characterization and easy catch all. i hope the rest of what i said has been reflective of a view as he blog concerned about the ways the united states is affecting other countries and its national security by being invested in conflicts around the globe. i don't mean isolationists in a negative sense. there is a hawkish wing of the republican party. i think the difference is republicans, there are fewer antiwar. when we talk about isolation is him in the republican party,

it's a nod to the past. there is a wing that is more reluctant than the other wing it to go to war. host: we will go next to new york. caller: good morning. i am a frequent viewer but first-time caller. my question is is the president's job to submit the use of force first off? has he done that? secondly, i am so sick of my representative schumer pontificating on how the republicans are holding the american citizens hostage. aren't we holding american citizen hostage with unconstitutional law in protecting immigrants?

it just befuddles me that they can use this argument. guest: let me address that piece by piece. maybe i will start with -- as far as immigration i don't see the benefits extended to immigrants that are discriminated against american citizens. this is just shielding emigrants from being deported if they are willing to register. i think will be interesting to see what the statistics are on that registration. i'm not sure people are going to come out of the shadows. let me add some exoneration and that will change.

the president is expected to submit something soon. the constitution never foresaw this situation where you would have an authorized use of military force, a war without a war. you don't have to go through that process. it is the prerogative of the president to make any suggestion he wants to it is the prerogative of the congress to make laws. with or without his suggestion they want some unifying theory from the white house about why we should be involved in syria in terms of getting rid of a sod and iraq instead of get rating -- get your devices. -- isis. >> good morning, be seated.

it is a great pleasure to welcome my close friend and partner chancellor angela merkel back to the white house. she has been here many times. this visit is a chance for me to congratulate her on two achievements. well into her third term, she is one of germany's longest-serving chancellors. more importantly, this is my first opportunity to congratulate them on their fourth world cup title. watch out. germany is one of our strongest allies. when we meet it's an opportunity to coordinate closely on a range of medical issues.

-- critical issues. as we will host the g7 this brain, -- this spring, it's important to coordinate on a set of shared goals. we will focus on what we can do to keep the economy growing and creating jobs. we are strong supporters of the trade agreement. there should be an agreement that boosts our economies with strong protections for consumers and workers and the environment. i look forward to hearing her assessment of how europe and the imf can work with the new greek government to sustain greece -- return greece to sustainable growth. we will discuss our work to get the economies on to climate change, our initiative to limit

coal powered plants overseas. the discussion this morning focused on global security issues. we reaffirmed our commitment to training afghan security forces. we agreed that the international community has to continue enforcing sanctions as part of our diplomatic effort to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. we want to do everything to achieve a good, verifiable deal. to which is in particular that dominated our work date this morning, russia's aggression against ukraine and the international fight against isis l. it's clear that russia has violated just about every

commitment they made in the minsk agreement. instead of withdrawing from eastern ukraine, they operate there. they are training separatists and coordinate attacks. russia has sent in more tanks and armored personnel carriers. with russian support, they have seized more territory and shelled more civilian areas. these are the facts. russian aggression has only reinforced the unity of the united states and germany and are allies and partners around the world. i want to thank her for a strong partnership. we met with portray go in munich over the weekend. we continue to increase a diplomatic resolution to this issue. as the o-matic efforts continue this week, we are in agreement

that the 21st century cannot stand idle and allow the borders of europe to be redrawn at the barrel of a gun it. we have agreed to move forward with our strategy along with our nato allies. we will bolster our presence in europe. this is part of our article five obligation to our collective defense. we will work with the imf and other partners to provide ukraine with critical financial support as it pursues anticorruption reforms. we discussed how best to assist ukraine to defend itself. sanctions on russia need to remain in force until russia complies with its obligations. even as we continue to work for a double medic solution, we are making it clear again today that

if russia continues on its current course, which is ruining the russian economy and hurting the russian people as well as having a terrible effect on ukraine, russia's isolation will worsen. with regard to isil, we are determined to destroy this barbaric organization. i think angela for her support of the international coalition working in iraq. germany has taken the important step of arming kurdish forces in iraq. they are leading a training mission. germany is a close partner in combating foreign terrorist fighters. under her leadership, germany is moving ahead with legislation to

prevent fighters from traveling to and from syria and iraq. at the same time, we recognize that young people in both of our countries, especially in muslim communities are being targeted for recruitment. protecting our young people from this hateful ideology so that they are not vulnerable to such recruitment is first and foremost a task for local communities, families, neighbors, faith leaders who know their communities best. we can help these communities starting with the tone we sat in our own countries. i want to commend her for her leadership picking up forcefully against prejudice and xenophobia. she has made it clear that all religious communities have a place in germany just as they do here in united states. we are grateful that our german friends will be joining us at

our summit next week on countering violent extremism. this is a challenge we must meet together. but the end on a historic note. this is the seventh anniversary of the end of the second world war. it marks the 25th anniversary of the reunification of germany. when conflicts around the world seem contractible, when progress seems beyond grasp, germany's story gives us hope. we can end wars, can trees -- countries can rebuild, divisions can be healed. germany's story remind us that when three people stand united, our values will prevail. as we look to the future, and great for my -- grateful for my partnership.

