doing that stuff. and you don't get any credit if you actually prevent something. but that's what we need to be investing in. that's what isn't happening in south sudan because we vn

invested the resources in helping to build that real serious political process.haven invested the resources in helping to build that real serious political process. that will allow for the resolution of these horrible, deadly conflicts. >> i smile when you say you don't get any credit for preventing things, it's so true. but yet it is probably the most successful element of what we do. final question, ms. knopf. you made an interesting observation, that for us to be successful in south sudan, you have to have parties that have a history, have an understanding, have an engagement. so i would assume based upon that comment, maybe i'm wrong, that maybe we don't have all the parties that would bring us to the successful conclusion. are there some missing parties or types of resources we should be bringing that aren't there right now? >> the critical issue at the moment is the drawdown of the u.s. embassy and u.s. aide

staff. without having diplomats on the ground, resident there, talking to parties across all sides of this crisis and getting out beyond juba and the capital as well, that becomes very, very difficult to adjust to. secondly, for aid programs to be effective, we need to have both development experts and the humanitarian professionals, most especially at this moment in time, to be as close to the situations that they're trying to ameliorate as possible, and to be in constant contact with local partners with the south sudanese who are at risk and in need of assistance. daily and hourly coordination with the other elements of the national humanitarian response front. doing this offshore from nairobi at the moment where the disaster assistance response team is based, it takes us back to -- i

don't even know, before 2002, 2001 in terms of how we used to manage humanitarian response in southern sudan. it's woefully inadequate and will impact our ability to be effect initiative the long run. we have deep, deep expertise, as was said in the u.s. government and in the international community and with americans in implementing partners such as ngos and other international organizations. they need to be there in order to respond. >> senator? >> sorry i missed the testimony. i'm told about this being a division of ethnicity as well. of course, that's often the case. what is the percentage of the president's -- well, the dinka tribe constitutes what percentage of the country?

>> i don't have that figure, but it's the largest group. there are a lot of subgroups. and that too is a factor. the second largest group is largely supporting machar. but i don't have the percentages, i'm sorry, but i can get them to you. >> we're just consulting. 30, 35% is dinka. 65 tribes and ethnic groups in south sudan. >> 65. >> i was asking the other panel, some of the other questions there, the u.n. peacekeeping forces that are there now, how effective are they at preventing bloodshed, or what can we do to help that group? is it just a number of numbers or mission?

what can we do at this point? >> well, let me comment on that. both of the things you've mentioned -- first of all, they don't have enough troops there, and the action by the security council was important. but it's very hard to get countries to contribute and find air support and equipment. and that just has to take a lot of intensive effort by us and others to make sure they get there. but second, it has to be made very clear that they're going to be aggressively protecting civilians. which means that those compounds will not be allowed to be breached, and they're prepared to defend them with weapons, if that takes place. they have to be aggressively patrolling. now, they haven't played that role up to now. they haven't seen that as their mission. but i think that has to become part of it, and they have to look ahead to how they will monitor a cease fire.

and how they will be out there aggressively doing so and reporting violations to the security council. so these are things they haven't been doing. it wasn't in their original thought. they were now they've got a new desperately important protection role. and they need more people and they need a very aggressive mandate. >> any differences there or comments? >> totally agree. the 32nd footnote -- and again, it's a wider phenomenon. we send peacekeeping forces, missions to do a laundry list of things, and when the stuff hits the fan, we want them to protect civilians. they're not prepared to do that. you have to organize, as you know, and deploy provision and have the expertise to undertake

civilian protection mission. these guys weren't ready for that. so now they have to get up to speed and that's going to taking a while. >> i guess my two cents on this would be, they have what they need to go out and do these things, to defend and patrol and to monitor ceasefires. but the world turned upside down in just under four weeks in south sudan. this is not what they were initially there to do. while the potential for conflict, of course, has been there and is not a surprise, the fact that it has fallen apart so quickly and so dramatically, it takes a moment, i think, for everybody to adjust and to understand and retool for the new challenges and the new realities. so i don't think -- there's lots that one can say about the performance, but they were there

