so this is within our living experience. so we should believe this after the end of the cold war. i must say that i am surprised at how fainthearted we are and how quickly we lose courage that something in the end may come. >> well, time is nearly up ladies and gentlemen. maybe you could agree to stay longer for other questions madame chancellor. the first question will be asked from the human rights watch, he has been raising his hand for quite a long time. >> good morning, madame chancellor. here in the west we want to see

a diplomatic solution, no one wants to see otherwise, but if you have special operation forces using at the latest weaponry that require sometimes it years to learn how to use and on the ukrainian aside you have volunteers using weapons from the 1970's and the 1980's, sometimes 1960's, it is clear what the end result will be. there was a piece in "the new york times" that said surrender, ukraine. i think that is the way it will go unless diplomacy fails and we say we won't arm ukraine, that is what will happen. and we have already seen the line move beyond minsk, and the question is how far? >> absolutely.

the question is, would it be all that different if the weapons of the ukrainian army were somewhat different? i have my doubts. i think one can discuss this, but i am much concerned about something quite different and i mean we will be able to convince each other out of respect of viewpoints in this initial. of time. let me tell you what i am most concerned about during this. period of time. if i look at europe at this period of time, it seems that europe is more advanced militarily, and this issue of hybrid warfare is something we need to take a much, much closer look at and we have to discuss this very intensively. the question is, what our democracies actually capable of? and what sort of more guided,

let's put it that way, that governments are capable of when it comes to infiltration of the media creating a disturbance? and also, undermining the certainties that we always afford and felt was so solid in our society. that is something i am most concerned about. we have our hands full, and we take a very close look at the non-military part of this hybrid warfare and the european council and the society becomes aware of what is actually happening there in a very clandestine nine way and to under -- clandestine way and to understand the very long series of events, and you know exactly

what i am talking about. we need to know an awareness of what is happening there, because the way that opinions are shaped and society, for example what is happening in ukraine at right now where people seem to look at it as if it were somehow somewhat equal. but the ukrainians are doing bad things so it is no wonder the russians are doing bad things to them, and that is something that we really need to work on. >> the last and final question is coming up, and i apologize if you have raised her hand and i was not able to get into your question. this afternoon you will have another opportunity to ask your questions. >> not many of us know who is on your list, so you have to make this promise right? [laughter] >> madame chancellor, i

appreciate that you mentioned the hundreds of thousands of guests in syria but i worry it is going to be hard to persuade the syrian people to address only isis's atrocities instead of just also announcing a ssad's atrocities. with respect to the two governments that have the most influence, russia and iran, is it possible to talk about russia with russia and syria in addition to ukraine? can we talk to iran in regards to syria? >> of course, of course i mean

after we talked to russia, the fact that chemical weapons have been removed by and large, from syria, has a lot to do with russia and in turn, this also proves that if russia and the united states and others have different opinions on how to deal with this, why not get closer to a solution? the more you come to a unified position on assad i think the more you will be able to define a cause that can take you out of this crisis. yesterday i talked to the prime minister of iran and what he told me on the basis of the challenges of is is that he sees -- the challenges of isis is

that he sees the charges will continue, but i have not been convinced -- i have also been in these periods were people have hopes on assad and hopes that he would reform, i was somewhat reluctant to believe that, but when he would look at a situation and say with russia, russia is easier to fight then without russia. obviously, one should not lose sight, quite rightly, of the syrian a population because they have suffered enormously due to the leadership of assad. but the west has not even looking -- is not even looking at what they have had to suffer,

and it were 250 thousands that were killed, -- 250,000 that were killed and it is a very difficult and complex task. >> thank you very much madame gensler, you have spoke with transparency and accountability to me, and this is why i am going to read out the list of names still remaining so we can implement this correctly. in closing, i would like to express hope and i would like to make a request also on behalf of many of the participants present here today. you have started a large attempt in order to bring about a diplomatic solution in ukraine over the course of this weekend, and i would like to take up this

