study on responsive law host a series of debates looking at controversial topics. monday, the pros and cons of mandatory voting, and tuesday, professors from georgetown and the university of massachusetts on taxing stock trades, derivatives and currencies. debating the controversial, monday and tuesday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> it might not surprise you that we think good things come in twos. >> c-span with live coverage of the house. >> or the senate on c-span two. >> watch live events on c-span.org. >> or whenever you want at video library. >> book tv on c-span. >> and american history tv on c-span2. >> follow us on twitter. >> join us on facebook. >> it's washington your way by

c-span. >> created by cable and provided as a public service. >> this week on "newsmakers," tensions in sudan, that's our topic with chris smith, republican, new jersey, and chairman of the africa subcommittee in the house. s >> aid groups are slow to respond and they say the indicators of this have been out there for months, if not longer. was there a preventable crisis? >> i think to some extent it was. we know that obviously in somalia, al-shabab has done horrific thing in denying access of aid workers and humanitarian relief, including food program

food. but their indication last january, early warning devices, indicators and barometers that suggested that a huge famine was about to break out in the horn of africa, especially in and around somalia. government responses have been slow. i ask that one of our hearings, what is the unmet need, this is three weeks ago. even then it was about $200 million. then you need capabilities to get it from port to hungry person. the united states for its part is providing aid to about one out of every four somalians in the areas where we have access to, which is not insignificant. but we need to do more. i think that the administration gets it and will try to do more but other countries like saudi arabia and so many others who have not contributed even close to what they are capable of doing, so the word needs to go out, $1 or any kind of donation

made now will absolutely save lives and we need access to this contested area. >> you said the goal is getting to areas with access. you mentioned the terrorist organization that's in control of a large part of the south and some of the central part of the country. what about the u.s. performance there? it does seem that some, you know, u.s. law concerning working in areas controlled by terrorist groups has been at the root of some groups pulling out of these areas, that's changed now but how would you rate the u.s. response, specifically getting into areas where people, no nault of their own, live in areas controlled by a terrorist organization? >> i think what happens is the aid workers themselves, the n.g.o.'s we support and usaid personnel are far less likely to go into contested areas where they can be killed.

that's unfortunate but we do have to look out for the well being an welfare of our own workers and those that we enrich with our funding to do the good work of humanitarian relief. that said, unless we're willing to commit troops, which i don't think we are, the african union and the u.n. have a relatively strong but is it robust enough peacekeeping deployment to get the food aid in? that remains the open question. again there was just recently this week, another example where food aid was stopped in mogadishu. there was an effort made to take and steal the food by roving gangs. so how do -- and that was the world food program. how do you get these kinds of lifesaving medicines and food stuffs to people when you've got gangs who have no conscience whatsoever and are into blood

letting and killing and if they use famine as a means to that end, it's being used as a weapon again, against women and children. >> are you saying that the u.n. peacekeeping troops and a.u., african union forces, should be marching into the fabric? >> they should be worried -- really robustly trying to negotiate gardens of tranquility, they were used in ethiopia and other areas where many people were in danger there. that needs to be pushed right now and as far as i know, it may be there but it's not being pushed. we need to get that food or else babies, children will die. they are living by their feet, they are refugees in places like

kenya, so many are dying en route and when they finally get to refugee camps, so many are so close to death, particularly the very young ones and sickly and elderly, that they die shortly after entering the camp. look at the camp in kenya. it was made for 90,000 people and is now at 307,000 refugees. it is bulging at the seams and people are arriving by thousands every week this crisis needs much more focus on the part of world leaders, including president obama. he had his birthday gathering this week and all, we have serious problems with our deficit and other problems, the stock market took a hit during the week but frankly we also have people dying and there needs to be, i think, a much more focused effort and global leadership on the part of the united states and the europeans to say, let's get the food stuffs to people who need it or

else we'll have a massive loss of life to add on the already large numbers, 22,000 plus who have died over the last two years alone in somalia. >> another issue going on for quite some time, we think of 1992-1993, the debacle there after a well-meant response from the united states and how that ened up. that are the lessons we can draw from that in terms of what the u.s. can or can't do to try to feed people? >> without security aid, food aid doesn't get through. and the robustness of the mandate, the numb of african union troops that are deployed and all-out efforts made to mitt get the threat of the terrorist organization which is just another close relative of al qaeda, we know there's been local leadership. the kenyans and others have tried to step up and make a

difference. certainly the way they're housing, particularly in kenya, so many refugees, shows a good neighbor policy if ever there was one. they are dying, the ethiopians lost a large number in their deployment there but it all comes down to, people say, why are you americans so worried about good governance and just building up countries? well the absence of it leads to utter chaos, loss of life and gang warfare. you mentioned, you know, the lessons learned, blackhawk down immortalized it with that money, i was in congress, i was in there for 31 years, les aster, then-secretary of defense, came before congress and said after the debacle and loss of american lives that he didn't think additional firepower and capability, including tanks,

would fly on capitol hill. both democrats and republicans said, are you kidding me? you never put our troops at risk without sufficient resources. and we were on a mission to get one of the war lords and you know, that was a failed mission, not because of the bravery of the troops but because there was inadequate resources. fast forward to right now, we have to do more to make sure that the deemployment of african union troops who have stepped up in many parts of africa of recent years have the right kind of capability and right mandate to really make a difference. i remember a met with somebody from kenya, in darfur on a trip. this was early in the darfur cri sis. he said, i was deployed to sarajevo as part of a peacekeeping mission and i have the same infirm and inferior

mandate here that i had in sarajevo. it's not enough to protect innocent civilians. we need to help the african union, making sure they have the right mater yell and the right -- the right materiel. >> and people may be asking, what does that mean in terms of dollars and resources the american people have to contribute? >> a fraction of any of the numbers we're talking about. it's estimated that by 20121, the interest on the federal debt will be over $1 trillion per year. $1 trillion. we're talking about $48 million in fiscal year 2011 to feed the somalians plus another $76 million for refugees. it's so small, a caricature is often created or painted about what u.s. humanitarian foreign aid is, vis-a-vis the rest of

the budget. it is one thousandth of one percent we're doing. that number will go up but not substantially. >> isn't it $48 million because usaid came down 98% after al shabab was listed as a terrorist organization, they started getting concerned about working in an area where they could face prosecution for enriching, or aiding a terrorist organization and usaid came down hugely, 90%. so isn't the need really much greater than a little more than $48 million? >> the need is much greater. we were at $400 million in 2009 and that's dropped to under $100 million. although refugees is a different group a lot of those people are in kenya who have left somalia.

