and the state department, the secretary is telling us it isn't happening. and janet napolitano is saying very similar things in the department of homeland security f we're going to solve this problem and make sure it never happens again swreshgs to solve the challenges. i've no confidence that you can solve it. >> i'm not sure about the context in which that remark was made by secretary clinton. i can tell that you when it comes to the issue of violence in mexico, the problem with guns going to mexico, we are joined with our partners. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? can i read the question? can i read the question? >> does the gentleman want the question read back? >> no. the question that secretary clinton got. you asked a legitimate question. i don't know what context secretary clinton was asked. >> the gentleman will suspend. if you'll make that question available to the attorney general staff so they can brief him. we will return to that out of order to get an answer. but i think in fairness, we've given sufficient time. if you'll make it available to sta

state department, mr. keith dennis, dated june 22, 2011, and on the issue that my friend from san antonio, a little further south, mentioned, it is on the record from the state department's review of this pipeline that eliminating transportation constraints from cushing to houston would not affect midwestern kirms in fact help crude prices decline considering that the transportation is consistent, reliable and less expensive. let's keep in mind that what we're talking about is around 700,000 barrels initially going up to 1 million barrels that would completely offset the need for us to send tankers to venezuela and fill up with their heavy crude and ship it up here. it defies logic -- >> i might just say without objection. >> thank you. i submit that. so i'll put it up here. but it simply defies logic to me that when you have a transportation system that the state department even testified was safe, the safest means of transport, the most environmentally safe transport that there be arguments that it would

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

the recommendation that went to the president was a state department recommendation. and it came from the state from my bureau and other bureaus. it came through the deputy and through the secretary to the president. >> so your bureau recommend the permit be denied? >> yes, sir. >> and what other bureaus at the state department was involved in that decision making? >> the other bureau involved is the bureau of economic affairs. the state department looks at this pipeline across all of the issues that are involved. so there are multiple bureaus involved and all of the meetings and discussions that we have, we also have some energy expertise and we also have, of course, the regional bureau which handles matters with canada. >> now, i think mr. waldon over there has a copy of the impact statement. but isn't it true that the state department's draft environmental impact statement concluded that the keystone pipeline would have limited adverse environmental impact? >> mr. chairman, with the statement said was it suggested that there would be little adverse impact to most r

if says we're going to take all the work product that the state department said was sufficient, we'd carve out that 30 mile or maybe 40 mile, maybe 50 mile jog in the state of nebraska and let that proceed but start on what's already been done. so let's get on with it. let's put the politics aside. the president left us no choice but to work around the presidential decision making here because we already know that he's not going to make the decision until after the election. and, by the way, this pipeline has contracts to the refineries that have to be met and the only way to accomplish that would be to start construction as soon as possible. so i reflectfully request and ask to put into the record a unanimous consent to put in the u.s. department of states memorandum permit for the alberta clipper pipeline that says when the state department followed regular procedure and the presidential permit was authorized and not caught up in politics because this was 2009, not 2012, the state department said the approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal in a difficult economic per

the state department testified that we would get 5,000 to 6,000 temporary jobs. these jobs would be around for two years and transcanada said the jobs would be 100,000, that is looking at the lifetime of the pipeline for a hundred years. this is the republican jobs bill. 20,000 jobs they say, maybe 1 100,000 jobs, the state department did an analysis and they said 5,000 to 6,000 jobs for two years. i am glad we have excellent witnesses here today that will give us their views, two departments that will be excluded from giving their usual review of the project, that might change, and two gentlemen who have special insight at what this project will mean. thank you for this seven seconds beyond the time and i yield back whatever time i have left. >> thank you mr. waxman, today we have two panels of witnesses. those of you on the first panel, if you will come forward, that is ms. smith, who is chief regulatory for army corp of engineers and mr. mike poole, deputy director of u.s. land management shs department management, department of the interior. we appreciate you

they are holding a hearing this afternoon on the state department's budget request for 2013. the president requesting $51.6 billion. that's a 1.6% increase over 2012. that includes $8.2 billion for civilian led operations in war zones and other overseas operations. live coverage here on c-span3. order. madame secretary, welcome back to the committee. as always, i think you know this, it's a great pleasure for us to welcome you here, to have you here and it's enormously helpful for us to hear your thoughts especially at a time when we are facing so many different challenges and at the same time i think presented with so many opportunities. the demand for u.s. leadership, i think, has never been higher whether because of the issues raised by the arab spring, by nuclear proliferation, climate change, particularly the challenge of iran and the middle east. budget realities, however, have placed a premium on projecting u.s. power. not only effectively will you efficiently. i think that more than at recent moments we need a smart, coordinated and strong budget in order to safeguard