to do a state mission. now they have to do a very different mission. >> so they've got the mandate. it's the numbers issue for the most part. >> the irony is that south sudan opposed the chapter 7 mandate. said we don't have any internal security problems. unfortunately, security council saw otherwise. >> thank you. with regard to u.s. assistance, state building or humanitarian, does that represent leverage that's effective at all? ambassador thomas grayfield seemed to know -- the restrictions we have here in congress, in terms of aid and assistance after a coup. does that represent the leverage that we can use? is it effective at all? or just on the margins? >> no, i think it was a very important statement by the

united states. that we would not recognize a military takeover. president kiir, for all his faults, is a dramatically elected president. and you have to build on that. just saying anybody can come in and take over is going to undermine a lot of things. so i think it was important. whether the aid levels matter to people like machar, it's hard to say. i think secretary greenfield suggested that probably in itself is not. but international recognition is important. so i think making that statement is important. but then the burden falls on president kiir to play his role much more effectively. and here's another irony. president kiir was proud of the fact and mired for the fact that he was the one that created the unity of all these different groups in the run-up to independence.

he brought in all these factions, etc. he created a broad based government. he invited machar to be vice president. it was one of his accomplishments. it was one of the reasons he was so supported. unfortunately, he's moved in a different direction. he sees all his critics as enemies. he's relying on intelligence people and harassers, etc. it's unfortunate, because his original contribution is being lost. >> thank you. >> if i can just add, my personal knowledge of the two main parties here is the threat to cut off our assistance, our development assistance. it's not what's going to motivate them to come to the table and get the ceasefire done, arrive at an interim political assessment. it will hurt the people of south sudan. we know how to do it in the midst of conflict. we have many modalities for how to provide assistance, either with the cooperation of the

government or working through other avenues, local and international partners and sub national levels of government. there are stable areas of the country. we should not stop development assistance in the stable areas of the country. it's very important to help keep the conflict from spreading and to not lose the gains we've already made. as well, united states assistance has been vital with the economy with the central bank of south sudan, picking up the pieces economically when this is all done will be much, much harder if we pull that support out now. so i do think that it's important and imperative that development assistance continue. that the modalities be examined. that the strategies be updated as the situation changes. but that we keep the commitment to the people of south sudan and not harm them further. >> and one last point. the building leverage is critical. that's what we've got to be looking for all the time. the aid doesn't -- i agree. the aid doesn't make a big difference to these guys. but it does make a big difference to the people of

south sudan and to the building of institutions in the long run. pulling that away now would really undermine the long-term stability of the place. our leverage i think should focus on individual culpability. the targeting sanctions, prosecution of people who are found to be committing or planning atrocities and patterns of atrocities. the additional leverage comes if we work much more closely and transpare transparently. collectively pressure the parties when there are key point moments that there needs to be a push. again, i just view a very high level white house to state house in beijing engagement in south sudan to be a critical thing to do right now in order to show that united front internationally to the parties that we're really going to be

pushing for peace, and those that undermine peace are going to have some kind of particular sanction. >> is it your assessment that china is willing to step up to the plate in that regard? >> not as publicly as us. but their interests are much deeper in terms of national security than ours are, and so let's figure out -- and i think that the good news is that our interests in terms of what the end game is line up very clearly with china. so let's take advantage of that moment. it doesn't happen off globally and figure out how we can more deeply work with them. >> thank you. >> thank you. one last question on that issue that mr. pendergast mentioned about looking for leverage and targeting sanctions of those human rights violations, since you've been intimately involved until very krecently. do you view that as among others a good leverage point? >> i think it's going to be

extremely important in another way. i think personally in the process over the next few years of writing a new constitution and laying a new foundation, that that creates the basis for eliminating from future power a lot of people who are responsible, so whether it's in the process of prosecution or some other kind of commission, a lot of people who are very guilty of the kind of terrible violations should not be part of a new government after 2015. and i think that is one of the outcomes that we should see. >> well, with the thanks of the committee for your invaluable testimony, i expect that the african subcommittee as well as the full committee will lend continuing attention to the challenges in south sudan, and

