spotlight on it. they worked on it for a year. i have worked on it for a year. i have worked with them to suggest changes. we have this fundamental difference. i think when it comes to local schools, the limit of washington's responsibility is in able, is in able communities and schools to do a better job of educating our children. most of the discussion we're having in the senate education committee today is we talk about reauthorizing the elementary and secondary education act. our moving decisions about whether its schools and teachers are succeeding or failing out of washington and back to the communities and the theory is that allows more innovation. that respects the fact that parents and communities and teachers and principals in their own community cherish those children and it certainly would be wrong for us to say we cherish them more than they do. i spent a lot of my time, mr. president, arguing with

people -- they are often democrats -- who want to say i've got a good idea. let's impose it on all the schools. for example common core, there's a good idea, some people say. that's a very explicit standard of point of teaching schools. we have 43 states with waivers from the u.s. department of education. in order to get that waiver, which they need to keep their schools from being failing, they have to in effect adopt common core. that's created a general uprising in ten. i imagine it has in north carolina. i suspect it has in iowa not so much because of what the standards are but because of the very idea that washington would be telling local school districts that they know better what the academic standards of their schools taught to be than the state capital and local school board. the same thing with teacher evaluation when i was the governor of tennessee in the 1980's we became the first state to pay teachers more for teaching well. i had a year and a half brawl

with the national education association until we defeated them with 10,000 teachers gradually went up the career ladder. when i waim to washington people said i guess you're going to want to require every state to do that. i said absolutely not. that is not the way our constitutional federalism works in this state. states have a right to be right and have a right to be wrong on teacher evaluation on common core. those are tremendously important issues but it's hard enough to fairly evaluate a teacher without washington trieg to tell you how to do it, looking over your shoulder. take the business of whether a school is succeeding or failing or whether a school has made adequate yearly progress or whether a teacher is highly qualified or not. we've had a 12-year experiment with trying to make all those decisions in u.s. department of education in washington. as i said, one teacher said it had become a human resources department for over 1,000 schools. it hasn't worked, mr. president. it does help to know how the

children are doing on their tests. it does help to aggregate the results so we know whether children are falling behind. it does help for states to have the national assessment of education progress sarm -- sample so we can compare north carolina to tennessee but it does not help to have well-meaning people in washington say i know exactly how to make your children safe, how to tell them what to learn how to evaluate teachers, how to tell you whether your school s&l succeeding or failing ow how to fix that nonperforming school in raleigh, des moines or nashville. one other example. what about guns? i mean, sexual abuse is a tragedy. so are guns in schools. we've had terrible tragedies there. what did the united states congress do about that 20 years ago. they passed the gun-free school zone act. whipped it through congress as if that were going to fix the problem in every

school in america. there were two things wrong with it. the supreme court of the united states struck it down as unconstitutional as a federal overreach into local affairs. but the main thing wrong with it mr. president was that's not how you make schools safe. you don't make schools safe by passing a law in washington and pretending you've made 56 million children safe in 100,000 schools. that even works the other way because it would suggest that somehow if there's a problem in my hometown that it's up to the united states senator to fix that problem to make the school safe. i.t. not. i.t.it's not.that's now not how do you t they win the football games and they have good academic scores and they have safe schools and someone asked the principal when they won the football game, why do you do so well? it's because we're a community school. when something happens here, the community shows up.

so mr. president if we really want to fix the problem of abuse of children in schools there's right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. the right way to do it is to recognize the problem require states to have background checks and enable them to do a better job by using federal funds to access data registries and provide training for employees to put the u.s. department of education as the lead agency here to provide best practices to local schools and to make this sort of data on the secretary's report card. the wrong way to do it is to take over the personnel decisions for 6 million employees in 100,000 schools and pretend that by doing that we've made those schools safer. we have not. we have not. so that's a fundamental difference of opinion by senators who agree on a laudable

goal. i believe it's more appropriate under our constitutional system of federalism for congress to limit itself to enabling schools to do a better job of their essential responsibilities rather than creating, in effect, a national school board that tries to run our schools and hire and fire those personnel. i ask consent to include following my remarks a summary of the alexander-kirk amendment and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i have a unanimous consent request from the leaders. i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you mr. president. mr. president, i ask consent to speak as if in morning business.

the presiding officer: the senate is in morchlt morning business. mr. casey: thank you mr. president. i rise today to talk about the nomination that will be before the entire senate next week, the nomination of loretta lynch to be the attorney general of the united states of america and to urge all of my senate colleagues to quickly confirm united states attorney lynch to this position. loretta lynch has dedicated much of her life, many, many years of her life, to public service serving twice as the united states to enfor to attorney for the eastern district of new york. in this role she earned a reputation as a tough but fair prosecutor. i'd like to take a few minutes to outline some of loretta lynch's record. as united states attorney for the eastern district of new york she has kept communities safer by bringing serious

violent criminals to justice prosecuting high-level gang members, and drug traffickers. u.s. attorney lirchl has also -- u.s. attorney lirchllynch has also fought corruption. she was the lead prosecutor in municipal cases on long island and supervised the new york state senate majority leader recently. during her time in private practice, loretta lynch did pro bono work as special counsel to the prosecutor of the international criminal tribunal for rwanda, further evidencing her commitment to public service. and, of course, to the enforcement of the law. hers is a truly impressive record one that, without question has prepared united states attorney lynch to serve as attorney general lynch upon confirmation by the senate.

