follow through on the illicit activities. >> thank you, mr. royce. thank you, madam secretary. mr. carnahan is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair and madam secretary, great to have you back. i want to say thank you for following up with the caucus and those concerns we had raised earlier given the fact that they have new government in place we hope that continued u.s. international support can help move them forward. first of all, thank you for that. i also wanted to commend you on their recently announced international partnership, the climate and clean air coalition to reduce short-term pollutants.

it underscores the global nature of the challenge as well as advantages to working with partners at the u.n. and around the world. i want to ask has that investment paid off in terms of stronger commitments by developing countries? and can we count on them to continue and fulfill those commitments if we are not honoring our pledges? >> thank you for raising that, congressman. because we continue to believe that climate change and the consequences of climate change pose national security problems to us. and so we are looking for ways to try to move forward where we can and take practical steps. the fact is that the short-term climate forcers, things like methane, black carbon and soot, are more easily dealt with than carbon dioxide. and i think that what we've put together here, which is the climate and clean air coalition,

has developed countries like sweden, underdeveloped countries like bangladesh, developing countries like ghana, canada. and we've had a really positive response from countries around the world asking how they can be involved. so we think this is a way to help cut down on about 40% of what the pollutants in the atmosphere are that affects climate change. so we're going to be promoting this issue. it's not as controversial. it's not as, you know, far reaching. we still have to deal with, you know, the greenhouse gas emissions and try to come to grips with, you know, co2. but it gives us something the people can do. i'll give you a quick example. we have a global alliance on clean cook stoves. how women cook, about 2 billion of them around the world,

creates respiratory illnesses, puts a lot of soot, black cash sboon the atmosphere. if we can create a market for a more clean burning cook stove, we'd improve health and we improve the environment at the same time. there's a lot of win/win strategies we're working on here. >> great. thank you. i also wanted to follow up on the cigar audit report of the police development program. and it reveals issues in iraq of poor planning, mismanagement, inefficient evaluation metrics. so in this current budget, what's being done to enhance those monitoring mechanisms in a way that ensures that police training is really being ramped up the way it needs to be? it's also ensuring the integrity of our tax dollars? and really, related to that, as this similar kind of transition

is approaching -- fast approaching in afghanistan, the lessons we've learned in this transition in iraq, how can we apply those in afghanistan as well? >> well, the police development program has been operating since october 1, 2011, when the state department became the u.s. lead for police development. since october, our senior police advisers, who are the most experienced group of police advisers ever fielded by the u.s. government, have had approximately 690 total mentoring and advising sessions with over 86 iraqi counterparts. and we've recently completed an assessment of iraq's ministry of interior and police services so that we can really refine how we are monitoring and what kind of performance measurements we need. i think that sigar performs a valuable oversight service. we welcome helpful recommendations about how to

make the police development program better. we are implementing the recommendations from the fall audit. and we're going to continue to look at opportunities to improve the effectiveness of these programs. we think they're critical to the stability and security of iraq. so we take it very seriously and we take, you know, recommendations from sigar and others very seriously as well. >> finally in my remaining time, i just want to add my voices to others that -- about our continued effective and full engagement at the u.n. certainly not a perfect body, but one that certainly they've made some successes. they're vital for our security and economic interest and appreciate those continued efforts. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. shab bit, the chairman of the subcommittee on middle east and south asia, is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. madam secretary, because of limited time i'd like to raise three issues and then give you

the remaining amount of my time to address them. first, iran. on the subject of the iranian nuclear program, the fiscal year 2013 congressional budget justification notes that, quote, the bureau of near eastern affairs will maintain pressure through sanctions to encourage iran to return to the negotiating table, unquote. this policy, however, is essentially the same unchanged iran policy that the administration has had since they took power back in january of 2009. engagement and pressure. on july 12th, 2009, over 2 1/2 years ago, you stated that, quote, we understand the importance of offering to engage iran in giving its leaders a clear choice. the opportunity will not remain open indefinitely, unquote. and we enter year -- excuse me. as we enter year four of this policy, it seems to me to be painfully obvious that this administration's policy is not

