ssessment that this would not lead to success, intervening by military means. and this realism still exists in the world today. we have no guarantee that president putin will do what we expect him to do. >> i do think that military means will lead to more victims. [applause] >> i am talking to the ukrainian president all the time. i know that we may be of different opinions here, but militarily, this cannot be won. this is a truth and the community has to come up with something more intelligent. this is why we are important -- this is why it is important that we stand shoulder to shoulder.

the americans not only wage war against the gdr, but i also am of the experience that you stand up for the unity of germany and that led to my sitting here. things take long, but i am 100% convinced that were principal will prevail in the end. if after only two months in the european union we say one cannot see any effect on the sanctions, then i can only say that is not how you win the battle in the end. no one knew when the cold war would end at the time, but it did end. this is within our living experience. we should believe it. i am surprised at how quickly we

lose courage that something may in the end come. [applause] >> time is nearly up. maybe you would agree to stay a bit longer for other questions. first question will be asked by someone from estonia and someone from human rights watch has been raising his hand for quite some time. >> good morning madam chancellor. if diplomacy fails and the situation we are in today if you have special operations forces using the most latest weaponry that requires sometimes years to

learn how to use and on the ukrainian side you have volunteers using weapons from the 1970's and 1980's and sometimes the 1960's, it is clear what the end result will be. it will either be surrender or armed ukraine. that is the way it will go unless -- if diplomacy fails and we say we want ukraine -- that is what will happen. we have already seen the line moved beyond minsk. the question is how far. >> absolutely. the question is would it be different if they weapons of the ukrainian army were different? i have my doubts.

i think one ought to discuss this but i am much more concerned about something quite different. we will not be able to convince each other of our respective viewpoints in the initial. of time. what i am most concerned about at this point in time the united states is somewhat more advanced militarily i suppose. speaking for the europeans the issue of hybrid warfare is something we need to take a much closer look at. we have to discuss this intensively. the question is what are democracies capable of and what are sort of more guided and managed governments capable of? infiltration of the media. creating a disturbance.

and undermining the certainties that we have always thought were so solid in our society. that is something i am most concerned about. we have a handful with looking at the nonmilitary part of this hybrid warfare. we are all under the influence. we have to become aware of what is actually happening. and to understand that the visible military conflict is only the end of a long series of events. you know exactly what i'm talking about. we need to create an awareness in our population for what is happening there because the way that opinions are shaped and society -- in society and what

is happening in ukraine right now where people seem to look at it as if it were somehow equal. ukrainians are doing bad things. it is no wonder russians are doing nothing to them. and that is something we have to watch for. >> the last and final question. i ask for your understanding if you have raised your hand and was not able to answer question but this afternoon she will have the opportunity to come here again. just of is going to address us. you have -- joseph biden is going to address us. this is why you are able to make this promise right? >> madam chancellor, i appreciate that you mention the hundreds of thousands of guests. you spoke about the importance of opposing isis and the awful atrocities.

i worry it will be hard to persuade the syrian people to adopt isis atrocities without addressing assad atrocities which has been as possible for many more civilian deaths. is there a western strategy to address the assad atrocities. with respect to russia and iran, is it possible to talk with russia about syria? can we talk to iran? >> of course. after we talked to russia, the fact that chemical weapons have been removed by a large have a lot to do with russia.

in turn, this also proves that if russia, the united states and others have different opinions on how to deal with assad, we are not getting closer to another solution. it is more competition. the more you come to a unified position on assad, the more you will be able to define a course that takes you out of the crisis. yesterday i talked to the prime and mr. of iraq -- to the prime minister of iraq and what he told me on the basis of the challenge of ias is that he sees the atrocities that assad committed in a different light. i'm not all that convinced of -- when people and their hopes on

assad and that he could be reformed, i was reluctant to believe that. one also have to look at a situation and say that with russia, a solution is easier to find than without russia. obviously one shouldn't lose sight of the syrian population because the have suffered enormously. we cannot simply neglect that an overlook that because then we have another possibility. on the other hand, you have 220,000 people who were killed and millions of refugees. we need to find a solution. it is a very difficult and complex task. >> think it very much madam

chancellor. you have called for transparency and accountability from me and this is why i am going to read out the list of names still remaining so we can implement this correctly. promised he will be the first ones to ask a question. in closing, i would like to express hope. i would like to make a request also on behalf of many of the participants present here today. you have started a large attempt to bring about a diplomatic solution in ukraine over the course of this weekend. i was 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 a strong