the key, i think, is helping the humanitarian organization, world food program does a magnificent job all other the world against huge odds, and n.g.o.'s there on the ground, often at great risk themselves, but it's the rapid response that's needed now and the n.g.o.'s can't always step up to that plate because of the way they operate. i was in banda achi after the tsunami hit, and it was our special forces that made all the difference in the world because of the lightning speed they could react and they had airlift capability to get food and medicine to people whop suffering. the u.n. has no capacity or capability, you should see the planes the n.g.o.'s fly around in. i was on a russian helicopter with a crew, it was so loud, he

used an earpiece and you braced yourself. these people do this great work live every day. >> the u.n. secretary general puts the total 59 $1.6 billion and said $300 million is required in the next two months. so when you talk about money and resources, any movement on capitol hill to allow the united states to move more quickly buzz these n.g.o.'s can't? >> i think a wellspring of support, both sides of the aisle to make sure there's adequate funding and the administration has the ability to program or reprogram on an emergency basis funding to meet this crisis. we also, and there was a donor's conference that was inexplicably canceled that they have to get up and running and get the other countries to do their fair share. i mentioned saudi arabia. sudan is giving more. sudan of all places, khartoum, is giving more than saudi arabia

to help in this terrible crisis where every day is delay and denial if we don't come forward. i think there's a great deal of support. again, the amount of dollars we're talking about, vis-a-vis the rest of the budget, is infinitesimal but what that money can buy is huge. it'll save lives. >> congressman, can i ask you, and i think it follows up on your question, but i mean, i'm sure it's the same for you, i get emails any time i write a story, famine in somalia, the problems faced, i get piles of emails saying, it's their overpopulation problem. it's their -- they can't have a government they don't know how to -- why should we pay. and you as a congressman, what do you say to even your constituents, obviously you're interested in, you know, careful federal spending, u.s. spending,

what do you say to those kinds of questions from your constituents? >> i say, and i say it clearly, i'm sure some will be watching this broadcast, that we are our brothers and sisters' keepers, except for the grace of god go any one of us at any other time we could find ourselves in a grave situation at any time. we start when the hurricane -- we saw hen the hurricane hit in louisiana, how quickly a deterioration of circumstances occurred, people weren't getting food in, no medicines, they were on top of homes. crisis when it hits brings us all to the same exact level, frankly. same for africa. in terms of the population, somalia is 10 million people. they are not overpopulated, nor is any place in africa. the areable land and resources that await proper caultvation.

i had a number of meetings on the subcommittee about how china is coming in and fleecing africa at huge discounts to build a road, they get all kinds of minerals and sudan obviously in exchange for, this is the bashir government, has given oil to china and in return they get jets and aircraft of all kinds. ak-47's to wage war, first on the south and now the newest escalation of bloodshed committed by bashir. >> you held an emergency hearing yesterday, a short notice hearing, talking about the issue of the area, about a month ago, sudan game independent, there were quite a few hopes around the world, how do you see it

progressing at this point? do you feel this could be a situation like in subsudan before independence or like in darfur? as you're hearing there's the bishops talking about evidence of mass killings, is that something that yourself concern -- that you're concerned about? >> i'm deeply concerned. it's happening almost invisibly, although hopefully the hearing and some of the good reporting that people like both of you are doing helps bring the information out. but we had had someone who talked about how his cathedral was ransacked. he was out getting an operation, he was out of the country when it exploded in the last few weeks. one of his chaplains was beaten senseless. and many, many people have been killed. people have taken off into the hills, the nubian, africans who are being targeted because of

their faith and because of their ethnicity by the arab khartoum dictatorship. i met with bashir about five years ago for the better part of almost two hours, argued with the man. he should be at the hague for war crimes and genocide. he has been indicted. he sits still atop a country, travels around, recently in china in june, received a red carpet treatment there and said -- instead of being arrested and sent to the hague for prosecution, this man is a war criminal. now he sent his troops in to south cord van. as the bishop said and our other witnesses, including brad phillips who came to my office on monday, having been 12 days out among the people and he came back and said, please, what can you do? nobody is paying atings to this new escalation of violence. so three days later, we had a hearing and c-span, thankfully,

carried it so many americans became more awear of it. and the bishop made another point. the sect shoe that will drop besides the aircraft dropping bombs indiscriminately on women and children and men and killing people on the ground, they're making it so they can't plant. there will be a new famine that will undoubtedly occur and perhaps another thousands of people will die from hunger simply because -- what he asked for and others asked for that the administration, the obama administration, make this a priority and make sure that, you know, there's been far too little interest shown, no u.n. peace keepers to help provide at least some semblance of protection, so the people are just being mowed down and killed. >> we have a little less than 10 minutes. >> some would argue that in

sudan, south sudan, the government didn't immediately recognize south sudan but they have achieved independence and most governments recognized that. in terms of what the u.s. or the international community could do to pressure khartoum. >> we told them -- >> when i met with bashir all he talked about was trade. lifting the trade embargo. we lifted it on south sudan. there may have to be a nuanced lifting on oil because oil in the south must travel to the north. it becomes how do they do business and grow their economy and meet their incredible needs without that oil which will help south sudan. conversation with khartoum about lifting sanctions but in the context of ending south cord ban

attacks and other human rights abuses being committed as we meet and talk here in south sudan, 2.5 million people were killed, 4.5 million displaced because the north, bashir, tried to impose, as we know shark rhea law on the south and -- you know by way of force. when the peace broke out, or at least a peace treaty with the south, that's when darfur escalated and became a terrible genocide in and of itself. now we have another potential genocide, certainly mass killing, because of who they are, their ethnicity and faith. as the bishop made clear in his testimony. the genocide connection couldn't be more clear. the trget of the people to eliminate in whole or in part. all over the map, khartoum has