i've had the opportunity to meet with loretta lynch this past january. she and i discussed how the department of justice can do more to give law enforcement the tools it needs also to eliminate witness intimidation, a major issue in cities like philadelphia and others around the country. also we talked about reforming the juvenile justice system and finally reducing tensions between police and law enforcement in the communities they serve. i was very impressed by united states attorney lynch and i believe that she is well-suited to address these and many other issues that she will confront as the attorney general of the united states. and these issues, of course, are not only critical to pennsylvania but also our whole country. i'm also confident that loretta lynch, when she is confirmed -- and i believe she will be -- will continue the important work of attorney general holder to

fairly enforce federal voting and civil rights laws, to support equality for lgbt americans and work to reduce the over-incarceration of nonviolent offenders and also to address disparities in our criminal justice system. despite loretta lynch's record as a prosecutor, serving twice as a united states attorney in the state of new york, despite her record in countless expressions of support from law enforcement, from civil rights advocates and past attorney generals, loretta lynch's nomination has been pending for 122 days before the senate. this is the longest it has taken the united states senate to vote on a nominee for attorney general in 30 years. this is especially surprising given that the senate has

already confirmed loretta lynch twice in both the year 2000 and 2010 the senate confirmed loretta lynch to be u.s. attorney for the even descrirkt -- for the eastern district of new york. in each case her confirmation before the is that the was unanimous. so loretta lynch's nomination, we know, is historic for many reasons, but the principal reason is she would be the first african-american woman to serve as our nation's attorney general. however, apart from the historic nature of her nomination -- and i hope confirmation -- loretta lynch is supremely qualified for this position, for all the reasons stated earlier. they could be summarized in a couple of words: integrity intellect, and experience. and i could add more words to that. but they're the qualities that we want in any prosecutor, and

of course they're the qualities that we want in an attorney general. i believe we had those qualities with attorney general holder, and we want to have confirmation completed for the new attorney general nominee loretta lynch. i strongly support loretta lynch's nomination, and i'm pleased that the majority leader has committed to considering her nomination on the senate floor. i call on all of my colleagues to confirm loretta lynch without delay. mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president we live in a country of unparalleled opportunity. the blessings of liberty are the birth right of every american and the framers who ordained our constitution to protect these rights to deny any person basic freedoms would seem almost

unthinkable today. so the fact that even as i speak there are thousands of individuals living as slaves in our very own country is even more unthinkable. but it's undeniably true. in this country right now, there are thousands of human beings living as slaves -- men women and children. stolen from their homes stripped of their god-given rights and robbed of their human dignity. these individuals live among us. they live in our neighborhoods our suburbs our biggest cities, and our smallest towns. they live in a world of silence fear hopelessness, and unspeakable difficulties and suffering. mr. president, these individuals of whom i speak are the victims of human trafficking a heinous and abominable crime that we should call by its real name:

modern-day slavery. the state department estimates that up to 17,500 individuals are trafficked to the united states every year. the majority of these are women and children. some of them are forced into a life of unpaid servitude many others into sex work. worldwide rktworldwide, it is estimated that 4.5 million people will currently enslaved through sex trafficking. these numbers are stag ring but illustrate the scope of the problem. the surveg of each individual -- the suffering of each individual victim should not be lost in a sea of statistics. for victims of human trafficking, the surreal horror of their lives bears testimony to the gravity of the crime. consider the case of holly smith. when holly was just 14 years of age, she met a man at the local

shopping mall in new jersey. with all the innocence of youth holly confided in this man the fears and anxieties of her adolescence, telling him how nervous she was to begin high school. holly could never have guessed that the man she had just met the man she had just trusted with her deepest feelings were a human trafficker trained to emotionally lure young girls into prostitution. this trafficker told me a life of glamour and excitement if she agreed to run away with him. holly took the bait. she ran away with the man who would later abuse and intimidate her into prostitution. she was one of the many victims of child sex trafficking. holly eventually escaped this nightmare and even had the courage to tell her story the at a judiciary committee hearing on human trafficking last month. but many are not so lucky. mr. president, we must do more to help victims like holly.

we must do more to combat the evils of human trafficking. as a legislative body, we made significant progress in the year 2000 when we passed the trafficking victims protection act. this legislation took critical steps in providing greater protection to victims and levying heavier penalties against traffickers. we have since reauthorized that legislation on four occasions. in each instance, i have been passionately committed in the fight against human trafficking. my staff has also been equally devoted to this issue and i was especially proud when president bush asked my former judiciary council, grace chong becker, to head the very first trafficking unit within the justice department's civil rights division. it is only fitting that the justice department establish this unit as a subset of their civil rights division and not their criminal division.