issue once again. all of us hope that as a result of this weekend in munich, we will be able to send out a strong singnal. this will bring us closer to a solution and to a cease-fire. and there is one sentence that i would like to remind all of you that this would not be the first time that we succeeded together in munich together with the russian federation to take a meaningful and positive step forward. in 2000 and9, the same vice president of the united states of america, joe biden, who is with us today, pressed the symbolic reset button in this very hall. and this was the starting point for the new negotiations about the new start agreement. and one year later hillary clinton attended this conference

and was able to exchange documents relating to this new start agreement so it had happened once again, and we very much hope that it will happen again. so thank you very much indeed, for taking 60 minutes to speak with us today. after this very difficult and hard weekend, there will be activities associated with it. [applause] >> russian foreign minister sergey lavrov also spoke at the conference where he accused the u.s. of escalating the crisis in ukraine, but expressed optimism that a deal could be reached. this is 45 minutes. >> i am, i want to start by

saying thank you to sergey lavrov, whom i first met, i believe almost exactly 20 years ago when he was still the permanent representative at the united nations. and we were working at that time on the solutions to the bosnian crisis. and i want to thank for mr. sergey -- mr. lavrov of being a great individual at the security conference. thank you for coming here each year. this is probably not going to be a fun event for you because you will have many questions but i know you are looking forward to explaining russia's point of view, so without further and do, as soon as everyone has found a

seat, i would like to invite mr. lavrov to speak with us, and we will also have a question and answer. . mr. foreign minister. [applause] -- a question-and-answer period. mr. foreign minister. [applause] >> thank you very much. i have included in the topic collapsing world order that's we have followed a less than opportunistic scenario, however we could not agree with those who say that there was a sub collapse of the world order rather recent development have corroborated our warnings about deep systemic issues within security in the european union. let me remind you of the speech by president putin made here

eight years ago. the construct of stability based on the united nations health and security principle has been undermined by the united states it was undermined by nato's enlargement of the east. the common european call was not -- hall was not built because there was not an interest in building a common security structure. the commitment made as part of osce commitments to consider each other's securities was ignored. the missile defense is proof of a disruptive -- of a destructive

focus and upper to the rejected by the united states, and instead we were recommended to join the american global defense system under washington's ideas and any actions undermining strategic ideas which means long-term damage is a done to house control. the liability of which is dependent on defense. we don't understand this american obsession with global missile defense. is it a desire to achieve global dominance? to find technical solutions to political issues? anyway, if missile threats

haven't not decreased, however, there is a major irritant and it is a going to -- it is quite a take a long time to get rid of it. another important factor is a rejection of the united states and other major allies to ratify the treaty. in any situation, the united states is trying to lame russia on anything -- trying to blame russia on everything. let's look at the recent imf treaty. experts are aware of the united states's actions and as part of a global missile offense -- defense system, united states has missiles banned by the imf. the treaty's definitions of

cruise missiles are very close to weaponize drones. the treaty bans interceptor missiles developed in romania and poland. the american counterparts site some claims against russia with respect to imf, but avoid specific facts based on -- specific facts. based on this, we should not compare this crisis to yesterday's events. this is a climbing of a policy conducted in the past 25 years aiming to dominates international relations in europe. the cis countries, our neighbors connected with us by historic

cultural, economic, and family ties thecis countries were -- family ties, the cis countries were given a choice, are you with us or are you against us? i should mention the missed opportunity to realize the initiative launched by mrs. angela merkel and by russia's eu community, russian accepted and the eu rejected it. it would effectively solve issues and address concerns ahead of time. in regards to ukraine, at any

stage of the crisis, the american counterparts and the european union took steps to escalate the conflict. this was the case when the united states and the european union refused to involve russia on the economic issues of the agreement, and then they directly supported the coup d'etat and the unrest. our western partners, so to speak, used intelligence agencies to pardon key authorities who started a full-scale military operation and called her citizens terrorists and calling them terrorists who were not in agreement with the anti-constitutional coup d'etat. it is very difficult to explain why conflict resolution principles do not apply to this case, and these principles are

included in other dialogues with iraq syria, mali south sudan and our partners have been urged to come to an agreement with the opposition, but with ukraine they have taken a different line , conniving at key of's attempts -- conniving at kiev's attempts. unfortunately, our western partners are turning a blind eye to kiev authority's actions. let me give you a quote, "the issue of ukraine would result in