committed genocide and now they're doing it again. >> as you said yourself, bashir, he spoke five years ago about the importance -- or his interest in seeing the trade embargo lifted but how has china changed that equation? china coming in, building roads, everything selling arms, and how is that -- has that complicated what the u.s. can and can't do when there's an international power there ma is willing to overlook? >> china needs to be held to account for their own human rights abuses. i chaired 29 congressional hearings on human rights abuses in china. they are a magnitude unlike any other in the world. forced abortions, civil rights persecution. they throw people into prison because they want to organize in collective bargaining, they use torture against any political prisoner until you write some

kind of statement that i did it. torture does work over time for most people. china also, and i traveled to beijing with frank wolf before the olympics, because we argued unsuccessfully that these were the genocide olympics. to have olympics in china when they are the major player in promoting genocide in sudan is unconscionable. how can you do this? yet we did. and the whole world just looked ascan. for bashir to go on june 27 to beijing and get a hero's welcome and be teeted with all the pomp and circumstance that a legitimate leader ought to have but this man is anything but, more dishonor to beijing. yet we're, as the -- has the administration, the obama administration called up the

chinese official who was so welcomed here? it was interesting, president obama defends hu jintao on rights. it's a scathing edtorial. they should be held to account in what they're doing in providing the pateriel of war to give ba shear the ability to kill people. that's darfur, south cordoban, southern sudan where all these poem have died. it's never too late for china to come clean and become part of the solution. they pay lip service to it. diplomatic nonsense that they utter at the united nations. they are directly responsible for the generalsides that occurred in sudan and they're not held to account. >> we have a couple of minutes left here.

>> can we get back to south cordoban. it's a strategic area for khartoum. what could prevent a possible genocide or mass killings, what could a possible long-term solution be? maybe peace keepers come? >> you ask the question but have the answer. how do you keep a genocidal, aggressive force at bay? you have to have a deemployment of eem that will step in. spln, the southern sudan army and the political movement, they've been assisting people in south cordoban but that's no, you know, the international community needs to quickly get a deployment in to tamper down, to stop the house to house killings occurring right now in the one of the largest cities.

they're going house to house, finding people, shooting them, beating, raping women, it's happening in realtime right now. so a deployment immediately could be very effective in mitigating the los of life. >> congressman, we have about a minute left. let me run some things by you, quick answers if we could. you have another hear -- you had another hearing this week a medical procedure in uganda, i believe. the medical term is what? >> it's cure international and cure hydrose phallic children. >> water on the brain. >> it's water on the brown. it kills upwards of 375 children in africa every year. a doctor from harvard developed this procedure that is relatively inexpensive, they trained 11 neurosurgeons in kenya, uganda and other places in africa, and uganda is where

the larger hospital is, it's been up and running for 10 years, it's like the best kept secret anywhere. and these kids who would normally die a horrible death are not only living, they are returning to a normal state because of this operation. >> you felt passionate enough about this issue to have a hearing on it. for those who don't know you, what is your motivation? what's behind your passion in this area and in the focus that you put on it? >> all my work on human rights an humanitarian issues is motivated by my faith. i mentioned earlier about being our brother's and sisters keepers, we have been admonished by the scriptures, i am catholic, i believe passionately in the lord's statement when he said, whatever you do to the least of our brethren you do to me that could be any disenfranchised person, one subjected to anti-semitism or somebody in south sudan who is

catholic or christian being told they have to become muslim or a pious muslim who is subjected to, or the uighurs, the folks in china who happen to be muslims and they are terribly oppressed. but it all comes from their faith. and in trying to be faithful to the gospel. >> a quick one, not a followup, but your idea of quarters of tranquility to get aid into areas of somalia. will you be doing something to take that beyond an idea, to either -- either to the administration or outside to get that? >> we did. we asked the administration to pursue it. we have a letter going over to the administration to that effect. it's worked in the past. i remember actually meeting with the ethiopian delegation 59 new york in the 1980's when a famine

was exacerbated by a dictator in ethiopia and our big push, i wasn't the only one obviously, was to get cart -- quarters of tranquility because so many were dying. there was some success. i was in el salvador in the early 1980's when the communists an government and the president negotiated a day of tran quaility to vack nation hundreds of kids. for them to say, lay down the arms, let's get the humanitarian assistance to the beleaguered people or else they d. i think al shabab and others, if that were presented by the entire international community led by the obama administration, which they haven't done yet but they might, we can get that through to people who are starving. >> congressman christopher smith, thank you for being on "newsmakers." >> i appreciate it. >> we're back with our reporters. let me begin with you on somalia

and quarters of cran quillity. you heard the chairman say that. what did he mean by that? >> i think we've heard the term humanitarian corridors, that might be another term in recent history, when there's a conflict but it's the people, the civilians that arethere have bes where the fighting side have stood spika and allowed either international organizations -- stood by and allow international organizations to come by and to deliver food, aid, other assistance, not to stop the fighting, but to guarantee it does not have been so what is needed cannot come in.

the difference here, i would say with al-shabaab, it is not a government. it is not even a classical and rebel group, and we are hearing they are benefiting from the state of famine, because they are able to tell ordinary people, to join up with us. if you are hungry, joined up with us. we have food. we will help you out. i think it is a worthy proposal. i will be very interested to see how it goes, but you are playing with the different groups here who does not necessarily have it in their interest to happen. >> is that the reason it has not happened yet? >> al-shabaab is a group that thinks all western influence

should go from music to aid groups. they are similar to the taliban and influence, and this has been difficult for the administration to find any reason to work with at all. the obama administration authorized arms shipments to the transitional government to be able to fight the al-shabaab. they have started to say, it is such a cross -- such a crisis that we're not going to prosecute. we will give them assurance they will not be prosecuted for trying to bring in aid. at the same time, they do not see themselves as a group where they have to negotiate with a leader. certain also above leaders might

be a little more amenable. >> -- certain al-shabaab leaders might be a little more amenable. >> tell me what we are expecting from somalia in a couple days. >> there needs to be some kind of quick response. we have heard the african union is talking about the donor conference at the end of august. i think most would agree the best is not fast enough, and that is in terms of addressing this? and now, but what they're swashing id and -- shares watching it is that they will tell you the long term answers are there. there has to be a government in place, but in terms of delivering irrigations centers it used very little water, there has to be a focus on long-term solutions, not so somalia but

for countries throughout africa. >> i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> next, a house hearing on tensions in sudan. after that, "q&a." see in a legal analysts -- . legal analysts. we will also discuss where the news is heading. >> i am not for changing the system just so we can feel good by having voter turnout which may approximate what they have

in australia, which is 97%. voter turnout does not mean very much in terms of the health of democracy. some of the most vicious dictatorships in the world are 95% when they hold elections. >> voting is a responsible act, and i should not the coerced -- not be coerced. >> a series of debates look at controversial topics. a look end mandatory voting with fred smith, and tuesday, professors from georgetown and the university of massachusetts. monday and tuesday on c-span.