human trafficking is more than a mere crime. it is a fundamental violation of human rights. mr. president, it is not my intention to minimize the significance of the legislation we have passed thus far but we still have so much work to do. we have recognized human trafficking as a serious problem problem. now we need a serious solution. i am grateful for senator klobuchar's initiative in addressing that problem. her stop explosion through trafficking act properly identifies children lured into prostitution as victims not criminals. by encouraging states to adopt safe harbor laws, we are better equipped to help victims receive the care and treatment that they deserve. senator cornyn's justice for victims of trafficking act also aids these victims by establishing a special fund that will provide them more of the resources they need to repair

their shattered lives. senator cornyn's bill also imposes severe penalties on traffickers including heavier fines than the justice department -- that the justice department will direct toward victim compensation. i strongly support both of these bills and i'm grateful for my colleagues' enormous efforts in building a coalition to combat this scourge. mr. president, human trafficking is a complex problem and solving it requires a multifront approach. it is a problem of both supply and demand. in addition to passing this legislation, we must also address the problem of demand. the prevalence of human trafficking is a moral stain on our country and we can never eradicate this evil if we are only addressing part of the problem. through stricter enforcement of objectobscenity laws, we can decrease demand for sex trafficking.

there is an undeniable link between illegal adult obscenity and sex trafficking and i have long been an outspoken voice on this issue. laura ledderer, former senior advisor on trafficking in persons at the state department observed that there are -- quote -- -- "numerous links between sex trafficking and pornography pornography." and that pornography is even -- quote -- "used in sex trafficking and the sex industry to train women and children what to do." in 2011, i led 41 other senators in sending a letter to attorney general eric holder calling for greater enforcement of federal obscenity laws. in his response, even he agreed that hard core pornography is associated with sex trafficking. this type of obscenity not only harms individuals families and entire communities but also normalizes sexual harm to

children. mr. president, how long will we let this culture of perversion persist? how long will we ignore the pressing problem of adult obscenity at the expense of the innocent women and children who are too often the victims of this vice? mr. president, enough is enough. ignoring the problem of adult obscenity is ignoring the problem of human trafficking and ignorance will not free the innocent women and children trapped in the clutches of modern-day slavery. the first amendment does not protect adult obscenity so the federal government is acting well within its power to impose greater enforcement. i firmly believe that a consistent commitment to enforcing these laws will have a significant impact in reducing the prevalence of sex trafficking. now, i want to conclude by discussing this body's handling of this important bill. in my 39 years as a member of this body, i have seen the

senate at some of its best moments and at some of its worst moments. last year i came to the floor repeatedly to warn of how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who were then in the majority had abused the legislative process for partisan political gain. since the beginning of the 114th congress mr. january, we have made remarkable -- this january, we have made remarkable progress of restoring the senate as an institution. by restoring this body's traditions of fullsome debate and open amendment process and regular order through the committee system our new majority is putting the senate back to work for the american people. while the sailing has not been entirely smooth -- it rarely is -- the progress we've seen in restoring this institution's proper role as a productive legislative body is real and meaningful. given this headway, i have been

extremely disappointed to see a logjam develop and impede our progress on this vital piece of bipartisan legislation something that should pass this body 100-zip. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have threatened to filibuster claiming that we somehow ambushed them with a controversial abortion rider. mr. president, that claim is absolutely ridiculous. the language that they are suddenly so upset about has been in the bill the entire time, as those of us on the judiciary committee can attest. my colleagues had no complaints about this language when the bill passed out of the committee committee. in fact, it passed unanimously. moreover not only was this language in the bill from the beginning but it has also been the law of the land for nearly four decades. democrats in this body have supported countless other bills with similar language knowing that to get them through both houses that language is important to many people on both

sides. democrats in this body have, they've supported countless other bills with similar language including even obamacare. this policy represents a sensible and appropriate compromise on an issue -- in an issue area characterized by conflicting and deeply held views. as such, the notion that this provision should provoke my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to grind the legislative process to a halt boggles the mind. it makes you wonder what in the world's going on here. even the most charitable interpretation of this move suggests that the minority is once again resorting to outrageous "my way or the highway" tactics to impose an extreme pro-abortion policy. more disturbingly, this ploy plainly demonstrates the minority leadership's desire to pick a political fight over abortion and to muck up the

majority's efforts to exercise reliable leadership. by resorting to this sort of obstruction, they have demonstrated just how desperately they wanted to derail our efforts to legislate and to legislate responsibly and instead resort to their tired and discredited war on women rhetoric to win cheap political points. mr. president, i am unabashedly pro-life and i have no qualms whatever in debating that issue. if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so desperate to debate that issue and overturn the long-standing compromise that is the law of the land, let us do so at an appropriate time, not on this bill. but to hold this important human trafficking bill hostage is a deplorable approach. mr. president, the minority leader earlier came to the floor and tried to manipulate my words to support his shamful gambit. i have a rough time believing

that he's part of this. for all of my colleagues who are tempted by this irresponsible strategy, let me repeat my previous point. it would be pathetic to hold up this bill. this bill is absolutely critical to families and our children. i cannot believe that the senate has become so political that my colleagues would raise this issue, this tangential, long-settled issue, at this time after the same transparently clear language passed unanimously out of the judiciary committee. for my colleagues to hold up this bill in an effort to seek to impose their extreme policy to overturn the law of the land that has long enjoyed bipartisan support to pick a false fight over abortion or to try to embarrass the majority is itself embarrassing. they ought to be ashamed. i urge my colleagues in the minority in the strongest possible terms to reconsider

their position and allow the senate once again to do the people's business. look all of us are fed up with the delays and the problems of not legislating in the way we should around here. all of us are fed up with some of the tactics that have been used. but to use them on a bill like this? come on. i've seen too much of this child pornography and abuse of children. this is a bill that will make a real difference. and there should not be one senator in this body vote against it. and they certainly shouldn't vote against it because there's language in there that is the law of the land today. yes, they don't like it many on the democrat side. not all. they don't like it. but i don't like them holding up one of the most important bills for children and families and women just so they can make a

cheap political point on abortion. look i wish we could resolve the abortion issue and get it off the table and everybody would be happier it seems to me. but to bring it up like this at this time on this bill that had unanimous support in committee and should have unanimous support on the floor today is -- is i think going a little bit too far. now, i care a great deal for my colleagues on the other side. they have special problems just like we have special problems. they have special concepts just like we have special concepts. but this is one we ought to all agree on get out of the senate, get it going and start doing more to stop not only child pornography but human trafficking of so many people in our society today.