only the same, but that it's failed to achieve the core objective, persuading the regime and tehran to abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability. just this morning in your testimony before the house appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations, you said that you believe we are making progress on the sanctions front. my question is, how have these sanctions actually altered the iranian regime's calculation about its nuclear program? and let me say, i don't think merely getting them to the table is enough. we've seen numerous times that the regime and tehran uses negotiations as a delaying tactic and that a willingness to negotiate does not equal a willingness to make concessions. second, i'd like to ask you about iraq. within hours of the departure of the final u.s. convoy, a political crisis started occurring in iraq which, if not checked, has the potential to throw the entire country back

into sectarian civil war that we spent years working to resolve. many iraqis continue to die in daily attacks across the country. and according to one report, our influence over the maliki government has diminished significantly. the state department congressional budget justification notes that, quote, renewed sectarian conflict or increased interference by maligned regional actors seeking to fill a vacuum left by u.s. disengagement would pose a significant threat to u.s. influence in the region, unquote. it seems undeniable that the continued presence of even a modicum of u.s. troops would have resulted in far more stability and security than we are seeing now. given our lack of a military presence and our diminished diplomatic leverage, how does the administration plan to deal with the current deterioration on the ground in iraq? and, finally, madam secretary, if i may, i'd like to briefly touch upon the issue of outstanding claims by american companies against the government

of saudi arabia. in the last 20 years or so, thanks in large part to congressional and executive branch pressure, a number of previously unsettled cases involving more than a dozen american firms totalling somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 million have been resolved. i learned last year that at least one such unsettled claim with the saudis remains. despite continued empts by the party, gibbs and hill the u.s. government repeated encouragement from members of congress, the claim resulting from a project in the late '70s and early '80s and totalling, i'm told, more than $130 million has still not been settled. i discussed this case with the saudi petroleum minister when i meet with him in riyadh last year and offered an amendment to the foreign relations authorization bill to further encourage the saudis to move expeditiously to resolve this claim. i'd be happy to work with your office on this issue. this claim is of significant importance to an american company and their workers. and it should be of importance

to the reputation of the saudi government which i'm sure does not want to be known as one which does not pay its bills. you've got about a minute for all that, madam secretary. >> well, i'll take the last one because that's shorter. and then get back to you on the important questions concerning iran and iraq. state department is well familiar with the gibbs and hill contract dispute. it's been raised at high levels for a number of years. at the request of counsel for hill international, the state department recently conducted a review of all of our records in this matter. we have a standing invitation to officers of the hill international to come in and discuss the results of this review, to bring not only representatives, but counsel of the company. we regularly meet with representatives of hill international because they still do business in saudi arabia. in fact, they do quite a bit of business. you know, they come in and talk

to us about commercial ventures and business climate. so if they wish to come in and talk to us about our review of the records, we stand ready to do so. >> thank you very much, mr. chabot. thank you, madam secretary. [ speaking in foreign language ] >> that was easy enough for everybody to understand. >> madam secretary, thank you for being here. thank you for the service that you give this country. you certainly make us proud. i don't know how you do it, but every time i see you, you're in a different country. it's amazing. i also want to commend the administration for standing firm on cuba not participating in the summit of the americas. and i also wish to -- to add that if we could use some of our -- our pull with the oas, maybe they could speak up a little louder about the human abuses that occurring in cuba

currently. and with that, it brings me to allen gross. i know you mentioned allen gross before. i just want to know that there is no negotiations going on for a swap between the cuban spies that are in prison for allen gross? i know we had two senators who were in cuba a couple days ago. i was just wondering if, you know, if you know anything about any kind of negotiations for a swap. >> well, i have to say that, you know, the continuing imprisonment of allen gross is deplorable. it is wrong. it is a violation of human decency as well as human rights. and every single meeting that we possibly can arrange, we raise this issue. we call people around the world to raise this issue because mr. gross deserves to come home. at no point, however, has the united states government been willing to give any unilateral

concessions to the castro regime or to ease sanctions as a means to secure mr. gross's release. we think this should be done as a matter of humanitarian concern, as evidence that, you know, the castro regime is, you know, willing to demonstrate that it is, you know, moving in a different direction. but it hasn't happened yet. so we have not had any success in our diplomacy. we'd like to see mr. gross home. but we have made no deals. we've offered no concessions. and we don't intend to do so. >> thank you. i'd also like to associate myself with my colleague, chris smith, on the human rights abuses. especially what's going on in egypt with the christians. i have a big population of christians in my district. they're very concerned about the family members they have back home. i hope we continue to speak out on their behalf.

