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 alan gross. i know you mentioned alan 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 alan 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 alan 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 accordance with 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 joanne chesimard 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 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?s.

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 ie. 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 to dy 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 conservative 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 m 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 ier 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 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 es 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 press for information about my constituent, robert levinson, it is of great importance in my community and i feel you'll

continue to press. >> thank you very much. mr. fortenberry is recognized. there you are. >> let me start with a question about egypt. in 1979 as a young person, i entered the sinai desert in the place where there was fighting. on a twisted pile of rubble and concrete were scrawled the words, here was the war, here is the peace. i was there in a jubilant time. where there was a celebratory atmosphere around the newfound relationship between the united states and egypt. united states has successfully

brokered that treaty and the courage to extend their hands in friendship has left us with a stable foundation for piece for the last 30 years between those two countries. now with the latest event that has occurred with the change of governing structures and a great deal of uncertainty and an unclear commitment to that path of peace, given the deal that we put together and the amount of aid that we've given both to israel but to egypt as well, and now with the effrontery of the egyptian authorities holding -- arresting americans who are simply there to help egyptians, what is the administration's position on potentially suspending the aid package? >> well, congressman, first of all, in all the discussions that we have had and that we are aware of that egypt -- egyptian authorities have had with other countries, they remain committed to the camp david accords, which we think is in egypt's interest and certainly in israel's interest. so we are mindful of the importance of ensuring the continuity of that peace and stability. and we don't want to prejudge what the new government will do.

because i think it is fair to note, there is no government yet. they're in the process of putting in place a government. and the people who are still there but not elected or appointed by the new authorities can't really make decisions. yet there's no president or executive authority yet chosen. i counsel patience, because we first have to get to know who the new government is. we are working hard with different channels to help development relationships with the people who will be in the new parliament, for example. so right now i can report to you that there's an ongoing commitment to preserve the camp david accords. you know, we're having some difficult bumps right now. we're hoping to resolve the ngo situation very soon. then i think we have to take

stock of where we are and make a decision based on the facts. >> well, given certain tensions in the past with our egyptian relationship, i have always argued publicly that it was better to grab the hand of friendship and hold it tighter to work through that. now, it gets a lot more delicate now when there's an unclear pathway to potentially upholding these agreements that have worked so well, not only for the israelis but the egyptians. for decades i'm afraid the international community has taken that camp david accord really for granted. but it is an important pathway for peace. let me turn quickly to the president's large resistance army comprehensive strategy. we voted unanimously in last year's state department authorization act to allow for the deployment of military advisers in the region to bring joseph koney to justice. i'm concerned multilateral interest is dissipating now. can you comment on this? >> first, i thank you for authorizing, encouraging such a comprehensive u.s. strategy to bring this murderer to justice. as you know, small teams of u.s. military advisers were deployed in december and january to forward locations in the lra-affected areas.

the advisers are working to create more cooperation among regional militaries and enhance their capacity. although there are approximately only 100, we think they are force adders to what is already going on. and we have a clear goal, which is to enable local forces to end the reign of terror. and we think that this small number of u.s. advisers can play an outsized role in bringing about that conclusion. >> regional governments must be able to step in and assume the challenge moving forward. >> yes. starting with regional

militaries, but including regional governments. >> let me turn quickly before the time is up to urge you as well, and i think this came up earlier, to speak on behalf of pastor yousef nadarkhani who is guilty of the crime in iran for witnessing to his faith. now, the last time you were here you talked very forthrightly about your desire, yet struggles, to talk about the need for religious freedom as new democratic ideals arise -- >> i'll let you finish that thought, mr. fortenberry. but we're out of time. go ahead. >> thank you, madam chair. >> you'll have to give her some chocolate, though. >> excuse me? >> he'll have to give you some chocolate. >> oh, no, no. >> going back to my train of thought, i'll try. but to continue to raise his issue as an example of how religious freedom is a natural right that is consistent with the ideals of all humanity. so i just urge you to not only try to save his life, but point to that as to how governments who are looking for more just human rights, or better human

rights conditions and more just forms of governance must treat the issue of religious freedom. >> thank you so much. mr. cardoza is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you, secretary clinton. great to have you here again. this will be my last year in congress and i hear rumors that it may be your last year as secretary of state. i just want to take this opportunity to thank you for the tremendous service to our country in so many different ways. madam secretary, i want to raise the issue of our ally portugal. i represent a number of portuguese-american residents and i share that heritage. there are a number of issues with regard to the azores and visas and consulates that i'm very concerned about. the consulate in ponta delgada is rumored to be on the list for closure. one of the original consulates of our nation and something i ask you do everything in your

power to preserve. certainly this is a budget discussion today. it's appropriate to discuss it in the budget. the second question i would have is that there are questions of visas that members of -- citizens of portugal would have to go to france in order to obtain certain kinds of permanent immigration visas or green cards to the united states. i understand the number may only be 150. but the relationship that we have with portugal is so important. when the gulf war first started, the original summit was on the azores and in the azores and portugal was the host country. there may not be a better friend to the united states anywhere in the world. and i'd just like to have you discuss that if you can. finally, i will share with you that i was somewhat dismayed a while back when the presid

indicated in the negotiating strategy of a reversion back to the '67 lines in israel as part of where he thought it might end up. maybe you could clarify that for me and for everyone. because that is something that i happen to have been in the country when these statements were made. i'm not sure that the '67 lines are defensible or the correct -- there may be adjusted lines. so i'd just like to hear the administration's position again on that. >> first, with respect to portugal, i share your view that portugal is a wonderful friend. and not only a good partner in nato and so many other areas, but the source of a lot of portuguese-americans. culture, food, so much else. i will have to take those questions for the record, congressman, because i want to look into the two areas that you raised. but i want to assure you that we highly value our relationship with portugal. and we'll be very careful in making any decisions that would

and trade. secondly, i think if you look at the president's speech -- speeches, first last may at the state department and secondly before apac, there's a very clear set of understandings that the president lays out. and there was no reference to going back to the exact borders. i mean, it would be based on negotiation between israel and the palestinians. and it is anticipated that there would be a certain set of decisions that would have to take into account what has happened in the years since. but certainly from our perspective, looking at those speeches and looking at the reaction in israel, which was very positive to both of them together, and we obviously are pursuing with israel and the palestinians an effort to get the negotiations restarted. because there is no shortcut. we support the two-state solution.

we want to see it negotiated by the parties themselves. and it's turned out to be quite challenging to do that for a variety of reasons. but our position remains the same. that any final status issue ultimately has to be decided by the parties. we and others can put forth suggestions, recommendations and ideas about what would work. but it's a negotiation. and the negotiation has to be resolved by the two parties most affected. >> i totally agree with you, madam secretary. thank you for that reclarification. and i appreciate it. i'd just like to make a notation on my original point about the azores. there's a base there that is of

strategic importance to us. it's really more appropriate to bring up with the secretary of defense. but i'll share it since i have this opportunity today. our base at trasada in the azores is critical and is being -- the totality of the things that are coming to pass, the potential closing of ponta delgada and the visa situation is having a view within that sphere of -- that we don't care any longer. i raise the issues in combination because i think it will strain relations. >> thank you so much, mr. cardoza. >> mr. mccaul? the vice chair of the subcommittee in the southern mi >> thank you, madam chair. recently i led a delegation to it was very, very interesting. we had a sit-down meeting with president zardari. a very frank discussion. he said that he had no knowledge that bin laden was in his country. but we do know it's probably likely that lower level officials knew of his presence