this is something we ought to all quit playing games with just pass and get through the senate and through the house. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that on thursday, march 12, at 1:30, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations

calendar number 20 and calendar number 16. that there be 30 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed. that following disposition of the nominations the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate that no further motions be in order that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record the president be immediately notified of the senate's actions and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. thursday march 12. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time to for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak

therein for up to 10 minutes each and that the time be equally divided with the majority controlling the first half and the democrats controlling the final half. finally, following morning business, the senate resume consideration of s. 178. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so senators should expect a vote on the hart nomination at approximately 2:00 tomorrow. the other nomination at that time is expected to go by voice vote. if there's no further business to come before the senate i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

>> i want to touch on that. they outline the need for a broad a broad coalition that i imagine involves the sunni countries, jordanians saudi's, you jordanians saudi's, uae, and others also countries concerned about iraq. in essence, our negotiations

have impacted trust levels with critical allies in the coalition. >> that is flat wrong. flat wrong. is flat wrong. i just came back from eating. they completely supported what we're doing. i met with all the members. they sat around the table. they believe we are better off providing of course, that it that it prevents them from getting that bond. that is the test of this. >> you are saying that our allies in the region are sunni allies. >> i did not say that. they are not perfectly

comfortable. they are nervous, apprehensive. they want to make sure that, in fact, just as members of congress want to make sure the deal that is struck if one can be struck now we will, in fact, prevent them -- >> share the details? >> we can share considerable details with them. >> and are they apprehensive about that are comfortable? where -- >> they are comfortable with what we shared with them. the senior foreign minister in the world i might add publicly sat with me in the press conference in which he articulated his support for what we are doing. >> you can hear this entire event tonight on c-span at the clock eastern. the threat from isis was one of the topics at today's white house briefing. he briefing. he was also asked about hillary clinton's e-mails. >> something quick at the top and then we will get your questions. over the

course of the day today, today, a continuation of activity that has taken place across the week the pres. and his team have worked hard to amplify the middle class economics team theme that was raised throughout the president's state of the union address. it stands in stark contrast to the priorities we have seen from public and from capitol hill, from republican senators getting together and writing letters to the leaders of the islamic republic of iran for trying to play politics and funding for the department of homeland security or engaging in an effort to convince governors across the country to not cooperate with our efforts to fight climate change. the pres. is president is focused on effort to expand opportunities for the middle class. that strategy has yielded benefits. we saw that in the latest jobs report that over the course of the last 12 months our economy has created more than 200,000 jobs in each

month. the 1st time we have had a streak like that in 37 years which is an indication that the strategy of focusing on the middle class is paying off. the.is, we are doing a lot of that today. the vice president we will be giving remarks at the policy form at the brookings institution on expanding employment opportunities for the middle class. also, the director of the office of management and budget will be delivering a speech at the economic club washington dc. he will be discussing the pres.'s fy 2016 budget proposals and talking about how we can strengthen the middle class and support hard-working families while ending harmful cuts known as sequestration that have strengthened our economy and improved our fiscal outlook. i would commend your attention, an attention, and op-ed that ran in the "wall street journal" also this morning from the chairman of the council of economic advisers the headline was

the ingredients for getting the were getting the middle class back on track. what you see is a concerted effort to prioritize our policies that we will expand economic opportunity for the middle class standing in stark contrast to the priorities that are being displayed by republicans on capitol hill. with that getting started with questions. >> first -- i'm sorry. >> but they helicopter crash off the coast of florida any indication what might have caused that? >> let me start by saying thoughts and prayers of everyone here at the white house are with the families of those who were killed in this accident that occurred. occurred. i can tell you that this morning the president placed telephone calls to major general osterman and major

general curtis. general osterman is the commander of green special operations. gen. operations. general curtis is the commander of the louisiana army national guard. in those can't -- conversations the pres. expressed his condolences to the families, fellow service members, and communities of the fellow marines and national guardsmen involved in this tragic accident. the pres. reassured the commanders of the nation's deep appreciation for the sacrifices our men and women in uniform make it effective for protect and defend our country. the president also expressed confidence that there will be a detailed and thorough investigation into this incident and what caused it. >> how does the president view the iranian backed militias that seem to be taking back today. general

dempsey expressed concern about whether irani and development could potentially further destabilize iraq? does the president share that concern? >> first and foremost it is important to recognize this is an iraqi operation, one that was undertaken at the direction of iraqi military leaders in consultation with the political leaders, including the prime minister, mr. a body. as this was being organized, the leadership, as they should took great care to make sure this is sectarian effort. they work with the involvement from sunni forces that are located inside this province of the country. an indication that there is there follow through on the prime minister's commitment to unify the country, a diverse country to face down this threat opposed by isis. and a commitment to that unified effort is something