i also -- i know you didn't address this. but if we could use our leverage with the oas to speak up more on human rights abuses, you know, that would be great. one of the things that is my pet peeve, i know that the state department operation funding for iraq has been reduced. i think this year is going to be $4.8 billion. and i know that the department of defense also has reduced from 9.6 to 2.9, almost three billion dollars. i was just wondering if any of the money is used for infrastructure building in iraq? we have a situation in america where our infrastructure is falling apart. since i've been here, we've been giving money to iraq to build their infrastructure. i was just wondering if any of this money is going to be used, do you know? >> congressman, as you know, we have dramatically scaled back on what we spend in iraq. primarily because the military has left in

agreements that were negotiated by the prior administration. now what we are focused on is our civilian presence. so we don't fund iraqi infrastructure any longer. what was funded was primarily on the military side. not the civilian side. >> okay. getting back to cuba on my last issue, we have a criminal who killed a state trooper in new jersey. she's been living in cuba for over 20 years. she shot a state trooper point-blank. every time i'm back in the state, they warn me to raise this issue to see if the state department, when you meet with cuba, or when you do your conversations with some of the cuban couldn't parts, is the issue of jo ann chesamar ever raised or sit a forgotten issue? >> it will be now raised if it

hasn't been raised. i thank you for raising it. i well remember that terrible case. and i'm confident it has been raised, but i will assure you and the state troopers in new jersey it will continue to be raised in the future. >> okay. madam secretary, thank you for your service to this country. >> thank you so much. my florida colleague, mr. mack, the chairman of the subcommittee on western hemisphere is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i also would like to thank the secretary for being here and making herself available to questions from the committee. i want to go and continue to explore the keystone xl pipeline. but i first want to just for point of clarification for everyone, we would much rather, as a policy in the united states, buy oil from our friends and allies in canada than we would from venezuela. would you agree with that?

>> yes. yes. and we do buy, as you know, a lot of oil from canada. >> if we had the option to stop buying oil from venezuela and get more oil from canada, that is also a policy that we would pursue, wouldn't it? >> well, obviously we would rather buy oil from friendly countries. and we are doing everything we can to diversify our oil supply, including producing more oil here in the united states, which is all to the good. >> so why the -- why the flip-flop on the keystone xl pipeline? >> i don't think there was any flip-flop, congressman. i think this was always a matter that had to be evaluated in accordance with legal and regulatory standards. certainly energy security considerations was a key factor, but not the only factor. there was a lot of concern on the part of one state through which the pipeline traveled. >> and on that note, your

environmental impact statement approved the original route, and now there's been agreement upon another route that the governor and others have come out and supported, correct? >> well, i think that what the finding was, is that there was minimal environmental disruption, but the national interest consideration had not yet been finalized, which is why state department representatives fanned out across the states affected and there were quite large and contentious and emotional meetings in nebraska and a plea by the governor and everybody else that a different route be considered. and, you know, once that was requested, and it was complicated because nebraska didn't have legislation that really got it into the business of judging routes before. but they were concerned because of the, you know, the sandhills and the like. once they demanded a different route and then there was an

effort to work out a different route, the congress, of course, through an amendment to the payroll tax cut, said, no, you have to make a decision right now. and legally there was no a alternative but to deny the permit that we did not recommend to the president that the answer be no. but that the presidential permit for the project be denied at that time because there would have been, i think, at a con sefrktive estimate, several hundred lawsuits if there had been any other decision made. which would have pushed the -- you know, the decision, whatever it might be, far into the future. >> so are you prepared to do it now, then? >> we have no pending application now. there's no pending application. >> if you had an application, would you approve it now? has all of the other scenarios been -- >> no. congressman we would have to go through the process. because it would be a new application. now, what transcanada is doing is announcing -- >> because my time is limited,

if i can, i mean, even the former president bill clinton says, embrace it. and we need to move forward with the keystone xl pipeline. >> he's a very smart man. but he unfortunately is not bound by the lawing and regulations any longer of the united states to make decisions that follow a certain procedure. and that's what we have to do. >> so is it a mistake for the former president to say embrace it? >> of course not. i think it's not a mistake for people -- this is america. people say they embrace it. people say they hate it. our job is to take a very clear-eyed look at what the facts are. there is no pending application -- >> did the white house ask you to delay the process? >> no. no. we were -- our job was to make a recommendation. >> here's where i have the problem. because in conversations that you and i have had and also in