state department's view that 60 days is not sufficient to obtain the necessary information that the keystone xl pipeline as presented and analyzed at this time would not srerve the national interest. should that change, we will process any request with accordance with the appropriate procedures based on our authorities and implementing regulations. if hr is enacted the core would not be responsible for requiring a permanent for the operation and maintenance of the pipeline. as present only the corp has the mandate to review keystone xl under section ten of the rivers and harbor hack and second 404 of the clean river act. no corp permit would be required. i appreciate the time to be here today and i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, very much, ms. smith. mr. poole you are now recognized for the purpose of making an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for inviting the department of the interior. the legislation directs the federal energy regulation to approve the pipeline project. the department has concerns with several provisions of t

the state department and u.s. aid budget we discuss today is a proven investment in our national and economic security. but it is also something more. it is a down payment on america's leadership. when i took this job, i saw a world that needed america, but also one that questioned our focus and our staying power. so we have worked together to put american leadership on a firm foundation for the decades ahead. we have ended one war and are winding down another. we have cemented our place as a pacific power. we have also maintained our alliance across the atlantic. we have elevated the role of economics within our diplomacy and we have reached beyond governments to engage directly with people with a special focus on women and girls. we are updating diplomacy and development for the 21st century and finding ways to work smarter ficitly. and after the first quadrennial diplomacy and development review, we created two new bureaus, taking the work we were already doing on counterterrorism and combining it with other as

i think that's why the idea of putting the oco part of the state department as relates to the united states is critically important. that's the benefit of the oco and i think the congress will look at that in 13. my assumption is it will continue to fund the oco in a way that they feel reflects those costs. >> one specific thing is $626 million forses assistance in europe and central asia and -- >> 18%. >> $626 million. >> these guys will get it, but europe and oh. >> 25 that 18% is a democracy. >> yes. >> and $626 million to zero? >> we'll follow up on it. it didn't zero out. generally we're cutting all of the assistance by those three regions by whatever it is. >> again, we will have -- as the document will show, you're is down about 18% as the secretary and the president has discussed many times, we have a limited amount of money. we have a huge amount of new activities occurring. and we need to shift resources based upon the activities that are occurring. >> it's on page 11. >> last question, anyone? yeah. >> i'm just wondering the2$.4 billion for pakistan and the core money. the

. >> what reviews, if any, has the state department conducted or will the state department be conducting that are comparable to this multilateral aid review conducted by the british government? >> we have participated in a number of such reviews. i will take that for the record and give you a full accounting of that. the british government, through their development agency, conducted their own review, but we have been involved in supporting independent, high level reviews and i would be glad to provide that to you. >> okay. thank you very much. i see my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lee. senator coons. >> thank you, mr. chairman. leadership and vision in a very difficult time, in world history. i want to applaud you and the administration for leading a strong foreign policy based not just on defense, but also diplomacy and development. and i was grateful for the chance to witness firsthand your leadership on a joint delegation trip to liberia for the inauguration of president johnson. i think it is critical that the united states continue to demonstrate

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 koenig 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 q

state department a legitimate authority? >> it's legitimate insofar as its actions are legitimate. it has actions that are not legitimate. >> and you've gone after the ones that you think are illegitimate? >> we don't go after. that's a bit of a misconception. we don't go after a particular country. we don't go after a particular organization or group. we just stick to our promise of publishing material that is likely to have a significant impact. [ticking] >> coming up... assange on possible prosecution by the u.s. justice department. >> there is the first amendment. it covers the case. and there's been no precedent that i'm aware of in the past 50 years of prosecuting a publisher for espionage. it is just not done. >> when 60 minutes on cnbc returns. ♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] offering four distinct driving modes and lexus dynamic handling, the next generation of lexus will not be contained. the all-new 2013 lexus gs. there's no going back. see your lexus dealer. until the end of the quarter to think about your money... ♪ that right now, you want to know where you are, and where you'