signal which will bring us closer to peaceful solution and a cease-fire. by stating one sentence, i would like to remind all of you that this would not be the first time that we succeeded together in munich with the russian federation to take a meaningful and positive step forward. in 2009, the same vice president of the united states of america joe biden who is with us today pressed the symbolic reset button. this was the starting point for the new negotiations about the neustar agreement. when you're later hillary clinton -- one year later hillary clinton attended this conference and was able to exchange the documents relating to this new start agreement. it has happened once again. we very much hope it will happen again. thank you very much indeed for

taking 60 minutes to speak with us today. after this very difficult and hard weekend and all the activities associated with it. [applause] >> german chancellor angela merkel is scheduled to meet with president obama monday in washington dc to discuss the situation in ukraine and other issues. they are also excited to hold a joint news conference. we went to bring her that news conference live here on c-span. -- we plan to bring you that news conference live here on c-span. russian foreign minister sergei law ovrov expressed optimism that a deal can be reached.

he is introduced by former german ambassador. this is 45 minutes. >> i am -- i will start by saying thank you to host: sergey lavrov who i first met almost exactly 20 years ago when he was still the permanent representative at the united nations. we were working at that time on the solutions to the bosnian crisis. i would like to thank sergey lavrov for having been an extremely loyal participant in munich because i don't remember a single munich security conference, certainly not one under my command, where you have not spoken. so 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 the russian point of view. without further a do, as soon as everyone has found his seat, i would like to invite mr. lavrov to speak to us and then we will have a question and answer. period. [applause] >> thank you ladies and gentlemen. included in the agenda is the topic of the collapsing world order. i agree that the events have followed a less than opportunistic road however, we could not agree with those who say there was a sudden collapse of the world order. recent developments have

corroborated our warnings about the deep systemic issues in the european security and international relations at large. nevermind you of the speech by president hooton made here -- president clinton made here years ago. have been undermined by the united states and their allies in iraq and libya. it was undermined by new divided lines. the common european home was one built because our western partners were not guided by interest to build a common security, but rather by solutions to be winners in the cold war. the commitments made as part of osc and nrs, commitments to

consider each other's securities were ignored. the missile defense is proof of a destructive move and disregards of other state's interests. our proposals were rejected. instead, we were recommended to join the american global missile defense system under washington's scenarios which entailed real risks for russian nuclear deterrent forces. any action undermining strategic stability entails countermeasures that by long-term damage is done to control. the viability of which is dependent on missile defense. we don't understand this american obsession with global missile defense.

is that a desire to achieve global dominance? anyway, the missile threats have not decreased. however, there is a major irritant and it will take a long time to get rid of it. another destabilizing factor is the rejection by the united states and other nato allies to rectify the fe treaty. in any situation, the united states is trying to blame russia for everything. let's take the recent talks about the imf treaty. experts are aware of the united states actions in contradiction of the treaty as part of the global missile defense. washington has deployed target missiles with performance

ballistics close to land-based ballistic missiles banned by imf . the treaty definitions of cruise missiles are very close to weaponize drones. the treaty bans intercepting missiles developed in romania and poland. the american counterparts s cite some rude claims to russia but they devoid specific facts. based on this, we should not try to reduce the crisis to last year's events. we believe this is the climax of a policy conducted in the past 25 years aiming to dominate

international relations in europe. the cis countries, our neighbors connected with us by historical and economic and family ties, were required to make a choice. are you with us or against us? following the zero-sum logic. unfortunately, the strategic partnership between russia and the european union has not withstood the test. i should mention the missed opportunity to realize the initiative launched by mrs. merkel to set up a russia-eu foreign policy and security committee. russia supported the idea. the eu rejected.

a mechanism like that would have helped effectively resolve issues and address concerns ahead of time. as regards to the ukraine, at any stage of the crisis, the american counterparts and european union took steps to escalate the conflict. this was the case when the united states and european union refused to involve russia in the discussion of the economic issues of the association agreement and they directly supported the -- and the unrest. our western partners so to speak issued indulgences. calling their citizens terrorists who are not in agreement with the

anti-constitutional of hooded -- it is difficult to explain why conflict resolution does not apply to this case and these principles are vied for inclusive political dialect. in this case, our partners have urged governments of those countries to come to agreement with the opposition. in the case of ukraine, they have taken a different line. conniving at attempts to even justify the use of cluster balls. turning a blind eye to everything done by kiev authorities. let me give you a quote. the ukrainian social nuzzles and believes the ukrainian nation a

blood-based racial community. the issue of total -- will be resolved within3 to 6 months. they are arguing for ethnic purges of ukraine for the destruction of russians and juice. ews. these statements do not generate a response and western capitals. i do not believe that europe can afford to ignore the spread of nationalistic virus. ukrainian virus cannot be resolved by force. last year, the combat situation