>> thank you. i am delighted to be back in washington. we were here for the last time nine months ago. this has a lot to do with the fact that we coordinate very closely as we do on others. we will address issues related to the global economy when we meet in bavaria. from a european vantage point, i think we can say that we have made significant progress in a number of areas. we have countries back on the growth path. spain and portugal have structural reforms. they have made significant progress.

they have launched growth programs in which germany will participate. we will pin our hopes on growth and infrastructure. another growth project is the economy in the united states. there is a lot of things to be done. i would say that a free trade agreement would also go a long way to growth. you are engaged in the asia pacific area. germany will come out very forcefully in seeing that the negotiations between the eu and the united states on free trade agreements -- it's in our own interest and the interests in the united states. we are dealing with health issues or it let me mention one.

what lessons have we drawn from the terrible ebola epidemic? the international organizations have to be quicker and reacting to such things. we have a very important contribution to this. we are interested in seeing them be successful. we are pleased to conclude the replenishing conference. we don't with security issues this morning. germany celebrates the 25th anniversary of its reunification. this would not have been possible without our transatlantic partners and the support of the united states of america. we will always be grateful for this. it is worth the effort to stand by one's values, to pursue long-term goals and not relent.

after we fought -- thought things would turn out less complicated, we see ourselves confronted with a whole wealth of conflict area we talked about afghanistan. germany has decided that we will help in the fight against i sold -- isil. we will work on the around nuclear program. we enter into a crucial phase of negotiations. one priority that was given to the conflict of ukraine and russia this morning, we stand up for the same principles of territorial integrity. i can only say that if we give up this principle of territorial integrity, we will not be able

to maintain the peaceful order of europe that we have achieved. this is essential, a crucial point, and we must stand by. russia has violated the territorial integrity of ukraine in two respects, crimea and. we are called upon to come up with solutions. not in the sense of being a mediator. we stand out in the european order. this is what the french president and i have been able to do. we will continue those efforts. throughout the ukrainian crisis, we have been very close with the united states of america and europe. we are close on sanctions and diplomatic initiatives. this is going to be continued. i think that is one of the most important messages we can send to russia and we need to send to

russia. we continue to pursue a diplomatic solution. we have suffered a lot of setbacks there is these days, we will see if all sides are ready and willing to come to a negotiated settlement. i don't see a military solution to this conflict, but we have to put all our efforts into the diplomatic solution. there is a host of issues that we need to discuss over lunch. we will talk about climate and sustainable development. thank you very much. thank you for the close cooperation and close coordination and the possibility of having an exchange of views and not only in hindsight can we say that the united states has stood by us and help this regain our unity, we can also say we continue to cooperate closely solving the conflicts of the world today.

there are many of them and we will continue to do so in the future. thank you for your hospitality. >> the first question. >> you stressed that the united states and europe need of cohesion on sanctions dealing with ukraine, you're discussing sending lethal weapons to ukraine, which is what the chancellor said over the weekend. is this a good cop, bad cop act? is this a reflection of different views western mark if there is no agreement this week, what lies ahead? are we looking at a broader set of sanctions? will they change the russian president's mind? >> let me start with the broader

point. i think both angela and i have emphasized the process for a military solution to this problem has always been low. russia has an extraordinarily powerful military. given the length of the border with ukraine and the history between russia and ukraine expecting that if russia is determined that ukraine can rebuff the russian army, that has always been unlikely. what we have said is the international community working together can ratchet up the

costs for the violation of the core principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity. that is exactly what we have done and russia has played -- paid a significant cost. it has not yet dissuaded vladimir putin from following the course he is on. it has created a measurable negative impact on the russian economy. that will continue. my hope is through these diplomatic efforts, those costs have become high enough that his referred option is for a diplomatic resolution. i won't prejudge if that will be successful. if they are successful, it will be in part because of the extraordinary patience and

effort of chancellor merkel and her team. if they are not, we will continue to raise those costs. we will not relent in that. one of the things i am encouraged about is the degree to which we have been able to maintain european unity on this issue. it is true that if diplomacy fails, i have asked my team to look at all options. what other means can we put in place? what can change his calculus? the possibility of lethal defensive weapons is one of those options that is being examined. i have consulted with not just angela but other allies about this. it's not based on the idea that

ukraine could defeat the russian army. it is rather to see whether there are additional things we can do to help ukraine bolster its defenses in the face of aggression. i want to emphasize that the decision has not yet been made. one of the bigger issues we are concerned with is making sure the economy is functioning and president porchenko can continue with the reform efforts they have made. i am glad to see that with our cooperation and efforts, we are starting to see a package come together with the imf and the european union and others that can help bolster the european economy so they have the space to continue to execute some of the reforms and anticorruption measures they have made.

one of the most important rings we can do for ukraine is help them succeed economically. that is how people on the ground feel this transformation inside ukraine. if that experiment fails, the larger project of an independent ukraine will fail. we are going to do everything we can to bolster that. there is no doubt that if in fact diplomacy fails this week, there will continue to be a strong unified response between the united states and europe. that is not going to change. there are areas where there might be tactical disagreements. there may not be. the principle we have to stand up for not just ukraine with the principle of terrio -- territorial integrity is one where we are completely unified.