-- would result in 3-6 months," and this is a quote by the commander of the regiment, and they argued for ethnic purges of ukraine, for the dis -- for the expulsion of russian jews and these statements did not generate a response in western capitals, and i do not believe that europe can afford to ignore the spread of nationalistic violence. the ukrainian crisis cannot be resolved by force. last year, the, situation forced the authorities to sign the minsk agreement, despite the fact that there are growing appeals in the west to support

the kiev policy of militarization and to pump ukraine a full of lethal weapons, and to help it later. this will only exacerbate the tragedy of ukraine. russia has been committed to peace, we would like to see a withdrawal of heavy weapons, we would like to see a direct negotiation between kiev and russia, and this was the focus on many initiatives put forward by president clinton -- president putin. those were our subsequent attempts, including the talks in the negotiations yesterday with russia, germany, and france. these are grounds for optimism

and we want to issue recommendations of for conflict resolution. it is important for everybody to realize the scale of the problem that the world is at a turning point. the labor pains are reflected in the growing conflicts in relations. if opportunistic decisions take the upper hand, we may lose control of global governance. let me remind you that the killing of this conflict that -- let me remind you that at the beginning of this conflict, many of the west said it would go away, and what happened? huge terrorism attacks are

happening in afghanistan and there is no longer government control, extremism is spilling over into other regions including europe. the situation in the middle east is growing explosive. there are no sufficient strategies to address those challenges. i hope that the discussions today and tomorrow will move us closer to understanding where we stand in the situation, but we should talk about this on an equal basis without ultimatums and threats. it would be easier to do this if we agreed on strategic principles in our relations. the permanent secretary of the french cabinet said recently that europe is impossible without russia.

i would like to know whether this a viewpoint is shared by others? do they want to create a security pact with russia or without russia? i would like to address this question to our american counterparts. we have suggestions of the building a unified economic will terry space between -- economic and military space and it is especially important to set up interaction between eurasian economic union and the european union, and we welcome growing support for this idea by european leaders. in this year, we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the helsinki act and the other charters

signed against terrorism, and we would like to continue prosperity in the european region and we wish success to the group of wise men of osce celebrating the 70th anniversary of the second world war. we should be aware of our common and shared responsibilities. thank you very much. [applause] >> foreign secretary lavrov thank you very much. he has agreed to take some questions. we have a bit of time. i have already received two cards with two questions and will take those first and then we will call on the next colleagues.

just give me a chance to call up the first one. the first one was joe yoffe, whom i am going to ask, where is he? i'm going to have him ask this question himself. >> mr. foreign minister, i understand all of the problems that you mentioned that you had with the united states, such as cfe, or on the missile defense and apart from the fact, or on the treaty against cruise missiles, but i would add as a footnote, obama finally took down essentially, the european missile defense system. what i don't understand is, if you have problems with the united states, why did you make ukraine pay for it like taking crimea and being well on the way

to enacting or splitting ukraine? what did the ukrainians do that you punished them for the malfeasance of the united states? [applause] >> well i think you have a distorted view of things. i don't think we should lump all of these things together. but i spoke about it as this some people would say that we have to set on the ukrainian crisis and the whole system of european instability, and it is the other way around, we have to settle the crisis as a first priority, that we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that people will find the opportunity at the end of the cold war and these should not be complied with. we are not going to take revenge on someone, particularly at other people's expense and the