the leaders on all sides need to recognize that reality, not a singular hearing at a singular moment. the attention of that committee will be focused on the

we have some additional seats here if people want to move in. good morning. and welcome to the u.s. chamber of commerce. i'm john mccurnen president of the u.s. chamber of commerce foundation. it's become something of a tradition for us to kick off the year with this event. a chance to take stock of the

challenges to come and the opportunities to be seized. the u.s. chamber's president and ceo, tom donohue, will outline some of the most significant ones in just a minute. before going on, however, i do want to introduce a special guest. he is a friend of the chamber, he's the senator from ohio, and as i said, a good friend. i would like to ask senator rob portman to stand. rob, we appreciate you being here. [ applause ] as senator portman knows, the policy challenges we face in 2014 are numerous, they're complex, and they're consequential. voters will make their voices heard at the polls later this year with potentially huge bearing on the way our government works and the policies our lawmakers enact.

and all this against a backdrop of an economic recovery that has been slow and uneven. so we have our work cut out for us this year. the u.s. chamber is going to continue to marshal all of its tool and resources to educates the public, to influence our leaders, affect positive change where we need it, and insure that america lives up to all of her promise. technology will be central to those efforts. today, we're launching a revamped u.s. chamber.com. including a new blog, a blog that will highlight the issues and policies the chamber is fighting for in washington and around the world. and we'll continue our work on free enterprise.com with a new focus, a focus that will carry the story and messages of the benefits of the free enterprise

system to audiences beyond the beltway and outside the policy arena. this morning, we'll get a glimpse of the major challenges and opportunities that lay ahead and who better to deliver that message than tom donohue. there are few voices in the debate today that are as powerful as recognized, and as effective as tom's. businesses of every size and leaders inside and outside government look to him as the head of the chamber of commerce of the united states for leadership. they look to tom for truth, for ideas, and for his inflapble optimism that america remains the best place in the world to do business, to pursue

opportunities, and to achieve our dreams. we look forward to hearing from him today, so i ask you to please join me in welcoming the president and ceo of the u.s. chamber of commerce, tom donohue. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, jack. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for coming to the chamber. i occasionally, when i do a major speech here, i think about this room and i think about the ceiling. the history, the opening of the western world, the flags, this is the hall of flags or for those courageous people who set out on a voyage to achieve what nobody thought they could achieve, and the end result is the united states of america. i keep that in mind a little bit

today while we're thinking about our own challenges and our own opportunities. assessing the state of american business and taking stock of the new year's challenges and opportunities, it's a tradition. we established it over 15 years ago. this year i'm pleased to report that the state of america's business is improving and our economy is gaining strength. since the great recession officially ended in july of 2009, the american economy has struggled to regain its footing. the recovery has been the slowest and the weakest since world war ii. the 21 million americans who are unemployed, under employed or who have just given up looking for work, have paid a very heavy price and they still are. middle-class families have not

yet seen decent increases in their real incomes for a long time. it's convenient to blame all of this on the severity of the downturn, but let's face the facts -- misguided government policies have also slowed our growth and caused americans a lot of jobs and a lot of raises. we must fix these mistakes and not repeat them going forward. this year, we have an opportunity to turn the page. overall growth for 2013 will probably come in just at between 1.8 pr and 2%. we should do considerably better this year with growth accelerating to near 3%. housing is recovering and overall household wealth is now surpassed its pre-recession levels.

this has boosted consumption, which is leading to more business opportunity and investment and some new hiring. our economy is also benefiting from continued strength in domestic energy production and improvements in trade. note to the president and the congress, let business do more of both and we'll generate more jobs and income than any government program can deliver. alongside the positive signs are some pretty big question marks. employers are concerned about the negative impact of obama care, the cancellations that swamped the individual market last year are expected to hit the small business market even harder this year. many firms are stopping new hires and cutting workers' hours because of the mandates of this new law.