>> the french president and i have decided to make one further attempt to make progress through diplomatic means. we have the minsk agreement. the situation has worsened on the ground. there is the possibility to try and bring about a cease-fire. we also want to create conditions that are in place where you have civilians dying. i am confident we will do this together. i would not be able to live with not having made this attempt. there is anything but assured success. i have to be very clear about this.

at a certain point in time, one has to say that success is not possible, even if you put every effort into it. the united states and europe have to sit together and try to ask laure further -- explore further possibilities. last week, we thought about further possible sanctions. on the issue of what is effective and what is not we are surprised sometimes. but me mention iran. for a long. of time we have had sanctions in place. i think it was a very good thing to put some cost to the russians.

we see also that russia seems to be influenced by this. this is why i am 100% behind these decisions. as for the export of arms, i have given you my opinion. no matter what we decide, the alliance between the united states and europe will continue to stand. it will be solid. even on certain issues we may not always agree. this partnership be it on other issues, is a partnership that has stood the test of time. in europe, we are very close. the strength of that partnership is indispensable. this will remain so.

i can say this on behalf of my colleagues in the european union. >> you have not yet made a decision as to whether weapons should be delivered to ukraine. what would be your redline that needs to be crossed for you to arm the ukrainian army? what will this hold by the way of a promise. ? what will the nobel laureate obama due to disarm this further? when do you think the right moment has, to do this? this reach of -- reach of confidence due to the nsa affair, has that played a role

today? >> do you want to go first in this? >> i can gladly start. the question as to how one assesses the effectiveness of measures, the president has not yet made a decision. we need to stand very closely together. the question of a renewed diplomatic effort, we keep each other informed. we are in close touch. nobody wishes more for a success the two of us to stand here side-by-side. this would also mean not having a cease-fire in place, having certain rules in place. the russian president -- these

are contracts that already exist. the problem of the last few days and the problem of the less meeting was more than -- there was really not that much of a result. the core of the minsk agreement was there were local elections in accordance with the ukrainian constitution and the outcome is you have representatives that can speak for those regions. the ukrainian president has made way for this. these elections are an essential point. they will enable us to say there can be contact even without the trilateral group.

i can very well understand the ukrainian side. they consider this to be part of their territory. anything else would violate their territorial integrity. that has been stated by president clinton. putin. on the nsa issue there are still different assessments on individual issues there, but the shared dimension of the terrorist threat we are more than aware of the fact that we need to work together very closely and i, as german chancellor want to say that the institution of the united states of america has provided us and still continues to provide us with very significant and important information to our community. we don't want to do without this. there are other possibilities to

continue to talk about the protection of privacy and data protection and so on, but this -- this was basically combating terrorism. >> with respect to providing lethal weapons to ukraine, it's important to point out that we have been providing assistance to the ukrainian military that's part of a long-standing relationship between nato and ukraine. our goal has not in for ukraine to be equipped to carry out offensive operations, but to simply defend itself. be president has been very clear that he's not interested in escalating violence. he is interested in having his country positive down trees respected by its neighbor.

there is not going to be any specific point at which i say clearly lethal defensive weapons would be appropriate here. it is our ongoing analysis of what can we do to dissuade russia from encroaching further and further on ukrainian territory? our hope is that is done through diplomatic means and i want to emphasize here once again for the benefit not just of the american people, but for the german people, we are not looking for russia to fail. we are not looking to russia to be surrounded and contain and weekend. our preference is for a strong prosperous vibrant, competent russia that can be a partner with us on a whole host of global challenges.

that is how i operated throughout my first term in office. unfortunately, russia has made a decision that i think is bad for them strategically, bad for europe, bad for the world. in the face so this aggression in these bad decisions we cannot simply try to talk them out of it. we have to show them the world is unified in imposing a cost for this aggression, and that's what we are going to continue to do. with respect to the nsa, i will make this point very briefly. there is no doubt that the snowden revelations damaged impressions of germans with respect to the u.s. government

and our intelligence cooperation's -- intelligence cooperation. what i have done over the last year or year and a half is to systematically work through some of these issues to create greater transparency and restore confidence not just for germans, but for our partners around the world. we have taken some unprecedented measures to ensure our intelligence agencies treat non-us citizens in ways that are consistent with due process and their privacy concerns. it's something i put in a presidential order and has not been done only by our intelligence agencies, but by most intelligence agencies around the world. there are still going to be areas where we have to work through these issues.

we have to internally work through these issues because they are difficult. if we are trying to track a network that is planning to carry out attacks in new york or berlin or paris and they are communicating primarily in cyberspace, and we have the capacity to stop an attack like that, but that requires us being able to operate within that cyberspace, how do we make sure we are able to do that and carry out those functions while still meeting our core principles of respecting the privacy of all of our people? given germany's history, i recognize the sensitivities around this issue. what i would ask is that the german people recognize that the united states has always been on the forefront of trying to

promote civil liberties. that we have traditions of due process that we respect. that we have been a consistent partner of yours in the course of the last 70 years and certainly last 20 years in reinforcing the values we share. so occasionally, i would like the german people to give us the benefit of the doubt as opposed to assuming the worst assuming we have been consistently your strong partners and we share a common set of values. if we have that fundamental underlying trust, there will be times when there are disagreements and both sides may make mistakes and there will be irritants, like there are between friends, but the underlying foundation of the relationship remains sound. christi parsons.