that we want to see not just in the political leadership but also the execution a military operation. and the involvement of iran in this military operation should not change that in any way. we have been clear, and the prime minister have been clear that the military operation should not and we will not be used as an excuse for exacting sectarian revenge. the prime minister has been clear publicly that the operation showed the prevention of abuse of the civilians at all costs, to abide by international norms, avoid fueling sectarian fears and promoting sectarian divides that have actually weakened iraq over the last several years. there is no doubt that this is a major front in the fight against kayseven, and

we are aware of reports that isil fighters are withdrawing from the area in the wake of this offensive by iraqi security forces. we have also seen they're have been a cause for isis forces to desert their posts. and they are executing their own troops. this is an indication of the significant pressure being applied. a leading cleric in iraq. urged the shiite militia involved to act with restraint. and he is mindful that this military operation should not be used as an excuse to exact sectarian revenge. the.i'm trying to make is that we are pleased that this operation seems to be

advancing that is a positive development but we want to continue to make clear that the united states and our coalition partners it needs to be a continue priority from the prime minister and others in iraq that this is an operation that advances their efforts to use to take on isil. >> not a single democrat in congress has signed on to the presence proposal. >> you will recall before the presence and linguistic capitol hill there were a substantial number of conversations including at the presidential level with democrats and republicans in the congress about what

language they would like to see included in an authorization to use military force against i sil we welcome the engagement that we have seen from congress the scheduling of the hearing of the senate foreign relations committee is one example of that which ultimately is a legislative process that should be driven by members to weigh in on this matter. matter. the president believes that having congress participate in this it would be a positive development sending a few message a clear message to our allies and coalition partners and just as importantly a clear message to isil and the people contemplating joining isil that the united states is determined and united behind the strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy that organization. [inaudible question]

>> is the president of the white house confirmed this is in the e-mail sent while she was secretary of state. personal e-mails and sure all the personal emails related to the official role as secretary of state were properly transferred to the custody of the state department so that they could be maintained and archived and used in response to requests from the public and congress and understand the state department has already made -- taken steps to respond. there he but her handling of her personal email and her personal email e-mail

inboxes something that i'm not going to comment on and i'm not particularly interested in. [inaudible question] >> the details on the process that were undertaken to review substantial numbers of a. [inaudible] requests from the public consistent with the requirements of the federal records act. >> the deletion of -- >> you talking about emails related to her personal business, at least that is the way she has talked about >> submitted to the state. >> again, deleted again, deleted e-mails that she said were personal in nature and not related to her official work. again, it was her

responsibility the responsibility of hurting to make that determination, conduct that review. no one has marshaled any evidence that i have seen at least indicate that they have fallen short of what they said they did. if you have questions about the process, you should direct them to them. >> title of the president's e-mails. [inaudible question] >> am not in a a position to talk about the president's e-mail address. for a variety of reasons as i we will make clear this goes to an important. the president take seriously the requirement he is under based on the presidential records act different from the federal records act are coming the records of life

and i think you the 1st part 1st there was an announcement from the administration today that an additional $75 million would be provided to the ukrainian military by the united states. this is a continuation of military assistance that has already been provided by the united states, some hundred $225 million. this is a substantial supplement. assistance includes a wide variety of things coming close radios

secured can indication equipment, it includes unmanned aerial vehicles and assisting the ukrainian forces which we will expand their communication capability. the assistance also includes counter mortar radars that provide warning and protection against mortar and artillery fire. it also it also includes significant medical equipment including 1st aid kits, medical supplies and military ambulances. this is reflective of the partnership that exists between the united states and the ukraine and is consistent with our supporting ukraine. they base this destabilizing threat on their future with the border.

[inaudible question] more importantly the presence talked about. the consequences of doing it we we are continuing to watch the efforts by both sides to implement the agreements to reach in minsk and fighting alongside russian backed separatists only -- and their our monitors they keep them from getting access to verify

compliance and we continue to have concerns about the commitment of russia and russian backed separatists. it only puts russia at risk of facing. it leaves open those questions about military assistance the ukrainian military. [inaudible question] >> i understand that i understand that you believe that no matter what kind of system you think the ukrainian have in place russia wants to take over within two weeks. do you think giving lethal aid to the ukrainian government would cause russia to do something that they are not doing now the mac. >> there are couple of consequences we have talked

about of providing additional legal military assistance the ukrainian military. the 1st is that it is likely by definition to lead to greater bloodshed and the fact is our engagement and support for. [inaudible question] it is unreasonable to suggest that the united states will be able to provide an of military support of ukrainian military that they can overwhelm the military operations that are currently being backed by russia. of the 3rd thing is that it could do you do you really wasn't the budget.