>> a house foreign affairs subcommittee in africa was told between 70,000 man 90,000 people will die in the sudan if people do not take action. witnesses called on the u.s. to do more to curb the rising humanitarian crisis in the region. this runs just under two hours. >> this crisis first arose in june after they attacked, apparently as a provocation. south sudan and was about to become independent, and these attacks may have been intended to provoke a fight to derail their independence.

at the same time, members were increasing. because of the displacement 0 foreigners, no one is estimating how many people have been killed in this area. we know more than 73,000 people have been displays. we can assure the suffering of people has been catastrophic. this latest violence is a resumption of of prior war. beginning in the 1980's, they began an eradication campaign pitting northern arab africans against africans in the south. unfortunately, they are not southerners, even though they fought with the southern army during the civil war, but neither are they accepted by elements ruling in the north,

even though many of them are muslims. this left them to suffer the onslaught of the khartoum government. the cultural cleansing involve harsh attempts to depopulate vast areas, killing potential combatants as well as many others, and hurting others into so-called refugee camps. when jihad was declared by the government of sudan, even muslims were targeted with the rationale the muslims in these areas were not true muslims. this has been a key component of the strategy aimed at destroying the social fabric of society. almost every woman who has been in one of the peace camp reportedly was either raped or threatened with rape. according to the united nations office for coordination of humanitarian affairs, between 30,000 and 40,000 people out of

the population of 60,000 in the capital town have fled. many of these actions were indiscriminate, including aerial bombardments and artillery fire by armed forces. bombings have been reported in five villages south of the capital as well as other towns. the un office of the high commissioner for human rights told the security council on july 29 there were reports as recently as july 27 of aerial bombings forcing civilians to flee. i will point out one of my witnesses today on monday brought with us have very troubling evidence that he had gleaned being there for almost

two weeks, so when we hear about it in reports coming here is a man who actually saw it. it is the genesis of this hearing today. it is the sense that we need to do something to bring action to this terrible plight. some are trying to downplay the overall responsibility of the sudanese government for the devastation taking place are referring to the refusal to lay down arms to negotiate with khartoum, but there is no moral equivalency. they are not bombing people indiscriminately or driving arabs off their lands or out of their homes or going door-to- door to identify their enemies to execute them. the government of military forces are, and we will soon see

evidence of these atrocities. it will have a long-term negative impact on the ability of people to feed themselves. people suffer from drought made worse by conflict. the national government is creating a similar humanitarian crisis. the death and destruction to which sudanese arabs have been subjected was thought to have ended with the agreement in 2005. however, and the genocide in dar for diverted attention away from the unresolved -- and therefore -- snizzle in -- in darfur derailed assistance shows of the process was coming to a conclusion. now the struggle threatens to

suffer cries and pleas for help as they are trying to a resumption of the northern war against them. we discussed this during the june 16 hearing in south sudan. i've the time the fighting was has a terrific as in the fights waged by the khartoum government. the testimony today will reveal horrifying extent of the situation. i will discuss ways to address the suffering of this particular region of sudan. i will yield to my colleague for comments. >> let me commend you for calling this important hearing. i just rust year from an earlier

meeting that was called on the problem of somalia and the drought cut was going on there, so i appreciate giving attention to the region, and we do know we have our primary obligation to our nation to make it strong and to correct some of the errors we made in the past. we cannot forget we have a world being shattered and that we have responsibility to be our brother's keeper, so i know it is difficult to focus on areas outside of our immediate problems, but i do appreciate

the chairmen keeping the issues for our nation, because we do have an obligation. i was among the delegation in the ceremony, and i witnessed if the today -- is the weakness in the day, the struggle for independence, the struggle with the civil war in late 1989, struggles that continued until the cpa and was signed in 2005 and struggles until the referendum in july 9, 2011 and so it has been a struggle, and

the struggle continues. sudanese kiko -- sudanese people consideration is certainly overdue. 98.8% of south sudanese voted, and it is commendable and should serve as a witness to what sudanese people are capable of. the voter administration is in excess of 90% also, and it is reported the turnout exceeded south africa when they had their first election. we have to really commend the

people of south sudan for their determination and appreciation for democracy. unfortunately, the violence in border areas reminds us that important work needs to be done to insure peace in both countries and a peaceful relationship between neighboring states. in june, the subcommittee convened to discuss challenges the nation would face. we are now a witness saying some of the challenges. as you know, the mouth was

strong in 1956, -- the map was drawn in 1956, and the lines were drawn, and had they been drawn today, we would know they would indeed be part of south sudan. the lines have been drawn, and they find themselves in the north. there was supposed to be learned made so there could be a discussion on arrangements to be made. a popular consultation has not taken place. the referendum has not taken place. the elections were not fair and

free, so we have problems that persist today beyond the violations but were occurring against a new boat people -- against the nuba people. 1.4 million arent involved in fighting -- are involved in fighting. thousands of innocent civilians have been killed, and hundreds of thousands have been displaced. there are reports of targeted killing of numerous people in mass graves. they are searching homes for supporters and detaining, torturing, and killing them. saf are armed to do the job.

they are using heavy weapons including artillery and russian- made bombers to hunt nubans lahood like animals. it is not a localized incident. the sheer -- bashir has done this before in eastern sudan. my first visit in 1993 in a town near the ugandan border, it was the frontline, and i saw firsthand suffering of the people in that area. i introduced a resolution that the people had the right to self-determination. i remember visiting in may of 2008 just after the town had been burned to the ground by

bashir forces. the atrocity displays more than 40,000 people, they introduced resolutions to highlight this hideous attack. in late may, a sudanese army forces invaded, killing more than 100 and displacing an estimated 100,000. the president has shown considerable restraint because he does not want to have a war that would interfere with the peaceful resolution of the crisis. people have suffered severely after the long civil war. for many, the violence continues with targeted killings and prolonged displacement.