>> thank you, mr. president. the iran nuclear negotiators have missed to deadlines. should the upcoming march deadline be the final one and what are the circumstances in which you think it would be wise to extend those talks? also, some have suggested you are outraged by the israeli prime minister to address congress. is that so? how would you advise democrats who are considering a boycott? >> first of all, we understood from the start when we set up the interim agreement with iran that it would take some time to work through incredibly complex issues and a huge trust deficit between the united states and iran and the world and iran when it comes to nuclear programs.

i think there was always the assumption that although the interim agreement lasted a certain time that we would probably need more time to move forward. the good news is is there have been very serious discussions and that time has been well spent. during this time, issues have been clarified, caps have been narrowed, the iranians have blighted by the agreement, so this is not a circumstance in which by talking they have been stalling and meanwhile advancing a program. to the contrary, we know the program is not only been frozen but with respect to 20% enriched uranium, they have reversed it so we are in a better position than we were before the program was set up. having said all of that, the issues are sufficiently narrowed and credit fight -- and

verified. we are at the point now where they need to make a decision. we are presenting to them in a unified fashion, supported by a coalition of countries around the world, we are presenting to them a deal that allows them to have peaceful nuclear power but gives us the absolute assurance that is verifiable that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon. if in fact what they claim is true, which is they have no aspirations to get a nuclear weapon and according to their supreme leader, it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon. if that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a deal.

but we don't know if that's going to happen. they have their hard-liners they have their politics and the point at this juncture is i don't see a further extension being useful if they have not agreed to the basic formulation and the bottom line the world requires to have confidence they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon. if the framework for a deal is done and people have a clear sense of what is required and there is some drafting and tease to cross and eyes to., that's a different issue. but my view, and i have presented this to members of congress, is we now know enough that the issues are no longer technical. the issues are does iran have

the political will and desire to get a deal done? we could not be doing this were it not for the incredible cohesion and unity that has been shown by germany, by the other members of the p5 plus one which i should acknowledge includes russia. this is an area where they have actually served a constructive role. china has served a constructive role. there has been no cracks on the p5 plus one side of the table and i think that is a testament to the degree to which we are acting reasonably and trying to actually solve a problem. with respect to prime minister netanyahu, as i said, i talked to him all the time and our teams constantly coordinate. we have a practice of not meeting with leaders right

before their elections, two weeks before their elections. as much as i love angela, she was two weeks away -- if she was two weeks away from election she probably would not receive an invitation to the white house and i suspect she would not have asked for one. [laughter] some of this just has to do with how we do business. i think it is important for us to maintain these protocols because the u.s.-israeli relationship is not about a particular party. this is not a relationship founded on affinity between the labour party and the democratic

party or the likud and the republican party. this is the u.s.-israeli relationship that extends beyond parties and has to do with that unbreakable bond we feel and our commitment to israel possible security and the shared values we have. the way to preserve that is to make sure it does not get clouded with what could be perceived as partisan politics, whether that is accurate or not, that is a potential perception and that's something we have to guard against. i don't want to be cool a -- the prime minister and i have a very real difference around iran's sanctions. i have been very clear and angela agrees with me and david cameron agrees with me and the others who are members of the negotiations agree that it does not make sense to sour the

negotiations a month or two before they are about to be completed and we should play that out if we can get a deal we should embrace it. if we cannot get a deal, we will have to make a set of decisions and, as i said to congress, i will be the first one to work with them to apply even stronger measures against iran. but what's the rush? unless you are view is that it's not possible to get a deal with iran and should not even be tested. that i cannot agree with because as president of the united states, i'm looking for what the options are we don't get a diplomatic resolution. those options are narrow and not attractive. from the perspective of u.s. interests, and i believe from the israeli interests, it's far better if we can get a diplomatic solution. so there are real differences

substantively, but that's separate and apart from the whole issue of mr. netanyahu coming to washington. >> he just said the question is what will be effective in the ukrainian crisis and diplomacy has not really brought about that much progress. can you understand the impatience of the americans when they say we ought to deliver weapons and what makes you feel confident diplomacy will carry the day in the next few weeks. on greece, have to ask what is your comment from the greek prime -- on the greek prime minister who says let's and those programs and i'm going to stand by the promises i made on

the elections and do you, mr. president, there is quite a lot of pressure by members of your government who say weapons should be really low -- it delivered to the ukrainians. you yourself have said you want to ratchet up the cost of putin has to bear and make him relent and given and you said all options have to be on the table. what makes you so sure these weapons will not only go into the hands of the ukrainian army but perhaps get into the hands of separates it -- separatist militias? thank you. >> whenever you have political conflicts such as the one we have now between russia and the ukraine, but also in many other

conflicts around the world, it is always proved to be right to try again and again -- we have spoken about the iranian conflict. we expect to try time and again and there's always a point where you say the options are on the table and we've gone back and forth, but then one has to think again. looking just at the middle east conflict, how many people have tried to bring about a solution to this conflict? i'm going to participate and support it every time because every time it has been well worth the effort. where you have a situation where you see people dying, you see the dire conditions under which people live, it is incumbent upon us as politicians. we oh it to the people to explore every avenue. but we have grown up under

conditions -- i have to point this again, where we have said nobody would have dreamt of german unity. they said should we keep up citizenship of germany? they have been criticized by some who have ideas and then think of president reagan, when he said "mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall" many people that how could he say that, but it was right. we have no guarantee. i cannot give you a guarantee of the outcome of the talks but we are called upon to think about a new possibility. we have thought will this be effective or not? a lot of things have to be thought about and i'm glad that with the american president i've always been able to put all the cards on the table.