>> you talk about raising the cost of government. >> why not raise the consequences of the cost for that by making it you know making them take more casualties in their fight with ukraine. i mean that is what lethal military aid would do, raise the price for russia to continue to lead this aggression. >> that is certainly one potential outcome, but again, the goal here is to get the russians to abide by generally accepted international norms when it comes to respecting the territorial integrity of another sovereign country we are attempting to engage in

a diplomatic process that would bolster support for that generally accepted international norm and de-escalate the situation in ukraine and more intense fighting between the two sides would lead to the opposite, greater escalation and more violence and bloodshed and the temptation on the part of the russians to more forcefully resupply russian backed separatists. more additional we thought support to the ukrainian these are risks they have to weigh these are risk the risks the president has to wait. the other.is, the other cost but could be imposed on russia aside from just the

military told him going on in. the evaluation of the russian currency the russian markets substantial downward revisions. they -- and the cost that we have impose thus far they have not yet resulted in a pay a guy salamat dupont open mic -- the diplomatic process. >> not as we continue to see the russians act in a

destabilizing fashion in ukraine and continue to fall short of the statements they clearly made in the context of the conversation of the ukrainians about germans and the french. [inaudible question] as it relates to compliance with the federal records act

the personal business of the sec. properly archived and maintained. this ongoing work to process records and make sure they are properly stored, make sure that they can be properly provided to congress to requests. i no some of that work has been done because some of those records have been provided to congress. there's working the way to comply with secretary clinton's request that those e-mails be made public. there is there is ongoing work on this matter. it might be indication that this is still going on but this is work that we believe in the importance of. >> the answer is that secretary of state clinton gave yesterday, and the approach through e-mails. >> major i think we have been clear about the guidance to all agency

employees, from cabinet secretaries on down which has been clarified in recent years, particularly with the president's signature on the piece legislation at the end of last year this provided guidelines that shows our commitment and. in a cuban further clarify last couple of years the present has taken steps to do exactly that. [inaudible question] >> major, i think we have been clear about the guidance. you know, that was -- [inaudible question] >> could we include, based upon the -- can we conclude based upon the announcement today after the created -- repeated requests but ukrainians themselves the publication of reports that people in this administration take seriously on such policy advocating lethal aid to the ukrainians, that issue is

resolved and this administration will never send lethal arms to the ukraine's because it seems after several months of them lobbying directly the administration announcing today that they will not do that it seems very difficult to come up with a set of circumstances in which the administration would come to a different conclusion than it has repeatedly on this question and has, again when it on today. >> this a a ministration is not going to send lethal arms to ukraine. that is not necessarily accurate. [inaudible question] >> and i do. what condition would change to change what you just described? russia we will always be more militarily powerful

the risk of escalation we will always be there. the threat will never go away. all of the things you describe in your answer appear to be baked into the situation. none of them will go away and i would be curious if you believe that they will go away under a certain set of standards and we have now. >> he is continuing to evaluate the situation and continuing to assess the risks associated with providing additional legal assistance to the ukrainian military, but this is the situation we continue to monitor. the russians continue to fail to live up to members they have made that the risks associated to

additional costs be imposed on them also goes up so there are a number of costs that have to be evaluated. >> describe the risks? what conclusions have you come to that they will not do this? >> sir, not going to -- well the.is, major the cost does go up as they think -- as the sanctions remain in place place, they have further bite along with them. and that is a part of the risk assessment that the russians themselves are doing. they themselves have to evaluate, can our economy continue to take this it as we interfere in eastern ukraine. and so this is -- there is a risk assessment being made on the other side. i'm not going to prejudge the outcome when a situation has a whole set of risks associated with possible us action. but there are risks associated that russia continues to move down the path they are right now. >> focusing on iran is the administration concerned about the timing of the matter were the actual content? they were all saying in that

letter legislation that democrats are signed on to incorporates an idea that at some.they should be brought to the congress for review. [inaudible question] >> the cost of the country, and based upon the reaction. [inaudible question] >> but based upon the reaction we have seen from editorial boards across the country, based on the reaction there are a long list of reasons why this letter was the right thing to do. it does come at an appropriate time. attempting to sandbag the president of the united states that he needs to

admit negotiations using is in that with not just iran but other members is unprecedented and an appropriate and undermines his ability to conduct foreign policy in advance national security interest around the world. that is the 1st thing. the thing. the other thing i would say the concern we have is that this is the wrong strategy. the strategy being advocated by senate republicans is to throw out the window the possibly to the possibility of leaving only a a military option on the table. and this better describes the russian military action is not consistent with the best interest of american foreign-policy and certainly is not the way to inspire the confidence of our allies the decision-making made in the previous a ministration that was so roundly condemned and criticized. >> the option is more sanctions. >> i have made clear and others have made clear that

a deal has not even been produced. you have critics at this approach for criticizing a deal that does not yet exist. the pres. himself was on television on your network over the weekend indicating that there was -- that the likelihood of even a achieving achieving a deal was less than 10 percent. that is that's the other part of the timing of this that is suspect. the other thing i we will say which has attracted a lot of criticism the signatories were 47 republicans. this is not a bipartisan not a bipartisan letter, and i think that on its face is an indication that this is an effort to inject partisan politics into a very serious foreign-policy matter, something that the pres. has identified as one of the most significant foreign-policy challenges facing the country right now i we will say that that is

also why i was surprised to see that while there may be republicans to suggest that the letter was something that was sent on principle there are at least two anonymous members on capitol hill who separately describe the letter as cheeky and another individual who describes it as a -- another a -- another individual described as a top republican senate aide indicated that the administration has no sense of humor about this. they are right. i don't think this is a particularly amusing matter. we are talking about a nuclear weapons program of an adversary of the united states that on a daily basis violently threatens our closest ally in the region. it is not a laughing matter, and it is not one that this administration take slightly despite the comments some of these republicans have made. >> did the white house no that hillary clinton was the leading 30,000 e-mails?