united states, -- and it was not the united states come up it was us that that provided daily contact, and it was not us who withdrew from the abm treaty. it was not us who refused to ratify the other treaties. we have got to take up the pieces and carry on. we must agree on systematic security where everyone can feel safe including ukraine including georgia, including those and all of our american colleagues, but they made a choice. you've got to reduce your conflict with russia. i can see a short wild ago, -- a

short while ago, where nato's most peaceful alliance is happening now, and who bombs you -- and who bombed yugoslavia? such unilateral action can have the kind of result that we are witnessing in the middle east right now. it is not important to us whether nato is a model security organization. it is an equal partner in the dialogue to ensure security and stability, so what is wrong with that? everyone wants to accept the primacy of the united states, and i don't think it is in the interests of global security and stability. a short while ago, i heard that the u.s. acted as a broker in

the position of power in it ukraine, and that is an interesting way of putting it. we know what actually happened we know who discussed what over the phone and who suggested candidates for prime ministerial posts in ukraine. as for the protest, we did not have any military exports there but we know who did. we hope that the ukrainian nation will understand that it must be done on a national dialogue. so ukraine suggested [indiscernible] a rebel army and how can those qualities be celebrated in the eastern ukraine when in western

ukraine there is a celebration of the second world war? so there is a need for political agreements. we know that mobilization is in progress in ukraine. it is experiencing difficulty. the hungarian minorities feel that many more people are recruited, and i think that this is what we should discuss. there are not -- there are minorities in ukraine's, not just ethnic ukrainians, and they wish to enjoy equal rights. when the election was held in ukraine, i know that the hungarian wine already asked to

draw the borders so that one ethnic community had a chance to get an individual elected to the federal government. so these are real problems that prevent ukraine a from pulling itself out of this crisis, that they are being a swept under the carpet in the west, asking people about what they feel about the law, and i think it is an awful lot. but the question that we stay quite openly, and my partners say that the ukrainian government is not supported right now and it could not be criticized, so that is the end of the discussion, and i sincerely hope that there was influenced taken yesterday by the french president and the russian president and the german chancellor will present itself and we would be able to diffuse the situation and start a badly

needed national dialogue to address the entire economic and social problems. >> thank you, sergey, we have a huge number of questions, so there is no way we can handle all of those, but the next question comes from a one of our young leaders in the leaders group, and if i am not mistaken this young leader is actually ukrainian. are you there? >> >> minister, coming back to the results of not only yesterday's negotiation in moscow but in kiev the good news which comes out is that minsk accords agreements, are still on the table, while the bad news is that not all the signatories to the minsk agreements are willing to fulfill the minsk agreements. by not all, i mean the representatives who are still waging offensive warfare

shelling civilians, et cetera. and i also mean the russians because i remind you your ambassador to kiev has signed the minsk arrangement as well. we now see the position of russia renegotiating or i would say not exerting enough pressure to the militants, which you admit you are having an influence on. so let's imagine that you really want to implement the minsk arrangement. what guarantees can you as a minister, foreign affairs of russia, give that the minsk arrangements and, first of all further documents to be concluded? what guarantees they will be fully implemented, all 12 points implemented, and that you will use all your influence and pressure on the militants to fulfill them to the full extent and to bring peace? thank you. >> as soon as the key participants in the minsk

process, the ukrainian government and the leaders of the self-proclaimed republics achieve agreement on the practical aspects of the minsk agreements, i am sure that russia will be among those parties that will guarantee the implementation of this agreement. for instance in the u.n. security council, i'm sure that france and germany will also be able to provide such guarantees. but you can only guarantee what has already been achieved. you've got to reach an agreement directly. you shouldn't pretend that those people are going to obey what you tell them. they live in their own country. they fight for their own land. and when some people say that they would not be able to win a victory on their own, i'm going to remind you that they're