in my speech in munich, i gave you clearly where i stand, but we will continue to try it. i think that's why we're politicians and why we chose this profession. researchers have to find new things to explore and we have to see the well-being of our people is in short, but we never have a guarantee the policies we adopt will work -- greece -- i almost forgot. on wednesday, there will be a eurogroup meeting and i think what counts is what greece will put on the table. at that eurogroup meeting or perhaps two days later. the german policy ever since 2010 has been aimed at greece staying a member of the euro zone. i've said this time and again.

the basic rules have always in the same. on your own effort and on the other side, you're being shown solidarity. the ecb, the european union commission and the imf have agreed that these programs are the basis of any discussion we have. i have always said i will wait for greece to come with a sustainable proposal and then we will talk about this. >> the point angela made is right. we never have guarantees any particular course of action works. as i have said before, by the time a decision reaches my desk, by definition, it is a hard problem with no even see -- with no easy answers, otherwise someone else would have solved it and i would never hear about it. the issue you raise about can we

be certain that any lethal aid we provide ukraine is used properly, doesn't fall into the wrong hands does not lead to over aggressive actions that cannot be sustained by the ukrainians, what kinds of reactions does prompt, not simply from the separatists, but from the russians, those are all issues that have to be considered. the measure by which i make these decisions is is it more likely to be effective than not? that's what our deliberations will be about. but what i do know is this -- the united states and europe have not stood idly by.

we've made enormous efforts enormous investments of dollars, political capital, of diplomacy in trying to resolve this situation. i think the ukrainian people can feel confident we have stood by them. people like vice president biden and secretary of state terri have spent countless hours on this issue as has angela and her team on the german side. just because we have not yet gotten the outcome we want doesn't mean this pressure is not over time making a difference. i think it is fair to say there are those inside russia who recognize this has been a disastrous course for the russian economy, i think mr.

putin is factoring that in, but understandably, until the situation is entirely resolved, we will have to keep trying different things to see if we can get a better outcome. what i do know is we will not be able to succeed unless we maintain a strong when tech solidarity which has been the hallmark of our national security throughout the last 70 years. i am confident i have a great partner in angela maintaining that. thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> wrapping up this nearly

hour-long news briefing with president obama and german chancellor, angela merkel, the two bearing to meet for a summit in europe between ukraine and russian backed rebels. pressure is building. germany as opposed to that. we will have remarks from that meeting on wednesday and if you missed any of this briefing, you can watch it again tonight here on c-span at 8:00 eastern. we want to know what you think -- should the u.s. arm the ukraine against russian backed rebels? you can send us a tweet. here are a couple of the more than 450 comments. -- so far --

again, your reaction at facebook.com. send us a tweet at the #c-span chat. the u.s. house is about to gavel in for a brief pro forma session. for a look at the week ahead in congress, we spoke to a reporter covering capitol hill. first, >> it's a big, contentious issue because of the amendment the house passed last month when they send it over to the senate and we saw mitch mcconnell struggling with this last week. he brought it up not once, not twice, but three times thinking beating the drum over and over

would erode some of the opposition from vulnerable democrats. it did not work and house bill as passed is not going to pass the senate and now mcconnell and republicans are faced with the question of what we do question mark how do we pass the department of homeland security funding bill and not threaten a shutdown of that agency and also satisfy the conservatives who want to push back against obama posix executive action on deportation? there's nothing planned in the senate right now because they don't know what the next step is or at least they are not telling us. we're all waiting to see what mcconnell is going to come up with and how he's going to thread that needle. he's walking a tightrope to satisfy conservatives. and the dhs bill, the funding expires on february 27, so there is a tight timeline because they are not supposed to be in next

week because of the presidents' day holiday. we expect that bill will be back on the floor, we just don't know what it will look like. >> the homeland security secretary yesterday saying you can have this debate over executive action but don't tie it to homeland security funding. what is the argument here by the administration and is it working with the democrats? >> they are saying dhs funding has nothing to do with it and is already tied to something, so they are referring to it as vital, pointing out the isis threat has been rising. this has all been international headlines and they are using that sort of urgency to say why are you playing around with it department that is supposed to protect the homeland? the republicans understand that

argument and that's why the house passed it to weeks in advance. they did not want to play with the department of homeland security funding and new it was going to be an issue and said over and over, we are not going to threaten a shutdown of this agency but we need to do something on executive action. the house delayed this the bait and angered a lot of conservatives that they did not hold their feet to the fire then and they are under real pressure from the right to do so on this must pass homeland security bill . it puts them in a very tough spot. this is no exception. they are caught between republicans and their party who are really running a hard line on this and guys like john boehner and mitch mcconnell who just want to pass something and get it on to the president. >> this is playing out in the wall street journal's editorials today. they wonder can the gop change?