forced authorities to sign the minsk agreement despite the fact there are growing appeals in the west to support the key of policy of militarization to pump ukraine full of lethal weapons. this position will only exacerbate the tragedy of the ukraine. russia will be committed to peace. we are against combat. we would like to see a withdrawal of heavy weapons. we would like to see direct negotiations between kiev and minsk. this was the focus of many initiatives by mr. putin as part of the normandy format which helped launch the process and our subsequent attempts

including negotiations yesterday between russia, germany, and france had these negotiations continue will continue . it is important for everybody to realize the scale of the problem . the world is at a turning point. the labor pains are reflected in the growing conflicts in the relations. if opportunistic decisions take the upper hand, we may lose control of global evidence governance. nevermind you the beginning of the syrian conflict, many in the

west urged that extremism will go away. we see huge territories in the middle east and africa are no longer under government control. extremism is spilling over into other regions, including europe. there are risks of proliferation. the situation in the middle east is growing explosive. there are no sufficient strategies to address these challenges. i hope discussions today and tomorrow will help us move closer to understanding where we stand in the situation. we should talk about this on an equal basis without ultimatums and threats. it will be easier to do this if

we agree on strategic principles and our relations. the permanent secretary of the french said recently that europe is impossible without russia. we would like to know whether this viewpoint is shared by others. do they want to create a security agenda with russia, without russia come or against russia? like to address this question to our american counterparts. we have suggested a knighted commitment based on equal and indivisible security involving members of integration unions. it is important to set up a mechanism between eurasian economic union and the european union. we welcome growing support from

this idea by european leaders. this year, we celebrated the 40th anniversary and the 25th anniversary of the paris charter. we would like to reaffirm our commitment to these principles. like to ensure stability and prosperity in the atlantic region based on equality and mutual respect. we wish success to the group of wise men of osce, celebrity the 70th anniversary of the end of the world war. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much for the statement. he has agreed to take some questions. we have a bit of time. i have already received two

cards with questions and we will take those first. then we will call on the next colleagues. just give me a chance to call up the first one. the first one was joe, who i will ask where he is to ask this question himself. >> i understand the problems that you mentioned that you had with the united states such as on the cse or the missile-defense. apart from the fact that on the inf treaty that you think jones are like cruise missiles, i understand these problems though i would add as a footnote that obama finally took down essentially european missile

defense systems. what i don't understand is if you have problems with the united states, why did you make the ukraine a for it by taking crimea and being on the way to annexing or splitting ukraine? what do the ukrainians have to do that you punish them for the malfeasance of the united states? [applause] >> i think you have a distorted view of things. i don't think we should lump all these things together. some people say we have to settle the ukrainian crisis and the entire system of instability. it is the other way around. we have to settle the crisis. this is our first priority. we cannot shut our eyes to the

agreements at the end of the cold war that are not being complied with. we are not going to take revenge on someone, particularly at other people's expense. 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. 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 -- holidays 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 minorities in ukraine, not just ethnic ukrainians, and

we believe they must enjoy equal rights. when the election was held in ukraine, i know that the hungarian minority 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. 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 -- 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. 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, to 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 e.u. 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 in 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? 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, est anything new either. it just proposed a binding principle of in devisability of security. our nato colleagues proclaimed 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 the 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 ran 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. -- 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 got to read the u.n. charter. territorial integrity and sovereignty must be respected. 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 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] >> next, live, your questions and comments on "washington journal." then "newsmakers" with representative smith. later, a senate hearing on the 2016 budget request. >> tonight on "q and a". >> the sinew -- sidney awards are given for the best magazine. they can before journals, or obscure literary magazines. the idea is that they always come out in the christmas week. the idea is that that is a good week to step back and have the

time to read something deeper and longer. it is to celebrate the longer pieces. i do believe that magazines changed history. the new republic was the most influential american political magazine in the 20th century. a created progress -- progressivism. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific. >> this morning, grover norquist president of americans for tax reform will discuss the tax proposal and toys six team budget requests. then, patrick tyrell -- patrick taurel will talk about the

executive order on immigration. finally, william pomeranz with the woodrow wilson center will discuss best clean conflict between russia and ukraine. as always, we will take your questions and calls. ♪ host: good morning, now that the senate has approved a bill to move forward with the keystone xl pipeline, the house will take up the measure. also, to members of the senate testifying before the senate finance committee to talk about america's tax code. this week, the white house is expected to have --