let's also not forget the whereg crisis in dar fofur many remain wis malnutrition i along with my fellow sudanese co-chair are circulating a letter to president obama, urging him to condemn the violence. we must use all available diplomatic and political tools to combat these human rights abuses, including possible sanctions and other accountable measures. it is also important that the united states properly fund aid program sent peacekeeping missions that are helping to save countless lives. the proposed budget cuts would greatly hinder our ability to provide relief to the affected areas and help bring stability to the region. that is why i propose an

amendment that would have increased funding for the peacekeeping budget at the president's request and to add 60 million to be set aside for contingency funds, specifically to address this and the border regions. i am interested in hearing how the budget cuts will affect the work we are doing. i am encouraged to see the president obama announced an initiative to strengthen the united states ability to prevent mass atrocities. this will include the creation of the atrocities prevention board, that will have the authority to develop prevention strategies, and aid the u.s., and prevent a potential atrocities'. now the president has also issued a resolution barring those who participate in war

crimes, crimes against humanity, and serious violations of human rights from entering the united states of america. on july 9, the world celebrated with the people of south sudan, and rightfully so. after all, the united states and others have played such an important role in what we see today, so we have been a critical partner in the process. our work to insure stability is far from complete. we must remain engaged and submit our support to rule of law, justice, and peace to the people of sudan, whichever side they may live.

>> i recognize the member of the subcommittee. >> thank you for calling this an important hearing. this is a sobering reminder that the suffering of the sudanese people remains on going. although it is important, we cannot forget now a fellow sudanese across the border. they have been beset by heartache for decades. people are still in positions of authority, still carrying out horrific war crimes, and now with as the struggle in south sudan, the crisis is escalating and further destabilizing an already fragile region, and that means the cost of thousands of lives and servants a series of -- presents a serious threat to

the newly born south sudan. thank you to our witnesses for being here today to share what you learned firsthand. >> thank you very much. i will be very brief. i want to thank the witnesses. i want to personally thank both of you for having this hearing so fast. i almost have not seen you turn around. i want to thank both of you. i think it is incredible the way you work together. lastly, i would say to the church in the west, i think the church in the west has to do a better job of advocating for the persecuted.

i have read his books over the years. the silence of the church in the west is absolutely incredible, and when i think about what is taking place to that part of the country, and yet i year complete silence, it is incredible. if anything, this can motivate not only the administration but also the church, the members of all the nominations to come together to advocate for this, but we will see what comes out of this. i want to thank you for getting this done. has an idea and then we have i hearing. >> let me begin with a bishop .

he chairs the committee for this region. he has been outspoken and courageous. in a recent interview, he writes if he had not been receiving medical treatment, he might be in a mass grave now. that is how volatile and today,us situation isn' and we are deeply indebted that he flew here and will be providing this subcommittee and hopefully the entire congress and the american people very important insights and will be a rallying cry for action. we will then hear from mr. phillips, who serves as president for the persecution foundation as the voice for the martyrs dedicated to the church,

and i would point out that in 1980 i read the book, "tortured for christ's." the dictator of romania spent years of being tortured, he and other believers, and that is what got me involved in religious freedom issues after reading that the book. mr. phillips's one of the leaders from the group said continues about the work -- that continues the work. since 1998, mr. phillips has health document acts of genocide while also assisting in humanitarian efforts. he recently spent two weeks interviewing victims of war crimes. the reason we are meeting here today was his urgent plea on monday that this congress to bring light scrutiny, and hopefully an action plan -- from the president and the state

department to try to mitigate this terrible, worsening situation. he is also the founder of a campaign, the humanitarian campaign that provide clean water for refugees in our for -- in darfur. we will also hear from an expert in civil wars, conflict, and resolution, and has published numerous articles. he is also a founding member and chairperson of the board of directors action for development. he served as minister of cabinet affairs for the government of sudan, as the minister for affairs for the government of southern sudan. he has also worked with the world bank and the center for statistics and evaluation. thank you all for being here on such short notice. i would like to begin with the bishop, and please proceed as

you would like. >> thank you, chairman smith for calling this emergency hearing on human rights in my home region. >> if you could just hold the microphone a little closer. >> i would like to thank the ranking members for their support of the endangered people. .

there was never an effort to

attend those russian a holistic way as part of certain procedures. since some cases, some with it greater regulatory treatment than others would get right now. notationtated in your response, the nrc prides itself on openness and transparency. you also reference that it has core principles of good regulation. using your decision making. if it has a couple of public meetings on this, would that suffice to meet the goals of openness and transparency and meet the standard of the principles that you mentioned? >> public meetings are a key component. we had a meeting last thursday in. all of the commissioners support the chairman's call and the meetings are a key component.

>> you said that you did not believe the existing regulatory framework is broken. is this larger in scope than what you expected? >> i agree with all but the chairman said a few minutes ago. his characterization -- there has been a dynamic involving in the buildup of recommendations to the events. i do not think that the patchwork is a fair characterization itself. it is something that we should look at. it is not something that is an immediate concern. >> things. you said in your vote, i do not

have a sufficient basis to accept or reject recommendations on the near term tax of force. how do you make that decision about accepting or rejecting those recommendations? >> i made a proposal to my colleagues not yet decided upon that they would take these recommendations and within 45 days come back to the commission with a plan with how the agency might move forward. they could identify more straightforward recommendations and how they propose to move forward more quickly. i did not think they needed to take an excessive amount of time. >> a lot to start again telling

where i began with my thinking. federal regulators had been working closely with the industry, to make sure we are operating within safety standards. throughout this discussion, and members of the committee have quoted the statement in the task force that says a sequence of events are likely to occur in the united states. we have heard that a dozen times, but we have not heard the paragraph before the. it says this regulatory approach established over the

decades has addressed many safety concerns and issues using the best information in the techniques available at the time. the result is a patchwork of regulatory requirements and other safety initiatives, but not all given equivalent treatment during nrc technical review and inspection. consistent with the dalia of excellence, the task force believes that improving the inner city regulatory framework is an appropriate and realistic and achievable goal. what is the problem? my friend from wyoming says nobody things they are defective. i did not hear that the regulatory system is defective. i heard they want to improve it. we have a problem of improving