this restriction you are talking about -- the caucus can protest all what wants but it cannot change 54 senate votes in 60 without persuading some democrats. they say that it is not too soon to stay -- to say these take of the gop majority is on the line. this is no way to run a congressional majority in the only winners of gop dysfunction will be mr. obama, nancy pelosi, and hillary clinton. how is this playing out between leadership and the rank-and-file? >> there is real tension particularly in the house. the republicans take them 13 seats. boehner thought he would come in and roll over obama's agenda in the last two years of his presidency.

instead, they had this tough vote for speaker where more than 20 republicans voted against him, so there is a lot of tension there. they brought up a lot of bills they thought were low hanging fruit and would pitch these softballs they would hit out of the park and instead, they have seen these revolts. you sought on immigration, the antiabortion bill they had to pull because they did not have enough support and you sought on the homeland security bill because they did not have the support of conservatives. these are traditional conservative issues and they had to pull this stuff off the floor. obama, pelosi and reid just have to sit back and not do anything just watch the republicans struggle and churn these headlines on their own. >> what else is on the agenda? what about the new authority to fight isis? >> we should mention and the

house, there's a big vote on keystone. that's the other big contentious issue. >> we will leave this conversation here to go live to the floor of the u.s. house. it is a brief pro forma session. no legislative work will happen today. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms washington, d.c., february 9, 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable andy harris to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. in this chamber, where the people's house gathers, we pause to offer you gratitude for the gift of this good land on which

we live, for this great nation which you have inspired in developing over so many years. continue to inspire the american people that through the difficulties of these days we might keep liberty and justice alive in our nation and in the world. give to us and all people a vivid sense of your presence that we may learn to understand each other, to respect each other, to work with each other, to live with each other and to do good to each other. so shall we make our nation great in goodness and good in its greatness. on this day, we also ask your blessing of peace and consolation upon the family of representative alan nunnelee of the first district of mississippi who is being laid to rest this day.

bless as well the members of this house, his staff, and all who mourn him. may he rest in peace. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house

of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on february 3, 2015, at 11:07 a.m. appointment, national council on disability, with best wishes, i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haase. -- haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment of house resolution 5, and thed orer of the house january 6, 2015, of the following members to the select committee on the events surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack in benghazi. the clerk: mr. cummings of maryland, mr. smith of washington, mr. schiff of california ms. linda t. sanchez of california, ms. duckworth of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: under clause 5d of rule 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the passing of the gentleman from the state of

mississippi, mr. nunnelee, the whole number of the house is 433. without objection the house stands adjourned until noon >> the house finishing up a quick pro forma session on this monday. members will return tomorrow for morning speeches and it 2:00 legislative work. later this week, we will see numbers debate the senate keystone pipeline measure. the set is back at 3:00. they will debate the nomination of michael botticelli to be the director of national drug control policy. the vote is set for 5:30. you can see the senate on c-span two. president obama and german chancellor angela merkel just inactivate briefing for reporters focused mainly on finding a peaceful resolution

for the conflict between russia and ukraine in the summit in europe. we aired the briefing live for you. if you missed any of it, you will be able to watch it here on c-span at 8:00 eastern. coming up at 2:00, we will have a discussion on a possible nuclear deal with it ran. jim slattery of kansas visited the country and met with senior officials there. live coverage is set for 2:00 eastern today here on c-span. >> tonight on "the communicators -- the special counsel for the fcc on the proposal for net neutrality including regulating the internet like a utility. >> the chairman said you're not going to rate regulate and i don't agree next chairman is, but they may try to throughout this whole regime and do something that is more free-market oriented. i don't buy the next chairman argument because the rules are

only as good as the guys were the girl on the eighth floor and forcing them. we have to do our best to set up an infrastructure that will protect consumers, preserve and open internet, which is the greatest driver of economics and innovation and free speech this world has ever known. >> the russian foreign minister spoke and international security conference on saturday where he accused the united rates of escalating the crisis in ukraine but expressed optimism a deal can be reached. his remarks came at a three-day event that brings together heads of state and foreign and defense ministers to talk about cooperation dealing with global security issues. >> i want to start by saying thank you to sergei lavrov off

gas -- sergei lavrov off who i met when he was the permanent representative of the united nations. we were working at that time on the solution to the bosnian crisis. i would like to thank the foreign minister for having been an extremely loyal participant in munich because i don't remember a single security conference 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, soon as everyone has found their seat, i would like to advise for mr. r

law prof -- for mr. love rauf to speak. mr. foreign minister. [applause] >> thank you, ladies and gentlemen. i agree the events have followed a less than optimistic pattern however we could not agree with those who say there is a sad and collapse of this world order. the deep systemic issues at large -- let me remind you of the speech president putin made here eight years ago.