there are other uncertainties. driven chiefly by regulatory overreach and concerns about markets at home and abroad. how will an avalanche of confusing and conflicting regulations on energy, the environment, capital markets, and workplace activities impact business operations just as things are starting to hum? what about europe, our largest export and trading partner as a block, it continues to lag with very slow growth. any one of a dozen or more global hot spots could flare up at any time, which could seriously, seriously impact our prospects. some degree of uncertainty will always be with us. the question is, how do we maintain and build upon the economic momentum that is

finally taking hold? 2014 -- in 2014 the chamber will focus its tools, its talents, it capacities and its resources to advance a jobs, growth and opportunity agenda that we believe will benefit all americans. our plan includes ideas to expand trade, produce more domestic energy, and improve our infrastructure, which together would create millions of good paying jobs. we will push for government reform to modernize a regulatory process that hasn't been updated since the time of harry truman. we'll highlight the need to make thoughtful changes in entitlements, fix the flaws in obama care, curb lawsuit abuse, protect intellectual property

and revitalize our capital mark markets by striking the right balance between legitimate investor protections and the freedom to innovate and take responsible risk. we're going to be a leader in efforts to improve education and training. it is a disgrace that our country has allowed so many children to fall through the cracks and so many of our workers to be left behind. and we're determined to make 2014 the year that im migration reform is finally enacted. the chamber will pull out of the stops through grassroots lobbying, communications, politics and partnerships with our friends in the union and faith-based organizations and law enforcement groups and others to get this job done.

now the pundises will tell you it's going to be hard to accomplish much of anything this year, after all, don't you remember, it's an election year. we hope to turn that assumption on its ear. by turning the upcoming elections into a motivation for change. it's based on a simple theory -- if you can't make them see the light, then at least let's make them feel the heat. in primaries and in general elections, we will support candidates who want to work within the legislative process to solve the nation's problems and who understand that business is not the problem, business is a part of the solution. we previewed the aggressive efforts of the -- that the chamber has planned for the midterm election with a recent

victory if alabama's first district as well early advertising success in support of pro-business candidates. in 2014, the chamber will work to protect and expand a pro-business majority in the house and advance our position and our influence in the senate. the business community understand what's at stake. they respect our political team, support our strategy, and understand the powerful impact our brand can have in pivotal elections. this means that we'll have all the resources that we need to run a most effective political program in 2014. the chamber will also be working on many other important activities outside the congress and the administration. the national chamber litigation

center, our in-house public interest law firm, is going to be more active in the courts than ever before. we will be working with governors, mayors, state and local chambers, and many others to improve educational efforts, training and job opportunities, for students and workers. our hiring the heros program will continue its successful effort to find good jobs and new careers for veterans and military spouses. our institute for legal reform and work place freedom initiative will be active in many states to stop lawsuit abuse and to counterbalance be some of the policy of organized labor. meanwhile, our international die vig and global intellectual property center will be all over the world working to open markets and protect intellectual

property that is developed and used here in the united states and around the the world. i think you can see that the chamber's agenda is not only national, it's local, and it's global. let me make some additional comments on just a few of the priorities that i have mentioned. we've got a great opportunity this year to spur jobs and growth by expanding international trade and investment. the administration is now more focused on trade. the wto is standing again following the xleeg of its landmark trade facilitation agreement. now it is time to move quickly to pass trade promotion authority, tpa. tpa allows the congress to set negotiating objectives for new trade packs. it requires the executive branch to consult with the congress and it gives congress the final say

on any trade agreement in the form of an up and down vote. bipartisan legislation has been written and will be introduced very soon. we're going to do all we can to make the case for its approval. what new opportunities will tpa create for us? the first is the transpacific partnership. we are within striking distance of concluding an agreement that is critical to america's economic and strategic leadership in the world and in the world's fastest growing region. but we must have a high quality agreement that opens markets for manufacturers, farmers and service providers, and forces the digital and creative economies and tpp must include strong intellectual property protections in order to earn our unqualified support and that of