the regulatory framework. let us be clear about what we are talking about. you have highly knowledgeable people that have made 12 recommendations. they want you to go forward with it. no one is saying you have to accept all 12 recommendations tomorrow. they are saying, look at them, analyze them, he is ready to go on some of them. what is the problem about taking these recommendations and starting in immediate discussion. >> it is something we can do and should be able to get done in 90 days. >> what is the public starting this discussion? >> we should be able to begin that discussion. i do not say that my proposal is

to take this and the guy with them. i am ready to look at these recommendations. >> yes, i think i was the first one to jail. -- to vote. course you want to start on the shore of recommendations. >> absolutely. >> i am glad to hear that. is the process of credit to go? what am i missing here? >> we are stuck in developing the process, rather than just moving it forward to match the begin the discussion and dialogue on the recommendations. most of my colleagues have

waited in about the process. >> they are not severe. i think they are minor. the big difference is setting an expectation as to when we can get completed. our decisions -- 90 days is a reasonable time frame. >> i agree. >> do you agree that we can get these recommendations in 90 days? >> i think it would not be possible to make final decisions on all 12 in 90 days. >> i believe we can do it in 90 days. some of the members feel we

should get political [unintelligible] first. >> i see a great pile of commonality. i think the consensus is coming to move forward on this. i think some of these recommendations are likely implemented. >> i believe most of these recommendations has been 90 days paris -- can be done in 90 days. credit dissension among commensurate -- commissioners on this topic, but i do not think it is there. there is a lot of agreement for us to place this at the highest priority.

>> thank you. a traffic policeman is a job would be to keep the traffic safe. all five of you said health and safety is your job. if we stopped all the calls from going anywhere, the supervisor may say, that is not very creative of the. is there anything within the charge of the commission to make it possible to create an environment where it can operate and where anyone can be built? >> there is not a charge for that to be the motivation for what we do. >> it is not part of your charged to create an environment? >> i think our charge is

reasonable assurance. it is that we are providing a level of assurance that is reasonable. >> it no responsibility to make sure it can be operated economically? >> our requirements fall in to two categories. safety, court decisions, the commission is required to make those decisions. we can consider the economic impact and to say which is most cost-efficient. we are barred by a court decision. >> and new nuclear power plants

can be built? >> i want to ensure that we have an environment that goes with the state. >> what about the recommendation of the commission? that you complete without the delay the water reactor design? >> is a was a recommendation not to encourage the commission to take action. there was the reason to specifically delay action. >> it sounds like action to me. >> we continue to move forward. >> can you do it within 90 days? >> we are close to receiving a final rule, which is part of the reason to look into these recommendations in 90 days. when looking at a final

decision -- final design, we have to look at these recommendations to see if there are any changes. >> we will consider all of the recommendations -- your design certification -- >> not in my opinion. if we do not consider the recommendations, it could have an impact on the licensing. >> there is a lot of talk about the late. why did they say you should do this without delay? >> i am not sure. the information is relevant. it is useful and information for the commission to know there are no immediate issues with the design. >> should everything including

these designs be done in 90 days? >> it is important for the 12 recommendations. these are in the report. we are currently not delaying any of the reactor work. this will create uncertainty for what actions would be applicable to the reactors, which could lead to a potential delay in the work. but that is if we do not make these decisions promptly. >> if you're going to take their advice by doing the task force bus conditions in 90 days, you will take their advice to complete these designed --

design certifications without delay. >> turn your attention to the mission of the nrc, which is clearly stated. it is to license and regulate the nation's use of our products regarding special nuclear material to protect public health and safety and protect the environment. >> i would think it is still a legitimate question whether a traffic cop should stop all of the traffic. his supervisor may be more creative and let people drive. >> that is not the right analogy.

>> we tolerate 38,000 traffic test every year. we have never had one with a nuclear reactor. >> that says a lot for the fact that you have an independent agency. they said the same thing in japan until recently. i want to make the point, as many differences as we have here, and we differ and debate. i am sensing that maybe there needs to being more french ship. spoken as a human being, not as a senator.

here we go. we are moving on. we are going after senator. >> things. it looks like a glee club here. everybody happy face. what you say is what you get. the nrc recently renewed the operating licence for the hope creek nuclear plant in new jersey through 2046. what have we learned from these incidents in japan? to take into can't win granting an extension. >> for any reactor, whether it has been operating 35 or 45 years, if we adopt any of these

recommendations, they would apply to every reactor in the country, with the exception of some, which would apply only to boil water reactors. this renewal process is about insuring they have a program in place to deal with the aging of systems. nothing came out of the task force touched on those issues. hopefully they appear required to be implemented along with the others. >> not too much specific information came from the fukushima -- granting of the extension of the license. >> right. if these recommendations are adopted, some would apply as an

operating plant, just like any other in the country. >> the containment system used at fukushima as at other plants, including two reactors. he said in june, that we did not know what was wrong with the containment system at fukushima. when it do you think we will know about what went wrong at the japanese plant? >> that could take possibly years. they would have to decontaminate the facility and the reactor to get in and analyze and look at the equipment. they would have to act like a criminologist to reconstruct what happened in the accident. there are some things we can do in the short term.

this is an area where the task force recommended an nrc requirements. our containment design has never been done as a formal regulatory requirements. we can monitor and make sure it is being used effectively. that is something specifically that we take action on. >> it would take years to fully understand what would take place there? it is hard to imagine, because of the specific event. we are not talking about the influence of the people in the area. the specific trigger is pretty much obvious.

>> and they acknowledged that there are some things we do not yet know and need additional studies. they did believe we had sufficient information to take action on some things retina. >> you said in a 2008 speech that the nrc should develop a new regulations that require this to be moved to dry cask storage after certain the amounts of years. it did not advocate certain storage. it falls short of year 2008 problem. how can we be sure that the task force approach will ensure the safest form of storage?