the stability based on the united nations has been undermined by the united states and their allies in yugoslavia and undermined by new dividing lines. the common european home was not because our western partners were not guided by interest to build common security but by illusions -- dreams to be with us during the cold war. the commitments made to consider each other's securities were ignored. the missile defense is proof of disregard of other state interests of missile defense

were did and instead, we were recommended to join the american global missile defense under washington which entails real risk for rush upon nuclear deterrence undermining strategic -- four arms control, the fidelity of which is depended on -- dependent on missile defense. we don't understand this american obsession with global missile defense. is it a desire to achieve global dominance? anyway, the missile threats have not decreased, but there is a major irritant and it will take

a long time to get rid of it. and other destabilizing factor is a rejection by the united states and other allies is to ratify the treaty. let's take the recent talks about the imf treaty. experts are aware as part of its global defense. washington has the floyd target missiles with performance characteristics close to land-based ballistic missiles banned by the inf. the treaty's definitions of cruise missiles are very close weaponize drones.

the treaty bans interceptor missiles developed in romania and poland. the american counterparts site some claims against russia with respect to inf, but avoid specific facts. based on this, we should not try and reduce today's crisis to last year's events. we believe this is the climax 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, the cis countries were required to make a choice, are you with us or are you against us?

following the zero-sum logic unfortunately the strategic partnership with 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 eu community, russia supported it, and the eu rejected it. it would effectively solve issues and address concerns ahead of time. as regards to ukraine, at any stage of the crisis, the american counterparts and the european union under their influence took steps to escalate

the conflict. this was the case when the european union refused to involve russia in the discussion of economic issues of the agreement, and then they directly supported the coup d'etat and the unrest. our western partners, so to speak, issued indulgences 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 governments of those countries to come to an agreement with the opposition, but with ukraine they have taken a different line, conniving at kiev's attempts to even justify the use of cluster bombs. unfortunately, our western partners are turning a blind eye to everything done by kyiv authorities. let me give you a quote, "the issue of total ukraine would result 3-6 months through a tough and balanced policy." this is a quote by the commander of the regiment, and they argued

for ethnic purges of ukraine for the expulsion of russian and juice. 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 fold it into

nato. this will only exacerbate the tragedy of ukraine. russia will be committed to peace. we are against those. we would like to see a withdrawal of heavy weapons, we would like to see a direct negotiation between kiev and russia. this was the focus on many initiatives by president putin. those were our subsequent attempts, including the talks in the negotiations yesterday with russia, germany, and france. these negotiations will continue. we believe that there are good 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. the world is at a turning point. the labor pains are reflected in the growing conflicts in international relations. if opportunistic decisions take the upper hand, we may lose control of global governance. let me remind you that at the beginning of the syrian conflict, many in the west urged not to exaggerate the threat of extremism, that it will go away on its own accord. you have see what has happened. there are 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 architecture with russia or without russia? i would like to address this question to our american counterparts. we have long suggested building a unified 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 25th anniversary of the paris charger. we would like to reaffirm our commitment to these principles and we would like to continue prosperity in the european region.

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 by taking crimea and being well on the way to annexing 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. what i spoke about is 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 but 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 peoples expense. we are seeking normal relations with the united states. it was not the united states come up it was us, that that

provided daily contact, and it is not us who withdrew from the abm treaty. it was not us who refused to ratify the cfe treaty. we have to pick up the pieces and carry on. we must agree on a new system of security where everyone can feel safe, including ukraine, including georgia, including those whom our american colleagues, but they made a choice. you've got to reduce your cooperation with russia. i know that ambassadors receive such instructions. i can see a short while ago, gave an interview where he heard that nato is the most peaceloving alliance in the world.

and who bombed yugoslavia? who dropped bombs on libya in violation of the un security council resolution. 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 should be an equal partner in the dialogue to ensure security and stability, so what is wrong with that? everyone wants to accept the primacy of nato and the united states. i don't think it is in the interests of global security and stability. the u.s. president short while ago said the u.s. acted as a broker in the position of power in ukraine. 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 ministerial posts in ukraine. as for the protest, we did not have any military experts there, but we know who did. we hope that the ukrainian nation will restore unity but it must be done on a national dialogue. so ukraine suggested suggested new national holidays, the date of the formation of the rebel army. 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 being recruited. i think that this is what we should discuss. there are minorities in ukraine, not only ethnic ukrainians. 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 from pulling itself out of this crisis, that -- but 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. why should we state that openly? and my partners say that the -- we believe that the re-cleaning government should be supported right now, and it should 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>> thank you, sergei. we have a huge number of questions. there is no way we can handle all of those. the next question comes from one of our young leaders. the leader's -- the leader is there? >> yes. the good news that comes out is the minsk accords made these agreements on the table, while the bad news -- not all of the signatories to the minsk agreements are willing to fulfill the minsk agreements. i mean the ukrainian part --

shelling civilians, etc. -- and i also mean the russian part, because you are party to the minsk agreements as well. but we see the russian party over the line and be certain operations with militants, which you admit you have an influence on. let's imagine you really want to implement the minsk agreements. what influence can you, as the minister of foreign affairs of russia -- what guarantees and [indiscernible] to fulfill them to the full extent and to bring peace? >> as soon as the keeper disappearance -- key