>> i was not aware of the personal email habits of the sec. maintaining her personal email. >> am not talking about her habits while she was secretary but what she did a few months ago which was deleting 30,000 e-mails that she sent while secretary of state without anyone determining except for her and her team and her and her team alone that those emails did not e-mails did not need to be part of the public record because they determined they were strictly personal. >> again, this again, this is a decision made by secretary clinton and her team. what we what we are talking about our e-mails she described as personal that relate to what she described as a variety of personal information. again i refer you to sec. clinton's team about the

decision made on that. again, we are talking about a a decision she made related to her own personal e-mail which falls outside the purview of the federal government. >> can the white house assure the public that secretary clinton deleted only personal e-mail and not email that relates to official business? >> the white house did not review her personal e-mails, her team did. her team was the one responsible for making sure those e-mails relating to her official work as secretary of state or turned over to the state department and the white house does have an interest in making sure personal e-mails related to official worker properly archived and maintained that the state department is properly using them to respond to legitimate congressional inquiries, and that is what the state department is doing. >> but you have no way of knowing whether or not she deleted official e-mails? >> the federal government

did not review sec. clinton's personal email. sec. clinton's clinton's team did that. so if you have questions about the process they went through to categorize that email you should direct them to them. >> have questions about whether the white house took any steps are as a way of knowing whether or not official records were destroyed, and i guess the answer is no. all you can do is all we can do which is take our word for it. >> it is not the practice of this a ministration to review the personal e-mail of federal government employees. i don't know of any administration that has done that. >> do you know another employee of this administration that has used only personal e-mail for official business? anyone not even the cabinet sec., any employee of this a ministration that has had the same e-mail? >> individual agencies are responsible for maintaining their e-mails. >> anyone in the administration. >> it is the responsibility of the individual agencies to determine how they are

e-mail records are maintained and archived. so for questions about their e-mail habits you can consult with individual agencies. >> our friends at the associated press are suing because they are filed a number of freedom of information requests that have gone unanswered. this president over and over again say that he has the most transparent administration in american history. will will the state department live up to that standard of being the most transparent in american history? >> i don't have them in front of me, but can get you the metrics about the way that this a ministration is substantially improve the freedom of information act request process in terms of the volume of requests processed and in terms of our track record of making information publicly available that was previously withheld. >> some metrics for you from the state department according to our friends at the ap it takes 450 days to

turn over records it considers complex requests, that is 30 times longer than what the treasury department takes and seven times longer than how long the cia takes on similar requests. does that live up to the standard of transparency that this president set up? 450 days. >> 450 days. >> i have some additional metrics about the performance of this administration when it comes to improving the process. >> the question is more specific than that. does the state department live up to this administration, this president's promise of transparency? >> for questions about how the state department process is there a requests i refer to them. i will see if there are additional metrics. >> my question is not about the state department but whether or not the white

house, the pres. is satisfied with how the state department has -- >> at the root of your question is how the state department processes those requests, and i refer you to them. >> it is the president's promise -- >> do you have anything else? [inaudible question] as you know it has been reported that the attorney general has three areas. the former administrator never use e-mail. sec. clinton used for personal e-mail. my question is, is the white house through the chief of staff or any other official keep a venue of e-mail addresses so that the white house can communicate with the cabinet? >> i want to i want to clarify one part of your question. it is important for your reporting to reflect that each of those agencies have confirmed that those aliases

did not affect the ability of the agency to respond to legitimate congressional requests or requests for freedom of information requests. they were aware of the proper e-mail address of the cabinet secretary and to ensure those records were produced inconsistence with requirements of law. if you are asking, does the white house no of the correct email address for every cabinet secretary, the answer is yes. >> so the exception to what you just said, secretary of clinton, exception to being able to respond to freedom of information requests to the state department? >> that is different because you asked about aliases that existed on government networks. for those who -- there are some key facts that are -- that i feel obligated to repeat because they are not in your question.

>> you made a generalization. so the state department could not respond to freedom of information requests because they did not possess the materials except for the ones that they could retrieve. >> which sec. clinton described as the vast majority of the e-mail she sent as secretary. >> so because of what has been contemplated and pending requests we know the state department responded to some of the freedom of information requests by saying that they did not have the materials responsive to requests at all right? so my question to you is, does the president if it were possible to go back and expedite those requests were

they get responses without material because the material was not in their hands? >> what you are asking is a legitimate question a legitimate question but has to be directed to the state department. >> the president, does the president want that? >> you're asking me a detailed and specific question but none illegitimate one about the state department effort to fulfill requests. i can't speak to the details of the process. ultimately you are more likely to get a fruitful response. >> if they wanted to retrieve the information they executed the four previous secretaries of state.