fighting for the cause, while ukrainian cultures are sent to battle against their will. the u.s. administration was criticized in the past for exercising active contact -- [inaudible] they have said well, they shouldn't criticize for conducting negotiations. yes, they're an enemy, but they should not negotiate with your friends. you negotiate with your enemies. tb the -- tb if the ukrainian government considers the enemy to be their own people, they will have to negotiate with them. i don't think our ukrainian colleagues should hope that, first of all the support they're receiving will resolve all problems. that support, without any critical analysis of the events, i think it is going to their heads, the way it went to the

other's heads in 2008. and we know how that ended. >> thank you, sergei. we have a very large number of questions. but i do want exceptionally to take the privilege of sitting here with you to ask one question myself. i happen to be part of a group called the european leadership network, which has russian participants european and american participants. and which put out recently a study about the kinds of close military encounters that have happened recently in the european airspace and elsewhere. my question to you is this, sergei. if it is our first priority to try to find a way to calm down the situation in eastern ukraine, to obtain a cease-fire, should it not be one of our next

priorities to try to figure out a way to create an arrangement given the complete breakdown of mutual trust, to create an arrangement that would at least enable all of us, russia, nato, the united states, european countries, so avoid avoidable unnecessary, potentially dangerous close military encounters? i think this is the last thing we need in this situation. so why can't we stick our heads together and create an arrangement that will make sure that our airplanes, your ships our military installations don't come as close to each other as has happened in recent weeks too often? and if i just may invite edward lucas to add his question, because i think his question goes exactly in the right -- in

the same direction, if i'm not totally mistaken. edward? he's over there. >> minister, a few weeks ago a plane leaving copenhagen airport on its way to warsaw came within nine seconds of collision with one of your country's warplanes which was flying in civilian airspace, in international airspace with its transponders switched off. this is not something that any nato or any country could do when flying near russia. so why do your warplanes, your country's warplanes find it necessary to fly in international airspace, which they have every right to do but to do so with that transponder switched off making them invisible? this is the invisible of driving a large black truck through the streets of the city at night with the lights switched off. i do not see any justification for this and i'd like to know why it's happening and will you have any plans to stop it?

[applause] >> we had a well-developed system of bilateral mechanisms between russia and nato. in the nato-russia council military experts were in daily contact, civilian experts. they had a number of people to combat terrorism, to develop special detectors of explosives, and it was a joint project. and there was a project to train personnel for the afghan security forces, the afghan helicopters, another project was the common space initiative. all those projects have been put on ice, though as part of those

mechanisms, we could agree on ways to avoid dangerous situations. as for the activity of the russian air force, we have statistical data demonstrating that the activity by nato has increased more than russia's did. and at the end of january our representative held a meeting to discuss this topic. and he submitted a fact sheet with those statistical data. we've been keeping a record. we are open to restoring mechanisms of interaction. but as i said, all those mechanisms have been frozen. all we have is a council of representatives, ambassadors that is to say, and it doesn't meet very frequently.

i understand it is the objective of our nato colleagues to reduce the russian presence at nato headquarters. we've been facing limitations of access to our offices at nato headquarters. this will generate new dark spots in our relations. and they will prevent us from clarifying each other's intentions. >> i think we have time for two more brief questions. the next one goes to one of those who wanted to speak during the chancellor merkel session charles grant. >> mr. lavrov, you said that you wanted to find common principles for european security. my worry is that the principles of the european union, which is based on democratic self-determination is incompatible with russian's own principle. you believe on spheres of

influence. about 60 years ago, it was said many of russia's neighbors have to choose between being enemies and vassals. you put forth some plans about five years ago for a new european security architecture. these didn't work. my question is can you see a way forward? is there a compromise policy between russia's principles for the european order and those of the european union? >> you probably didn't listen very carefully to what i said. i didn't speak about the need for a new principle. i spoke for the principles, the documents of the nato-russia council. but they should be reaffirmed. and they must be made binding. an agreement on european security which you mentioned

didn't suggest anything new either. it just proposed a binding principle of in devisability of security. thethey claimed that legal guarantees of security must remain the prerogative of nato. and so that nato remains attractive to new countries. it creates new dividing lines. why shouldn't we abandon the principle of equal securities? this is the commitment that prime minister and the president made. nato however, is seeking to disrupt the principle of equal security, so that some are more equal than others. you have quoted. i can give you another quote. he said that the cold war was a huge mistake that was made by the west.