they pointed out this would not require any okay by the state department. that was a great relief to you, ma'am. at the same time it brings to the question of why the state department has been dudding the thing for three years to begin with. the usual answer is because it crosses an international boundary between canada and the united states. nevertheless, after the state department apparently had come to a conclusion that it had been studied enough, recall a very large demonstration of citizens surrounding the white house one sunday in the latter part of last year demanding that the keystone pipeline be stopped, there were many arguments. one of these, however, was that essentially we should not be importing more oil into our country. it's a theme of those fighting climate change who feel that fossil fuels whether it be oil, natural gas or coal creates co2 and problems for our children and grandchildren. it may be a powerful argument. it was an argument that gave the president enough consternation that he recommended he go back to the state department for

kissinger now distances himself from the president, brings all of his good people over to the state department, and he -- and operates very effectively from there. >> host: so henry kissinger as nsa increased the power -- >> guest: increased the power. >> host: did it stay that way, and did it ever supplant state? >> guest: well, it never reached the -- well, the difference between, say, the kissinger and the bundy regime, under bundy the people who were on the wavelength of the president in the state department loved the system because they could get to bundy, they could get heard and so forth. in the nixon administration, the strong people in the state department didn't like the system. they that hated the system becae they felt shut out. a lot of the senior nsc people were shut out because kissinger and nixon didn't tell them what was happening either. so you had a -- so they no monopolized power. that meant they could only handle a narrow range of issues, but they dominated those. and nobody has done that since. the next prominent national security adviser was brzezinski who worked for jim

state department a legitimate authority? >> it's legitimate insofar as its actions are legitimate. it has actions that are not legitimate. >> and you've gone after the ones that you think are illegitimate? >> we don't go after. that's a bit of a misconception. we don't go after a particular country. we don't go after a particular organization or group. we just stick to our promise of publishing material that is likely to have a significant impact. [ticking] >> coming up... assange on possible prosecution by the u.s. justice department. >> there is the first amendment. it covers the case. and there's been no precedent that i'm aware of in the past 50 years of prosecuting a publisher for espionage. it is just not done. >> when 60 minutes on cnbc returns. ♪ [ male announcer ] the 2012 m-class continually monitors blind spots, scans the road to reveal potential threats, even helps awaken its driver if he begins to doze. so in the blink of an eye it will have performed more active safety measures than most cars will in a lifetime. introducing the all-new 2012 m-class. see your authorize

while we are grateful that assistant secretary posner at the state department has been repeatedly and persuasively relentless himself, the only with a that we're going to see movement on these cases is by having the highest level government officials engage directly with the chinese government. and i would submit we have here today, in the audience, dr. yan li, someone who i worked with for five years. >> if he could stand and be recognized. >> congressman smith was deeply engaged in his case. the way he got out was president bush raised the case twice to hu jintao, secretary rice raised it twice, secretary powell raised it once and the u.s. government had to be relentless. without that kind of direct engagement, we are not going to see the release of people. i would be all for quiet diplomacy if it worked. if it was working, wouldn't feel the need to speak out in the same way. but clearly, we need to strange our strategies. >> mr. fu or li? >> i agree with mr. chairman, your overall assessment. but the past three years, the field so-called quiet diplomacy, the indifference diplomacy.

n now, a person on the outside not paying any attention to this -- everyone expected the state department is going to make its final decision sometime in the fall of 2011. and then all of a sudden announce they said that they would seek a new route through the state of nebraska and undergo another round of studies that would not be complete until the first quarter of 2013. and that was the stated reason for president obama not making a decision was that -- because of this new route through nebraska. now, when some of the political leaders in nebraska realized their concerns were being used by the president to stop this project, they had a special session of the legislature was called. and a new law was passed to give the nebraska department of environmental quality the ability to cite and evaluate a new route for the pipeline within nebraska's borders in half the time frame that the state department envisioned. so, taking that development into account, the keystone provision that was put into the temporary payroll tax cut payroll tax cut extension act allowed the president to approve the

gaffney-smith, did the state department refer the application to the corps? >> no. like the department of interior, the application came from the applicant. >> okay. did blm provide view on the permit application? answer yes or no. >> provide what, sir? >> did blm provide views on the permit application? please answer yes or no. >> the -- we were part of the environmental impact process that was led by the state department, and so the mandates that we have obligations with in terms of issuing a right-of-way grant in montana, then we did review the application. in the context that the overall nepa product. >> ms. gaffney-smith, did the corpses provide views on the permit application? >> in three core districts in galveston, fort worth and tulsa districts we received a preconstruction notification for nationwide permit 12, we initiated coordination with other agencies, and we did provide a response to the applicant in accordance with our nationwide permit rules based on comments we received from the department of state. >> so the answer's yes? >> are yes. >> under h.r.