>> and knowing how much water is in the poll and how much to put in there to keep it cool. that is over the short term. over the longer term, we can analyze this more efficiently. we want to make sure it is in an enhanced configuration and make sure it is safer that way. >> thanks, senator. >> there have been some complaints about your leadership. i believe it is important that you reflect the proper role of the chairman.

we have a commission to establish and decide important issues. did they use emergency powers of any kind? >> it is not something in which we have procedures. about three or four days into the incident, i was aware that our colleagues had inquired about that. should i make a formal declaration of emergency powers? i got one or two people, who said no. then i got a distracted by dealing with the emergency response. >> did he seek a formal opinion from council?

would it give the regulatory nuclear commission, the commission chairman, the power to assume emergency powers that in some ways, and many the influence of the other members of the commission? >> do you have a written opinion to that effect? >> it has been provided to the committee. >> are you still resuming those powers? >> no. as i indicated, we provided situation reports to the commission at the beginning of the reports. they were issued multiple times a day. >> the statute of 1987 following the conclusion of the emergence,

they delegated the functions, and it shall render a complete and timely report to the commission on the actions taken. have you done that? >> i believe we have. we have reports. >> that is not what the statute requires. why would you hesitate to do a complete report on the actions taken during the emergence? >> i have conferred with the general counsel. i believe i have more than satisfied the requirements for that provision. >> i am not arguing about that. i believe the statute under which you serve requires that the chairman or the emergency

official winter a complete report, not a series of situation reports in a box somewhere. >> there is one piece of information. >> why would you do that? >> we have provided much of that information to the commission already. >> i have an interest in it. the people of the united states have an interest in that. what hesitation to you have to put a formal report to gathered that says what you did while you a single emergency power? >> i would be happy to put that together. i believe i have more than provided information to the american people through testimony's through a variety of different reports that have

provided significant information about the actions taken during this event. >> i am asking you to comply with the statutes. >> i have conferred with the general counsel. we can provide you with the analysis of that as well. >> i believe it requires a single report after the conclusion. it is obvious you have not done that. you said he did not select them, but edi did. -- edo did. who is that? >> executive director of operations. i thought they were good

selections. >> what about names that may be on that list? >> it was not something formally presented it to me. i believe i signed off on it verbally. i believe they were good selections. i do not recall if there was a smaller group. it was not for me a significant decision. i trust they have the appropriate people for the task force. >> i will submit a written request that stakeholders be invited to submit suggestions. >> thanks. we did have the chairman about this in depth.

i will ask about him taking over his emergency power position. senator carden, i will put this out here. we would like this answer in writing. if the commission delays an answer on grounds of not enough information yet, does it suggest the nrc does not have enough information to move forward? we will have the second round here. i think some of the senators will be coming back. i go first. >> you are the chair. >> thanks for noticing. here is where we are. i want all of you to know that we will have the back every 90 days until i know what you are doing.

you take all of the answers you gave, what ever it is, and we will stay on this. i will tell you why. after 9/11, we had these great ideas. the nrc took a decisive action. nine years later, some of these things went into effect. that is not going to happen. if it happens, the american people will know. it is not going anywhere if it is not safe. it is not going anywhere if the public does not have a faith in you. not independence, not doing their business. i have a question for you. in your july 19 vote on the task

force report, the nrc fined itself to move away from small group tax gains, including the commission itself, attempting to labor. this is very disturbing. the commission itself attempting to labor in isolation? what are you talking about? you are an independent agency. >> to reinforce the importance of having public gains. the commission ought to have the benefit. >> it is not up to stakeholders to decide. you are an independent commissioner. >> yes. >> chairman of has laid out a plan. to move forward over the next 90 days to press -- receive broad

input. do you agree with that? >> as i indicated to your response earlier. >> i am asking you this question. chairman has proposed a process to move forward over the next 90 days to address your concerns to receive broad input from nrc staff in stakeholders and to have the votes on specific recommendations. do you agree? it seems to match what you call for. >> i support commission meetings. i am not sure the recommendations can be decided upon in 90 days. >> how many in 90 days? can 6 be decided in 90 days?

yes or no? do you agree with him? >> i do not have a specific account. >> york responses disturb me. -- your responses disturb me. i have 7 million people who live within 50 miles. i went there. they told me -- i said what is your plan in an emergency. they said, we have to go out on the highway. you cannot even move an inch on some of them. i have 7 million people.

and you are saying, you cannot move forward. i want to compliment the members of this special task force. it is not red tape at all. 12 recommendations. they make sense. i am stunned to hear -- is there one you can say that we can move forward? any one of these you can recommend? >> the task force identified the correct areas. the nrc staff responsible for carrying out the recommendations, i would like to have their input prior. >> they have laid out a path to do just that. you say, you will not be ready in october. what date is it good to be ready to go to on half a dozen simple ones that everyone else thinks we can move on? >> my objective would be if some

are less complex. >> which ones? not seem too do complex, especially those that make sure the plan has better emergency preparedness. which are less complex than the others? >> looking at the flooding in the seismic requirements is a very straightforward recommendation. >> the operators of these plants have to come up. >> that is the recommendation. i was referring to that that ask us to be looking at our bases. >> how about the one i just said?

with science moving forward, we have new information all of the time if the the seismic is worth less. science shows we are moving in the wrong direction. morse tsunamis, more earthquakes. do you think that is complex? looking at this every 10 years? >> we have to constantly look at our state of knowledge. >> is a complex to ask the operator who is operating the plant on or near an earthquake faults or near a possible tsunami zone to ask them every 10 years to reassess the safety of their plant. is that a complex recommendation?

>> we should require them to look at that constantly if there is new information that comes forward as in the case with california and fault lines off the coast. >> so you would support, every time there is new science, a new look at the safety of those plans. >> yes. >> are you ready to vote on that in the next 90 days? >> my proposal asks that the nrc staff come back and provide us with the implementation path on these recommendations. i wanted to be informed by that input from the nrc before i make a final decision. >> if i am the people of california watching this, i am

not so sure i want that plant to operate. it is very simple. we have plants they're coming in to get free license. they should not move forward until they steady it. you seem to be on my side, but then you have to hear from everybody else. there are certain things that you should have more believe in what you say. we have oversight over the work you do. chairman, i compliment you. those that are ready and willing to act within the timeframe of 90 days, thank you. if we do not do that, we will not see people reporting to power.