so we shouldn't reinvent the wheel. all we should do is sit together and reaffirm those principles, then implement them in good faith. >> the last question. again, i apologize to many who have tried to ask questions. the last question goes to elmer brock of the european parliament. take the microphone, please. >> i want to ask you a question. minister i agree with you. minister, i agree with you that over the past 25 years, not everything rang absolutely

smoothly. there was a great degree of understanding with russia and we were just about to sign a partnership agreement which would help improve the economic -- the mechanisms of the russian economy. but we have a set of rules in europe which is based on territorial integrity and the determination of the people. both these rights have been violated in ukraine. and ukraine is not a ukrainian party, but that russia is party to that conflict. i think this is something we have to acknowledge, to be able to assess the situation correctly. so we need a fair assessment of the domestic situation in ukraine. your description of the situation in ukraine is not correct. it was not a coup but it was an agreement with the president that had been approved by the majority of parliament. three elections took place where

80% spoke out in favor for the european union, the nationalists and separatists only received 2% or 3% of the votes. and that is the situation. the two situations -- [applause] -- in domestic politics in ukraine. and i think that there should be no reason in the 21st century that the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty should be violated. part of this is that every nation, including ukraine, of course, should be free to decide with whom they want to sign an economic or trade agreement. we don't want to fall back into the old times where the soviet sovereign rights of the people are being influenced. [applause] >> i am sure that this is a good

topic for a television program. there are international rules that are sometimes interpreted differently by different people and different actions can be interpreted very differently. what's happened in crimea was the exercise of the right of self-determination. it's part of the u.n. charter. the u.n. charter, the right of nations to self-determination. it is a key principle of the u.n. charter. you've got to read the u.n. charter. territorial integrity and sovereignty must be respected. and the u.n. general assembly adopted a declaration. well, you might find it funny.

i also found many things you said funny. the u.n. general assembly adopted a declaration where it explained how those principles are connected. it confirmed that those principles must be respected and that the rights of the people in all countries must be respected and people must not be prevented from exercising their right to self-determination by the use of brute force. you said that -- what happened in kiev was just an implementation of the agreement signed, because an election was held. but first, the day after the agreement, was signed, regardless of where he was. and he was in ukraine. his residence. now, his administration was attacked. the government buildings were

attacked. and many people died. the agreement that was violated as a result of those actions although the agreement was guaranteed by the governments of germany, france and poland -- he can tell you his own version of events -- the first paragraph in that agreement provided for the establishment of the government of national unity. it does not depend on the fate of him personally. does it mean that he's got to cease power? i'm sure your answer will be no. this is unacceptable. so instead of a government of national unity, and it was supposed to prepare new constitution by september, and then on the basis of that new

constitution, a general election was to be held. this is the sequence of events that was laid down. but the initial step was establishment of the government of national unity. instead of that, yatsinok, after that agreement was forgotten, announced that a government of the victors was going to be established. after that, the ukrainian regions that disagreed with that and rebelled held their own protest and announced that they were not ready to accept the results of the coup. action was taken against those protesters and military force was used. who attacked whom? they did not attack kiev. no. it was kiev that sent troops to

donetsk and luhansk. when an attempt was made to establish power by force, and the right sector, at the early stages of the crisis in kiev, made an attempt to seize government buildings. fortunately, those attempts ended in failure. donetsk and luhansk held a referendum on their independence. this is not something that happened in kosovo. now, no referendum was held in kosovo. germany got reunited without the referendum. and we were an active supporter of that protest after the second world war came to an end. you will remember that it was the soviet union that was against splitting germany. >> thank you. the problem is that when we talk