front of committees, you have led us to believe that it is something that the state department was going to approve. and it just seems a little fishy to me that at the height of this thing, that it seems that the president found a way to wiggle out of it and wants to make you the scapegoat. i don't understand why -- just, the facts don't mesh up. >> well, you know, congressman, that's just not how we see it. i think that the people in the state department -- i was fully and regularly briefed on the department's review process. i, you know, fully support the recommendation that the department made. you know, this is a difficult decision for the state department to make because most

other pipelines are not within the purview of the state department. we don't have the kind of staff experience, expertise and numbers that you have in other places with the united states government. but under the laws, if that pipeline crosses an international border, then it's our responsibility. so what transcanada is doing is announcing they're going to start building parts of the pipeline that don't cross the international border. but i have to defend the process that the state department went through, which was fully in accord with the laws of the united states. >> thank you very much, mr. mack. madam secretary. another florida colleague. >> thank you, madam chairman. madam secretary, thank you for being here. it is safe to say that certainly here on the hill and around the world you are extraordinarily respected for the job you to. i'd particularly like to thank you for your leadership in the critical areas of the middle

east. in particular, your continued strong advocacy for foreign assistance. i'd like to talk first about syr syria. rather than continue the discussion you've had already on what happens -- how what's happening now in syria ultimately ends, i want to talk about what's happening right at this moment. and, in particular, just today it was reported that 23 people were killed when syrian troops ambushed a group trying to smuggle western journalists out of the country. i don't know whether the body of -- of marie colvin, the american who wrote for "the sunday times" of london, whether that body has been recovered. if you have information, i want welcome that. the same for the frenchman. the fact is even as we talk about the big picture in syria, the humanitarian situation

deteriorates daily. food and medicine is not being delivered to civilians. it is a tragic situation for the people of syria, and i'd like you to address that and specifically what you can do and what we can do to alleviate those concerns now and to convince the russians and the chinese to, notwithstanding their views on the assad regime, to at least support a humanitarian cease-fire. put pressure on assad to permit a humanitarian cease-fire so the people of syria can receive the food and medicine they need. >> congressman, i share your concern and your outrage. every day that goes by just compounds the crimes against humanity committed by this regime and their security forces. when we met in tunisia last friday, we made three commitments. first, increase humanitarian

aid. i announced a $10 million commitment to assistance projects. secondly, to keep working with the opposition so that they get stronger, more effective, and that they're inclusive so they truly represent all syrians. thirdly, to keep pressing for a political resolution. and the arab league plan, which called for assad to step aside, is the plan that people feel most comfortable pushing. you know, the fact is, access is a terrible problem. there's not even a willingness on the part of the assad regime to let the syrian red crescent in to pick up bodies, to deliver medical supplies and provisions. and they effectively not only block such aid, but they target those who are trying to provide it. so we see a brutal use of violence against the people of syria and everyone trying to

help them. so we're looking with our allies, particularly in the neighborhood, those who have borders, how do we get this aid in? how do we protect people who are trying to put it in? and we're going to continue to do everything we can, not only to help get that aid in, but pressure the assad regime. and we are working actively to persuade the russians and the chinese, and at the very least they ought to support humanitarian assistance, put aside the political disagreement we have about supporting, you know, a leader who has murdered so many of his people with, you know, artillery. let's focus on how we help the syrian people. so that's our goal right now. >> i appreciate that. switching gears in the remaining time i have, it had been, i believe, misreported that what was going to be the largest joint military exercise between the united states and israel had been canceled because of a decision made by the administration. it was later reported that

obviously a decision made by the israelis. if you could speak to the reason for that cancellation, what will come next and whether, in terms of security cooperation, that type of joint military exercise, why it's important and whether it's consistent with other joint military exercises like that that we've engaged in. >> of course, you know, dod is the agency to whom such a question should be directed. but i believe it is either in the process or has already been rescheduled. we have upped our security assistance to israel, as i said earlier. prime minister netanyahu calls our bilateral security commitment from the obama administration unprecedented. and those include, you know, realistic and ongoing military exercises, which we think are very important. >> i appreciate that. madam chairman, if i may just finally, if i could, madam secretary, please encourage you to continue to pre