the more you convince the people that you are doing your job, the make -- the more they will be comfortable with nuclear power. if you have a situation where it took nine years to put into place the last safety measures, that is ridiculous. as long as i am sitting over here and have a voice, i will continue to call you before us. get used to this. you need to know how important the work you do is to the safety of the people and the future of nuclear energy. >> it just a few questions. some of my republican colleagues have suggested that you have initiated most of the crew of the nrc.

you are running a dictatorship to undermine the american democratic values. be clear. do you believe and as the non- partisan general counsel of the nrc belief that you have fulfilled the statute in terms of your utilization of your emergency powers. after fukushima, you wanted to make sure that you wanted to make sure that something similar to what happened in japan does not happen in the united states. >> the primary focus is on american citizens in japan and making sure we did everything we could to protect them as they were there.

that was the prime focus. most of the issues are related to reject it was dulled by the commission. i did not exercise in the authorities with regard to domestic -- >> does the non-partisan general counsel belief you acted appropriately? >> i believe that is the case. may i ask the general counsel? coggs yes, you can. please join us. >> my name is steven burns. and in general counsel and a federal employee.

the simple answer to your question is i believe his actions were consistent with the powers he has under the statute. i received an inquiry from his office fairly early on in the event. based on my view into the assessment of my predecessor's view of actions taken, there is not a specific review of the u.s. facility. my view is that given the intention of president carter, his actions were consistent with those of responsibility. i am a career official appointed by the commission. >> thanks very much.

>> you're prepared to move pretty quickly on these recommendations of the task force. are you prepared to move rapidly on these recommendations. >> those actions -- i support us looking at how to improve the framework that we have. >> i do not quite fit that into.

>> this takes a few years to do. we should look at recommendation one. it should not hold us up when taking short-term actions. >> i will yield the floor. >> we will close a out with a couple of questions. i think we will vote here pretty soon.

it is my understanding that the majority have asked senior staff to look into these recommendations. you have asked them to provide suggestions to the commissioners on how to proceed with these recommendations. here is my question. since senior nrc staff made these recommendations in the first place, why is this next step needed? explain why it is needed. >> i speak for myself. my perspective is -- a look forward to seeing what the

senior staff thinks about the recommendation. it is a direct and comprehensive fashion to understand the various recommendations. think about that and feet the recommendation. i think it was nrc staff looking at the mechanisms we have in place to have across the table discussions in a public venue to hear details about the reactions to the recommendations. that is what we do every day in a larger respect. >> thanks. hi make two points. i asked how he thought we should

proceed. those that work for him come back and give us an integrated process. the agency did not do that. we get more bang for the buck and make a real difference sooner. we call for that in 30 days. something should be done right now that requires more. >> thanks. >> a question on orders of versus regulatory process. can you describe or compare both processes for us? what type of opportunities are there for input from stakeholders? >> the orders have more limited

for public involvement. i do believe we could be taken in a postured time for certain reasons for their response is to violations for recommendations. they are not a preferred tool, because they do not provide more in-depth -- more regulation would. one of the activities that i challenge is to better streamline our will making process and get things done in a more timely way. the orders usually have less involvement. they wait until there is a clear safety need. in most cases, when it is related to a specific issue, eventually the same content as captured in regulation.

>> stakeholders have shared and discussed terms with my own staff about moving these recommendations through the order process. what has been the experience and might it have a role to play with some of the recommendations. >> everyone that comes in chairman of the nrc wants the rule making process to go forward. we have a mixed success with that. and out of it comes down to the usual challenges. we recently completed regulation from start to finish. it had to do with an issue related to how to deal with overall fatigue and workers that may get tired at a nuclear power plant. there are ways to do it.

it is doable. that would be the most preferable way to do some of these things. >> if the vote has not started yet, and it looks like another hour or two -- not that long. i would like to -- my mother calling in to say haste makes waste. not really. we ask you to give an opening statement to respond to our questions. sometimes it is helpful to have a closing statement. maybe given the conversation, this may be a closing as we

prepare to go vote. commissioner, why don't you go first? >> thank you. we talk all of the time. >> how often are you in town? >> probably three weeks out of a 4. -- out of four. based on my discussions with my colleagues, we all want to move forward quickly. i do not think we are as far apart as some of the question in my test suggested. we want to do those things, but not all are longer-term action. some require more information.

i asked the institute for nuclear power, do you have sufficient information to support the task force to install those. he said no. you do not understand whether or not the operators at fukushima actually operated during these events. we need to explore this area. we have sufficient information. that is one example. there are claims that require work in january. >> a closing thought or two. >> i think he covered it. i think we will move forward quickly. we are trying to get this done.

we take it seriously. we were talking to each other during the move. we think about what lessons are being learned. this is the conclusion of what started back in march. i think we will do the right thing. >> i agree with my colleagues. i think they will act in a timely manner. i do not see any problem at all. >> i agree with what my colleagues justice said. i think there is a lot of overlap and commonality in the approach here. i think it is possible to strike the appropriate balance between urgency and moving forward and being thoughtful and

getting it right. thanks. >> i appreciated the comments of my colleagues. it is important to look at these recommendations within 90 days. i think it is doable. i think there is some disagreement about that. >> one of my favorite people to work here in the senate is a republican. he is from wyoming. we worked on a couple of things together. the senior democrats ted kennedy. they were remarkably effective -- productive. one of the most conservative

republicans around here worked so productively with the democrats. he said, ted kennedy and i subscribe to the 80-20 rule. he said, we disagree about maybe 20% of the stuff. we focus on the 80% that we agree on. as a result, we get a lot done. i have called on my colleagues in the senate to subscribe to this role. if we can do it on a consistent basis, it would help our country. it seems like we have about 80% agreement on its. -- it.

haste does make waste. i ask that we move forward on the stuff that we can move forward on. let us take more time on the things we have to take more time, but not more time than we really need. we are going to wrap this up. thanks so much. take care. we have about two weeks to submit more questions. if you have them, please respond to them. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] -- 2011. [unintelligible]

>> next, q&a, and live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal." the center for american progress had a discussion on the african- american vote on 2012 and beyond. speakers include a congresswoman and a columnist. that is alive today at noon eastern here on c-span. >> i am not for changing the system, just so we can feel good by having voter turnout, which may approximate with what they have in australia, which is about 97%. the odor turnout f -- voter turnout affects democracy. 95-99%, when they hold elections. >> voting is irresponsible act