the congress. the chamber will also lead the business community's efforts in support of a trans -- transatlantic trade and investment partnership that will be with the eu, and remember i said they need economic stimulus in a big way. we're also working on a trade and services agreement with an expansion of the wto information it technology agreement. put those all together, there are going to be more jobs, going to be more economic growth, and there's going to be more global economic success. we're pushing bilateral investment treaties with china and other countries as well as much needed improvements in intellectual property protections, especially in india. and with 20 years of nafta success under the belt, it's time to move the north american

partnership of nafta success under the belt, time to move the north america partnership to another level, working together to gather energy and build a competitive position in the world that's second to none. whether a company does business around the world or just in their neighborhood, the global economy beyond our borders now has an impact. that's why the chamber takes very seriously its unique role as the global voice of american business. let's turn to another key part of our agenda, and that's to advance and protect america's energy revolution. in 2012, unconventional oil and gas alone added $284 billion in gdp. generated nearly $75 billion in federal and state tax revenues

and supported $ -- 2.1 million jobs. we have more recoverable conventional oil and gas off our shores than the proven oil reserves of europe and asia combined, yet 87% of it remains off-limits to the oil and gas industry. we have enough recoverable cold to power our economy for more than 200 years. we must have this vital resource, prudently, safely and vig rougs rously. we must support and develop our nuclear energy which today provides more than 20% of our power. and we should continue smart investments in viable terns and renewables and greater energy efficiency, which as you know is the ultimate effort in protecting the environment.

america's new era of energy abundance gives us an unrivalled opportunity to transform the united states from a nation dependent on imports, to a significant -- in fact getting them from people all around the world. it means instead we can be an exporter and that we can attract new manufacturing from all over the world. and over time, trillions and trillions of dollars of investment to our country. yet the progress we made so far has come largely in spite of national policy rather than because of it. we need to thoughtfully open more federal lands offshore and onshore. and we must remove and guard against unnecessary restrictions, delays and regulations.

there's no better example than the keystone xl pipeline. we have idled american workers and deeply offended our most important ally for the purpose of shallow domestic politics. we are calling on the obama administration to put american jobs first, before special interest politics, and improve this project now. and we doesn't only mean the chamber, it means the american business community. it means labor, it means people on both sides of the political aisle. next week, our institute for 21st century energy will unveil the new energy works for the u.s. it's a new initiative which contain the more than 60 recommendations to help our country seize its energy potential and unleash the benefits across our entire economy. i encourage you to watch for

this program and announcement, and the chamber will be working to advance these proposals throughout the year and throughout the elections. trading around the world and moving energy across the country requires a safe, seamless and modern infrastructure. families workers, visitors, tourists and our environment needs these services and these facilities. we need it to speed mobility, conserve energy, clean the air and save lives. the chamber will work for a multi-year reauthorization of the nation's core surface transportation program which expires at the end of september, and we're asking congress to complete its work on a major water resources bill as well as soon as possible. however, our nation won't have the money to invest in

infrastructure, to invest in national defense, or much of anything else, until we stop ignoring what i call the big smelly elephant in the room. america's unsustainable entitlement programs. make clear we are not talking about taking away from people that are depending on them. the recent improvement in the budget deficit is only temporary. we still have a serious overspending problem. we still have piles and piles of debt and entitlement programs are the primary cause. last year, the chamber began an effort to wake up the nation to this reality. it hasn't been easy. and it hasn't been that successful. but we're not going to rest or

stop. this is the most predictable crisis in american history. in ten years, that's ten years from now, the total price tag, annually, for social security, medicare, medicaid will reach more than $3 trillion. we're basically going to increase federal spending between this year and ten years from now -- between 2013 and ten years from then, by $2.5 trillion. the share of the budget to pay for these programs plus the interest on our debt will expand from 65% of the budget last year, to 76% in 2023. now, look, demographics are destiny. you can't change them. in short-term. and there's no way around it. americans are living longer, who