state department decided on the issue in its own human rights we. in menton seventy six annual document often contains scathing and now it says on abuses originally in the u.s.s.r. and later russia another country highly criticized in the u.s. state department reports china decided to strike back and came up with its own account of human rights violations in one to ninety eight russia has always alleged the u.s. state department report was biased and question the right of any nation to bear. however december two thousand and eleven so russia's foreign ministry issued its own report on human rights. well the us department of state the united states was criticized criticized by the soviet union by rochelle a later for these reports of this kind we said i remember that an american is positioning itself as a judge for other country for their situation human rights so why did russia decide to follow this example well first of all. i am working in the in the foreign ministry of the russian federation and definitely as our minister sergey lavrov actually p

for us an hour and a half after my article was published this morning i was called into the state department to discuss that and answer was i was talking about this that's an example of how quick things can happen and i spent this morning to finding myself inside of the department of state what happens is that it can be difficult sometimes to prosecute people it may involve telling the truth which is something the government wants to avoid altogether and admitting that tony was right when he exposed able danger or intended colonel davis has spoken the truth so they don't want to prosecute for those reasons other times they don't want to have the documents revealed through discovery or through a court process so it becomes much easier to destroy the person as an individual we saw that most explicitly in the case of thomas drake whose life was ruined and particularly with bradley manning who spent two years in custody without yet the chance to defend himself for an alleged action yeah they will go after you financially let's also not forget john kiriakou whose wife was then fired from the cia

into an mou with them, even though the mou was sitting on the state department's desk ready to sign. this amendment would ensure ferc could not be similarly dilatory in executing an mou with my home state. this gives our home -- my home state a path forward on this issue, instead of being in limbo as they are now. the third of the three amendments to section 3 would clarify the holder of any permit issued under the act may begin construction of portions of the pipeline while the proposed nebraska route modification is being determined. last change in this amendment comes in section 4. i'm clarifying only federal law i intend to supersede with this legislation is a requirement a presidential permit must be obtained for the pipeline. this change was brought up in the rule 11 hearing from the first panel. all other federal and state laws continue to apply. by taking the issue out of the president's hands and entrusting the issue with an expert pipeline agency, i hope we can get the pipeline and jobs and energies that comes with this pipeline. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> ge

in the state department's reports. quite a number of. assessments and conclusions are falling into this category and that's why we have to react but we do not react angrily to any criticism which is a constructive one because the shoes do exist and i wouldn't read the problems that exist and we are we are now literally absolutely rapes to meet it but efforts are being done and when the vehicle leaders when efforts are not when efforts are underestimated then definitely we have we have to point to two point zero and the reaction to our report. let's. maybe distinguish between two sorts of reactions or reactions one is official reaction and we hear from her facial reactions. department of state which you mentioned in that from the united states from finland from some other countries and i must say that it was the reactions there as official it would have been pretty much. i can see you know we construct you for well maybe you reserved you know we were not different to negative air although i would expect some of those countries which have

this thing has the state department and u.s. intelligence all over it three easy steps and that's all it takes to overthrow your very own government so this revolution become a commodity a product that could be branded popish to mass produce an export of all across the globe well just like ivan's video this too of course is a spoof but the game of regime change is quite real and it's unintended consequences can be downright dangerous. for the american taxpayer i think who's getting. the short end of the bargain because there are there are bankrolling people that are going around the world fomenting astroturf revolutions that are eventually backfiring and they're backfiring all over the place and once the people find out who was behind this their anger to. to the american government and the american people to a bus tour this is going to be. an easy recipe but the aftermath may be the hardest to see captain of washington. all right so you've got let's bring you back into this conversation and let's just talk for a minute about thi

the state department in the 1960s, but they had a really good idea in sending musicians like armstrong and other jazz musicians, and later in the 1960 pop and gospel music to represent the united states aboard in the struggle for hearts and minds overseas. okay. now this is also a period in which there's a connect between the civil rights movement and african independence movement. while young people in the united states cannot be served at lunch counters, african nations are gaining independence and so you have dr. king as a guest of honor at the independence festivities in ghana. there he is with the prime minister of ghana. and dr. king came back from the independence ceremonies and spoke to his congregation and really felt optimistic about the prospects for change after having seen the british colonial union jack go down and the newly independent -- the flag of the newly independent nation of ghana go up. here you have malcolm x who visited ghana after he left the nation of islam, when he was trying to start a new political formation, a more radical formation that really sort of en