about the methods that are used instead of direct dialogue, the problem is that the president of the ukraine does not have the monopoly on the use of force. there are private units that are well-paid and forces from the regular units move over to these private units. and they act with the ultra-nationalist personnel. and we have been in contact for a long time. i would like to tell you, if you want to speak out adamantly and strengthen your positions in the european parliament, you are free to do this. if you want to act differently let's sit together. let's talk about the results of the act, about the violation or non-violation of the principles. by the way a rating agency in

nuremberg, it is a ukrainian agency in nuremberg, carried out an opinion poll in the crimea. over 90% of the crimeans said they support being part of russia. and only 3% said that they still haven't decided. and this is statistics based on the opinion polls of people. we were talking here about respect for self-determination. we were talking about states. but there is also the self-determination of people. and, of course, we can discuss all this. you have to understand our position and the principles we are guided by. of course you can laugh about this, but then somebody is going to have fun. and this is a life-prolonging

measure. thank you. >> thank you sergei. the issue we are discussing here the issues we are discussing here, i think are no laughing matter from any side. and while i want to thank you for your explanations and for your presentation, i want to tell the audience that if you are interested in these issues of east-west relations, with ukraine, don't leave the room, because we will continue in just one second with a parliamentary conclusion of this morning's debate with three highly respected parliamentarians from the u.s., from europe and, of course from the russian federation. so thank you very much, sergei, and come back as you have done each year. thank you so much. [applause]

>> vice president biden also attended the munich security conference and delivered remarks. the hill newspaper writes that the vice president offered strong words against's russia's moves in ukraine suggesting russian president vladimir putin would buck any peace proposal. he also accused president putin of using, quote, bar barbarian practices. president obama will meet with german chancellor angela merkel in washington on monday to discuss the russia-ukraine conflict. the two are expected to hold a joint news conferenceful we'll conference. we'll have that for you, live here on c-span. in his weekly address, president obama talks about job growth and continued progress in the economy. senator rob portman of ohio has the republican response discussing the national debt, economy and criticism of the president's budget proposal.

>> hi, everybody. i'm talking with you today from ivy tech community college in indianapolis, where i just held a town hall and heard from everyday americans about what we can do together to make their lives a little better. this week we got news that confirms what we already know, that are our businesses continue to create jobs for hardworking folks all across the country. last month, america's businesses added another 267,000 jobs. in 2014, our economy created more than 3.1 million jobs in all. the best year for job growth since the late 1990's. all told, over the past 59 months the private sectors added 11.8 million new jobs. the longest streak on record. and in the single most hopeful sign for middle class families, wages are rising again. so america is poised for another good year, as long as washington works to keep this progress going. we have to choose.

will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well or will we build an economy where everyone who works hard can get ahead? because while we've come a long way, we've got more work to do to make sure that our recovery reaches more americans, not just those at the top. that's what middle class economics is all about the idea that this country does best when everyone gets their fair shot everyone does their fair share and everyone plays by the same set of rules. this week, i sent congress a budget built on middle class economics. it helps families afford child care, health care, college, paid leave at work, home ownership and saving for retirement. and it could put thousands of dollars back into the pockets of a working family each year. i helps more americans learn new skills to earn higher wages including by making two years of community college free for responsible students all across the country. it invests in the research and infrastructure our businesses

need to compete and create high-paying jobs. and it pays for this with smart spending cuts and by fixing a tax code that's riddled with special interest loopholes for folks who don't need them, allowing us to offer tax breaks to students and families who do need them. i believe this is where we need to go to give working families more security in a time of constant economic change. and i'll work with anyone, republican or democrat, who wants to get to yes on these issues. we won't agree on everything and that's natural. but we should stop refighting all battles and start working together to help you succeed in the new economy. that's what you elected us to do. not to turn everything into another washington food fight but to have debates that are worthy of this country and to build an economy, not just where everyone can share in america's success but where everyone can contribute to america's success. thanks. and have a great weekend! >> hi, i'm u.s. senator rob