anyone in the white house at that time. >> am not aware of that conversation come, all the conversations between the state department and the white house. responding to requests is a responsibility of the agency and is one of the state department takes seriously. i would not rule out there may have been a conversation between a lawyer a lawyer or two about the fact that those letters are being distributed command i am i am confident that this is a process that is running maintained by state department lawyers. >> lawyers. >> can be get any additional information about the communication? about consulting with their previous secretaries of state? that is not common. >> sending letters to other

secretaries of state? >> to say we have this problem and want to address it this way. usually there is conversation. you just said it is possible. >> i will see if i can provide additional information. i can't provide insight about information between attorneys. i will see what i can do. [inaudible question] i'm wondering about the decision to shelter. >> it was made by the atf. >> did the white house ever respond to democrats about caving to pressure? >> again, the president's commitment to putting in

place commonsense rules that will protect second amendment rights but also prevent those who should not have them is as strong as ever. the pres. is committed to that effort, and i effort and i think the president's own personal conviction on this matter has been pretty evident to those who have comments on this matter. as it relates to this specific decision i root for the -- i i do for you to the atf. whether or not the balance was appropriately struck. [inaudible question] >> is the president trust hillary clinton about what she says? >> there has not been any

evidence produced to raise any doubt. >> well it is because she deleted them. >> i guess it it is the responsibility of the government official, in this case sec. clinton to ensure that all of the personal e-mail related to her official government work was properly maintained by the state department. that information has been provided to the state department and the state department is doing what they should in entering the information is properly categorized, maintained, and provided to legitimate requests from the congress and public. >> yes or no, does the white house trust that secretary clinton did what she should have? >> and what i we will say is there has been no evidence marshaled thus buspar that there should be a lack of trust in that regard. >> very simply, does the white house consider e-mails about employees family foundation to be personal?

>> again, that again that is a decision that secretary clinton and her team made. >> any employee that may have a family foundation or organization -- >> i refer you. [laughter] >> very simply would you consider a family foundation that deals with other companies that have conversation and interaction with employees of this a ministration work related to personal? >> you will have to consult with sec. secretary clinton's team about her personal e-mails and the content of them. >> i no you don't want to speak specifically to president obama's e-mails at present, but when he was a senate -- sen. senator did he use the senate .gov e-mail address? like that is a good question. i do not know. he is working with members of congress. i did observe. the chairman of the house oversight committees monitoring on the official business card there are

appointed and legitimate questions asked of secretary clinton. many should be asked of those making a direct accusations of follow up on that. >> forty-seven gop senators signing a letter sent to the iranian leadership, leadership, does the white house consider that a violation of the logan act? >> i know this is something a lot of commentators have's regulated on including some with a lot more legal knowledge than i. i do for you to the department of justice. ultimately it is their responsibility. again, there has been speculation, but speculation, but i am not aware of conversations about the logan act and its relation to the specific matter.

>> sec. kerry secretary kerry today said that any deal would not be legally binding. an executive agreement would not be legally binding. is that the proper way from the white house perspective and if so to the american people who would say what are we doing what would you say. >> that the pres. will be expecting iran to make specific commitments and serious commitments as it relates to limiting their nuclear programs only peaceful purposes, coming into compliance with generally accepted international standards for peaceful nuclear programs and submitting to a historically stringent a historically stringent set of inspections to verify they're compliance with the agreement. we are making specific commitments that iran will have to make in the context of these conversations. >> is it fair to say that some gop lawmakers and maybe even benjamin netanyahu were right that any deal can sort of just go away as soon as

the president leaves office? >> no. the administration has made clear that the whole purpose of these inspections is to ensure that iran is living up to the commitments that they are making a deal that at this time has not yet been struck. but the whole purpose of these historically intrusive inspections is to verify compliance. and if these inspections if iran does not coordinate or cooperate with the inspections than the president an international community would have the opportunity to take a whole range of steps. if the inspections on earth evidence that they are not living up to the agreement, the pres. and broader international community will have a whole series of tools available for pressuring or taking steps to get the reigning compliance. that is what is important

about all of this. even if a a deal is reached and we determined that over the course of a number of years that iran does not live up to the terms of the agreement, we will be back in the situation we are now which is we will still have tools available in terms of additional sanctions and the military option at the table if it should come to that. the pres. has said any sort of diplomatic opening we have to pursue to try to resolve our concerns is one worth pursuing because it will be more effective than the military action which is essentially the one of last resort. ..

>> since the beginning of the administration, in january of 2012 there is software that has been developed and it is used by some whitehouse staffers to again, gain access to their official government e-mail through their personal smart phone. and there is a way that they can use that software to keep their personal e-mail separate from the work e-mail. that is the system we have in place here but each agency handles it differently. >> given the cyber security has been made a priority and issue

of concern we have the secretary of state that is running her own e-mail server at her own home without security and this is permitted under the guidonseonseanceeanceguidance. does there need to be stronger rule for dealing with situations like this? >> well a couple things i would say about this. the first is we have seen over the years since secretary clinton took office as secretary of state that the guidelines for managing e-mail have been updated and clarified across the administration. the president has signed mem memrandom and you will recall the president signed into law a piece of legislation that offers

guidance to government employees to ensure government records created on their personal e-mail are filled away. so those have been clarified since secretary clinton took office. with -- we are making sure she lived up to the records act and she has done that. >> coming up tonight, federal communication's commissioner chair tom wheeler talks about the vote on the open internet rules. and the discussion on establishing the first public wireless safety network and a look at the epa's proposed gas emissions rules and what they mean for individual states. >> now,