what sort of interaction did you have with the state department? >> i'm not sure. at lower levels, if there was interaction between the justice department and the state department, i know i've not interacted with secretary clinton with regard to fast and furious. >> i was questioning whether or not you had actually had some interaction or if fast and furious came up. you said, and i quote, you have to understand something about the way washington works. explain that to me and the interaction that your department or agency has had with the state department. >> well, one of the things that i was saying, i was trying to say and i think i got cut off was that when people know that i'm going to be the subject of these kinds of hearings, you know, six times and all that, nobody necessarily wants to get involved in these kinds of things or get dragged into it and then have some interaction, conversation that i have with them be made more than it is. and i understand. when people don't necessarily want to talk to me about fast and furious knowing that at lower levels -- >>

the state department is telling us it is not happening. they are saying similar things of the department of homeland security. if we are going to solve this problem, we have to solve these challenges. >> the gentleman was a time has expired. >> i am not sure -- the gentleman's time has expired. >> i am not sure about the context of that remark. when it comes to violence in mexico -- >> can i read the question? the question that secretary clinton got. you asked a legitimate question. if you make that available to the staff so they can brief him. we will return to that of of order to get an answer. in fairness, we have given sufficient time. if you make it available to staff. with that, we go to the gentle lady from the district of columbia. >> thank you. i do not know if conversations with secretary clinton are of major importance. i do know this, after calling the attorney-general six times book for the congress, i think the public would have expected -- six times before the congress, i think the public would have expected we would talk abo

>> did the state department the for the application to your department? >> the application we received was for the land coming across montana. a right of way application. >> [inaudible] >> no, like the department of interior, the application came from the applicant. >> did blm provide views on the application? did blm provide views on the permit application? >> we were part of the environmental impact process that was led by the state department. the mandates that we have obligations with in terms of issuing a right of way grant in montana, we did review the applications. >> did the core provide views on the permit applications? >> in three, we received a pre- construction notification and we initiated a coordination with other agencies. we did provide response to the applicant based on comments we received from the department of state. >> so the answer is yes. and did need to be completed within 30 days even though blm would no longer be involved in the permit review process? is that enough time for them to do the necessary due diligence on submitting th

this is another example of the continuation of the poor planning i don't know what the state department was thinking i don't know what our diplomatic corps was thinking the embassy facility itself it's not one building it's a campus of multiple buildings for the very fact that you know if mortar and rocket fire starts coming in and it. was one facility that were ruins the whole facility so they they broke it up into a compound so that way if one building gets wiped out by a mortar it's just one building. but the number of people the number of staff and again it goes back to my original point we use mercenaries now those security contractors are mercenaries they're there to protect american civilians and american assets in iraq because the soldiers in uniform are gone but we walk meant that with with with security contractors with golf shirts so the end because they're such bad feeling about america's actions in iraq in general but about america's security contractors you mr square massacre blackwater and all that iraqis i think are going away to minute most of these people are security

and the biggest of its kind in the world but a new york times report revealed yesterday the state department is now preparing to slash their diplomatic presence possibly by as much as half now this due to what they reportedly see as iraqi obstructionism as of late the iraqi government has made it much more difficult to get visas they've delayed convoys of food and they're working on a bill to impose tougher restrictions on security contractors but what specifically did the new york times see as a good measurement of what more difficult means an embassy life here's a quote within days the salad bar at the embassy dining hall ran low sometimes there was no sugar or splenda for coffee and chicken wing night wings were rationed at six per person over the holidays housing units were stocked with meals ready to eat the prepared food for soldiers in the field. so yeah that one got a lot of laughs yesterday but just how telling us that here this guy's with me is michael o'brien author of america's failure in iraq michael thanks so much for coming back on the show good to see you. are before we get i