portman from ohio. this week, president obama released his annual budget proposal. it's a 2,000-page document that spells out how he'd like to spend your hard-earned tax dollars. but a budget is about more than just how much government spends and how much it taxes. as any family who has ever sat around the kitchen table to figure out how a budget works knows, it's about making tough choices and setting priorities for the future. unfortunately, president obama doesn't make those tough choices in this budget. it's no secret that washington is addicted to overspenld overspending, but boy, the numbers are simply staggering. every year of obama's president the government has spent hundreds of billions more than it takes in. those deficits add up. in the first six years of his administration, president obama has added a record $7.5 trillion to the national debt. to put that in perspective, that's about $60,000 in new debt for every american household.

by the end of his presidency, president obama will have added nearly as much debt as every previous president in history combined. these aren't just numbers on a page. this washington red ink matters. as the nonpartisan congressional budget office has repeatedly told us, higher debt means fewer jobs. our debt hangs over the economy kind of like a wet blanket smothering opportunity, making it harder to create an environment where good-paying jobs can thrive. it's one reason that the growth following the last recession has been so sluggish compared to all the past recoveries. we just learned that the economic growth for the fourth quarter was a disappointing 2.6% and 2.4% for all of 2014. basically the same slow growth that we've had over the past three years. in fact, the economy has only grown half as fast as previous

economic recoveries. if it had been as strong as the historical average, our economy would have created 10 million more jobs since the recession ended. this sluggish growth is hitting the american people where it hurts the most right in our wallets. president obama says the economy is back on track, but people aren't feeling it and for good reason. wages are flat, even declining while costs for health care food education, they're rising. the middle class squeeze is very real. in fact, since president obama took office, middle class families have seen their incomes drop by an average of 8%. half of that decline has occurred even after the experts told us the last recession was over. it's not just we're treading water. we're actually sinking. something has to change. the president had an opportunity to begin to make that change in this new budget. he could have laid out policies that would have put us back on track, to balance budgets and more economic growth. he could have cut waste, made our government more efficient and effective and done all in

his power to ensure that every single dollar of taxes that we pay is spent wisely. but he didn't. that's why this new budget is so disappointing. instead of policies intended to raise your paycheck, president obama's policies the raise your taxes. in fact, the president's budget proposal has the highest income tax burden on american families in our nation's history. and even that can't keep up with his spending. instead of bringing us closer to living within our means, president obama's plan includes $1 trillion in new government spending adding $8.5 trillion to our national debt over the next decade. instead of proposing policies that will help grow the economy president obama's budget actually grows the government and his budget never balances. not in five years, not in ten years, not ever. in a lot of respects, president obama's budget is more of the same. it's more taxes, more spending,

more debt, more of the same big government policies that have failed time and time again to help folks reach their full potential and follow their dreams. we can and must do better. in the coming weeks, republicans will unveil a very different budget. it will be a budget that recognizes that every dollar the government spends comes out of the american people's pockets, even in the form of today's taxes, debt borrowed from the next generation. our budget will cut waste. it will spend smarter, putting efficiency and effectiveness of government back at the top of the agenda. it will recognize that you already pay enough in taxes and instead propose pro-growth policies that create an environment where good-paying jobs can thrive. it will put us back on the path towards the kind of balanced budget you have the right to expect. american families have to balance their budget. american businesses do too. there's no reason the american government shouldn't have to do the same. a budget shouldn't be about scoring political points. it should be about making your

priorities the government's priorities. that's what our budget will do. it will be a blueprint, not only for how government spends our money each year but for a brighter future, better jobs, higher wages, and greater opportunity for everyone. thank you for listening. and may god continue to bless our great country. >> here on c-span, the communicators is next with f.c.c. special counsel gigi sohn. she talks about the commission's net neutrality proposal, which is said to be voted on later this month. then the foreign minister of qatar discusses threats posed by isolatesisis and other challenges in the middle east. and later, ruth ginsburg talks about her life and career. >> c-span, created by cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you a