ray, i'm for that. each and every day, listen, each and every day, another 10,000 baby boomers retire. and that will add up over 17 years to 77 million new retirees. in just another month, congress and the president -- excuse me, i'll -- that's go away in a minute. will need to raise the debt ceiling yet again. under no circumstances can this national debt be defaulted on. it would be the end of the american financial system. under no circumstances can this nation risk default. but it is also time to deal with entitlements. producing more energy can help generate lots of new revenues to help pay for entitlements. and stronger economic growth is essential, but even those two

things won't get us all the way there. it's time for our leaders to act like leaders, to tell the american people the truth and to craft a fair, sensible plan to reform and save these vital programs. the entitlement crisis and rising health care costs are closely linked. in opposing obamacare, the chamber repeatedly warned congress and the administration of the many flaws in this massive legislation. by the way, we -- we didn't know about many of them. nancy pelosi said we'll have to pass it to find out what's in it. the administration is obviously committed to keeping the law in place. so the chamber's not out opposing it.

we have been working pragmatically to fix those parts of obamacare that can be fixed while doing everything possible to make regulations and mandates as manageable as possible for business. in 2014, we will work to repeal some of the onerous health care taxes. repeal, delay or change the employer mandate and give companies and their employees more flexibility in the choice of health insurance plans. last year, we organized the health care solutions council. we brought people in from outside of the chamber, from all over the country. and their report contains many useful and practical reform ideas that we will pursue. and anybody who would like to have a copy of it, just let us know. all responsible parties need to work together and be more open to change because this nation

still needs true health care reform that controls costs, improves quality and expands access to the uninsured. turning to our next priority, the nation is in the midst of a historic expansion of regulatory activity. do you know federal agencies are churning out 4,000 new regulations every year. the dodd-frank bill alone has 398 rule-makings and only half -- not even half -- of those have been finalized over three years of work. our center for capital markets, capital markets competitive in this, is pursuing a practical agenda to make sure job creators have access to capital by fixing or replacing some of the provisions of the dodd-frank

bill that simply don't work as they were planned. while also pursuing regulations to act in areas that the law did not address. now we're also very concerned about the department of education's proposed gainful employment rule which discriminates against private sector colleges and universities. this is wrong and this is unfair. these institutions can play a major role in helping our nation close a serious skills gap. we're going to do everything we can to change or stop the rule as it is currently written. another serious regulatory challenge, which by the way, is very abusive, but i think it's absurd is the sue and settle process. with a wink and a nod, an interest group sues the epa. they agree on a settlement. they find a court to bless it.

and even get to collect legal fees, courtesy of the american taxpayer, with no transparency and little opportunity for public input, new regulations are then imposed on business and our economy and those that proposed it walk away with a check. between 2009 and 2012, epa settled with interest groups at least 60 times, creating some hundred new regulations. in 2014, the chamber will continue to work directly with federal agencies and with congress to win changes and improvements to obamacare, dodd-frank and many other regulations. and when these efforts fall short, and they will, sometimes, and the regulators insist on overstepping their bound, then

we'll know what we know how to do and we'll head to the courts and sue them. we're also making the case that government needs to reform the way it writes and enacts rules and regulations. the chamber is building support for legislation that would modernize the regulatory system, streamline the permitting process, and blunt the abusive practice of sue and settle. the chamber will also continue to make a compromise tax reform policy and activity a high priority. this is complicated -- this is a complicated issue for the country. by the way, also for the chamber. and especially for the business community and here's why. everyone likes compromise tax reform, in theory. until it's their favorite provision that's up for elimination. and they're all in there to see us why those three provisions