now, state department's does believe that some benefits accrue to the united states. in these organizations. and as was what to that in my earlier hearing before the senate foreign of subcommittee of the appropriations committee, israel remains a member despite the palestinian. and in our conversations with israelis, you know, they basically point out that there are a number of areas where the action is helpful to the israelis. so this is -- we have very clear instructions from my legislation , but we also think it is in america's interests to dissing -- do things like holocaust education programs which unsc does. stand-up for the freedom of press and expression. the waiver would give us the a virginity to evaluate specific circumstances, and it would also give us the chance to react if by some unforeseen circumstance some of the major u.n. organizations, like the world health organization or the international atomic energy agency were to be so levelheaded to extend, now, those are organizations that we really have a big stake in. so the policy is one that we agree wi

this, including with your advent to this office that the issue of spanish recruitment at the state department remaining pathetic, in the 2010 census, there's 16% of the population is hispanic but they are 6% of foreign service specialists. so, i would like two things for the record. one is can you your office share the most recent statistics with the committee as well as what barriers you have encountered in any effort to recruit hispanics. this is probably in all of my work in hthis regard, this is oe of the worst departments of the federal government as it relates to hispanic participation, i appreciate about the state department reflecting the look of america, when 16% of the population is nowhere near the reality at what the happening in the state department, that does not include a full look of america, as you move on to the next assignment, i would like to get the benefits of any challenges that there were so we can have a plan as to how we change the numbers around. >> senator may i respond briefly. we will give you more details in the taken question, but i took very seriously your cha

but as you heard from the state department spokesperson, that is not the case. well, let's go back to the story that we talked about last month and the headline from the "new york times" is the tensions rise between the u.s. and egypt. the egyptian government barring the exit of six americans, one of whom is the son of ray lahood, sam lahood. he is the director of a nonprofit, nongovernment agency that is working in egypt. as a way to remind you what the "new york times" wrote about on january the 28th, building tensions between the u.s. and egypt flashed in the open when cairo confirmed that it had barred at least a half dozen americans from leaving the country and the obama administration threatening explicitly to withhold annual aid to the egyptian military. ray lahood, who was on capitol hill discussing the transportation department budget, was asked about all this and the status of his son, sam. questions from senator conrad of north dakota and jeff sessions of alabama. >> i want to welcome everyone to the senate budget committee this morning. our hearing t

the state department had this request for keystone going back to 2008. and they've been studying it. in fact, hillary clinton back in 2010 said, we ought to move forward with it. in 2011 last year, the state department issued a statement saying, they don't see any problems with keystone. we fought and won world war i in less time than the federal government has been studying keystone. we can keep studying it, people can say, oh, i'm for the keystone pipeline, but i just want to study it some more. in the meantime, china is saying they want it. china wants to send it to america. china wants to send the jobs to america, but america right now through these radical policies are saying, no. if america doesn't want the jobs, they'll go to china. so it's come to our lap. congress can sit back and do nothing about it, but wii take' taken the initiative and said we want to create jobs, and unfortunately, the only way to do that is through congress. the president is not going to do it. he put this off after they went through the election. so he made it about polit

troops are no longer in iraq although we know that there's still a massive state department presence and the pentagon is in fact still asking for about three billion dollars more next year in iraq why is a very important question and what i still haven't seen anybody in the mainstream media ask by the way that in afghanistan it does look like will at least see a troop drawdown in the middle of two thousand and thirteen but how many troops exactly we don't know yet there's also continued spending and plans for permanent basing they're also deserving of harsh questioning and so let me just use this time right now to talk about an incredibly important report that's out there and something that we should all reads. we should all examine before talking about any kind of numbers that we can properly critique that as our daily viewers out there should know last week we had the tenet colonel daniel davis on the program is an active army officer who just submitted a classified report to congress that's a pretty damning assessment of the dishonesty of our military leadership now just two days

this including with your advent to this office that the issue of hispanic recruitment at the state departmentremains pathetic. in the 2010 census, it is indicated there are over 50 million hispanics in the united states, 16 president of the population -- 16% of the population. yet, however, hispanics make up only 5% of the state department's employees and about 6% of foreign service specialists. and so i'd like two things for the record. one is can your office share the most recent statistics with the committee as well as what barriers you have encountered in any effort to improve your outreach, recruitment and retention of qualified hispanics. this is really probably in all of my work in this regard, this is really one of the worst departments of the federal government as it relates to hispanic participation. and i appreciate what has been said about the state department reflecting the look of america. well, when 16% of the population and growing dramatically is nowhere near the reality of what is happening at the state department, that doesn't include a full look of america. so as you move