participants, the leaders of the self-proclaimed republic achieve agreement on the practical aspects of the minsk agreements, i am sure among those parties will ensure the agreement. i'm sure that france and germany will also. we can only guarantee what has already been achieved. you should not pretend that those people will do otherwise. some people would not be able to have a victory on their own, but fighting for the right cause by

ukrainian soldiers sent to battle. the u.s. administration was criticized in the past four emphasizing the active context with delhi -- doha. they said they should not criticize for conducting negotiations. yes, they were an enemy. but you negotiate with your enemies. it will not harm to negotiate with that enemy. i should hope that principled support their receiving will resolve all problems, but supports for those critical analyses, i think it is going to their heads, the way it went to second should really -- went to

his head and we know how that ended. >> thank you sergei. we do have a large number of questions. i want 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 eu 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 equivalent 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.

george kennan said, 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 possible 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 reforming the principles of the paris charger, 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 indivisibility of security. our nato colleagues claim 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 something that was proclaimed, 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 george cannon, 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, and 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 enshrined several principles. in particular, 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.

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 was attacked, 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? by military means? 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, arseniy yatsenyuk after that agreement , was forgotten, announced that a government of the victors was going to be established. and 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. 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 real 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] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its

caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> shortly we will go to a discussion on the prospects for the nuclear program in iran. former representative jim slattery will be the speaker. we will have that for you add 2:00 eastern here on c-span. german chancellor angela merkel was at the white house meeting with president obama. afterwards, they both answered reporters questions. they will both be at the european summit. we aired that briefing live. if you missed any portion, we will have it for you tonight at 8 p.m. eastern. while we wait, a look at the week ahead in congress from this morning's "washington journal."

what is up for the senate. guest: they need the house bill for the senate. mitch mcconnell brought this up not once, not twice, but three times, thinking that, it would just be the drama over and over and we heard the opposition from vulnerable democrats. it did not work. the house bill passed. it is not going to pass the senate. now mcdonnell and republicans are faced with how do we pass a funding bill and not force a shutdown, but also encourage conservatives to really want to push back on obama's executive actions on deportations. there is nothing planned in the senate now as it stands, because

they do not know what the next step is, or they are not telling us. we are all waiting to see what does mcconnell come up with, how does he thread that needle? and of course, the dhs bill, the funding expires on february 27, so there is a tight timeline because they are not supposed to be in next week because of the presidents' day holiday. we expect that that bill will be back on the floor. we just do not know what it will look like. host: homeland security jeh johnson saying you can go ahead and have this debate on immigration, but do not tie it to homeland security funding. what is the argument from the administration question mark is it working with democrats? guest: they are saying that dhs

funding has nothing to do with immigration. why are you tying this to something that is so vital in combating terrorist. they are pointing up at the isis threat has been rising. of course this has been national headlines. they are using that sort of urgency to say, why are you playing around with the department that is supposed to protect the homeland? the republicans understand that argument and that is why the house passed this six weeks in advance. they did not want to play with the homeland security funding. they knew it would be a political issue and they have said over and over and keep saying over and over, we are not going to threaten to shut down this agency, but we do need to do something on executive action. you will remember the house delayed this debate in december angered a lot of conservatives they did not hold obama's feet to the fire then. they are under real pressure from the right flank to do so on this must-have homeland security

bill, but again it is a very tough spot. immigration has always put them in a very tough spot. there is no question. this is between the republican party running a hard line on this and guys like boehner and mcconnell who would just like to pass something and get it on the program. host: yes, this is playing out in the wall street journal's editorial, they wondered -- can the gop change? the caucus can protest all it wants, but it cannot change the senate vote without persuading some democrats. they say it is not too much to say the fate of the gop is on the line? they are playing into democratic hands. this is no way to run a congressional majority.

the only beneficiaries will be president obama, nancy pelosi, and hillary clinton. how is this playing out between the leadership in the rank and file than? guest: their israel tension, particularly in the house. we've seen all year long. boehner picked up 13 seats. they have been accused of just rolling over with obama's agenda in the last two years of his presidency. then they brought up a number of bills they thought was low hanging fruit and they just thought they were going to be pitching these softballs they would hit out of the park and instead they have some major holds. you have seen on the immigration issue, the antiabortion bill they had to poll because literally they did not have enough support and you saw the homeland security. and a border security bill they had to pull because they did not have enough support among

conservatives. these are traditional conservative issues they have had to pull off the floor. it is obama and pelosi and reid have to sit back and really not do anything. they just have to watch the republicans struggle and turn these headlines on their own. guest: -- host: what else on the agenda? health care? new authority to fight isis for the president? guest: keystone is the other big contentious issue. the senate passed it last week. they did get democrats so it has bipartisan support. that puts pressure on obama. it will pass the house on wednesday. that obama is going to veto. the biggest veto of his presidency. only the third veto of his

presidency. then they will have the political support to sustain the veto. of course, this environment. but it is an interesting debate there are some amendments on their that the senate passed, it says that climate change. hopes and it might as house floor where he on that matter. the worst the democrat to support the bill. that will make the obama veto look a little bit worse. republicans are going to frame it as obstruction. that will dominate the house.