and those four provisions and those five provisions can't be touched. we need compromise, pro-growth reform that lowers rates on both the corporate and individual sides of the code and increases our global competitiveness, and we must simplify a system that has been accurately called a monstrosity. legal reform, on the other hand, will be a major focus of our work as well. our institute for legal reform is fighting the expansion of lawsuits on every front. in the congress, in the federal agencies, in the states, and even around the globe where u.s. companies are being sued by american lawyers who have moved overseas to take their business to a place where they are not as aggressively challenged. in this election year, i will be very engaged in voter education

efforts on state attorney general and state supreme court conn tests. on the federal level, we helped convince the house to pass the f.a.c.t. act, to avoid fraud and double dipping in the asbestos settlement process. we're hoping the senate will follow suit. we need reasonable reforms in the false claims act. this is an important tool to uncover and punish fraud by government contractors, but it is also being stretched and abused in ways that actually discourage companies from developing strong compliance systems or from coming forward with reports of mistakes or instances of wrong doing. ladies and gentlemen, the proposals i've highlighted with solidify our recovery. they will help create jobs and expand growth. but before concluding, there is a third part of the chamber's

agenda i would like to speak to, and it's all about opportunity. you may have noticed that there's been a lot of focus recently on the subject of inequality. it seems to me that what we should really be talking about is equality of opportunity. how do we give everyone a fair shot at the american dream? and by the way, 50 years ago, when lyndon johnson pressed the poverty program in this country, that's exactly what he said. equality of opportunity. the fact is that we have many americans who -- who are successful, and that should not be seen as a problem. the fact that many americans don't get a fair chance to succeed, that is the problem.

let's focus on the real problem and do something about it. we know what doesn't work, getting stuck in stagnant growth as we have been for the last five years, that doesn't work, and doubling down on those policies of tax and spend and regulate and mandate, that won't work. so let's talk about what will work. instead of devicing more ways to slice up the existing economic pie, let's go out and seize all of the opportunities we have to expand the economic pie. and then we must help those who are struggling by ensuring they have the educational skills, the incentives and the opportunity to share in that prosperity. many other nation haves stumbled along the path of redistribution and government dependency. they have promised equality of

outcome. and there is a cost that they followed that was doomed to fail. what would we ever want -- why would we ever want to go down that road? why would we want to follow those people to a course that you can look out in europe -- america's promise is one of equal opportunity, not outcome. the real challenge is how to give those who have been left out of the real chance to choose their own path and rise on their own efforts, the help that they need. economic growth is absolutely critical. but it is not a panacea. i've talked in positive terms about america's energy revolution. well, we need a positive revolution in american education and training as well. it is beyond me how this nation can be so complacent while 30

plus percent of our young people don't even graduate from high school. millions who do graduate have not even learned to properly read, comprehend, write and count. and tragically, that can be the prescription for permanent inequality. where is the outrage? where is the you aurgency? where is the political courage to really challenge the status quo if our educational establishment. the severe skills gap we face today is a challenge that could unite us as a nation, as political parties and as a society. of course, the state should adopt and implement the common core educational standards which the chamber significantly

supports. but that's just the start, teachers parents, school districts, businesses, community leaders and institutions of higher education must all get directly and personally involved inside crisis. we must ensure that every young person learns basic skills and is properly equipped for jobs and careers that are actually going to exist in the 21st century. immigration reform is important to expanding those opportunities. why? because throughout history, immigrants have brought innovati innovation, ideas, investments and dynamism to american enterprise, and in terms of demographics, we need immigration. in fact, we must do more to encourage all of our young people and many others to participate in american free enterprise system. in a growing economy, with the

proper schooling and skills, there are many opportunities to raise, by one's own efforts, to places you hadn't even dreamed of. even if you don't have a lot of fancy degrees or rich relatives. if you've heard nothing else today that i've said on the subject of equality, think of that twentyone. please hear this. if our nation doesn't get damn serious about the millions of young people who drop out of school or who graduate unable to master the basic skills and work habits, nothing else we do is going to set this country on the right course. for their sake, and ours, we can't afford to fail. ladies and gentlemen, the chamber's job grow