to improve significant relationship the relationship with iran because of our own domestic politics. that would be a tragedy. the last .. was the whole issue -- >> arms-control. >> let me just tell you as a former member of congress i believe i believe the president and administration will be well advised to engage daily in communication with key members of the united states and to bring the senators i think there are some senators on both sides of the political aisle that understand the urgency, the historic moment that we are in, and i believe that with the president and secretary kerry and others being personally involved on a regular basis that we should be able to build bipartisan support for some kind of a reasonable agreement. we should not prejudge this. this is a thing that is very troubling to me when i read mr.

netanyahu's statements from yesterday. there is the seat -- sort of. judging of the deal. he is saying that i will do everything that i can to prevent this deal from being approved. really? let us wait until we see the deal. then we can talk about what the options are. that is the thing that we should keep in front of us. what are the options? you may not like this deal and it may have some risk involved. but depending on what the deal is, then, what are the risks? where's the least risk you might say? >> [indiscernible] >> ideally, you would like to see the congress in a bipartisan debate with other arms control

agreements. that would be the best for both countries. by the same token, if we are going to get into a situation -- and god for bid where our domestic politics overwhelms the fat -- fax of the cakects of the case, that would be a horrible problem for all countries involved. ideally, i would to see congress involved. that may not be possible for domestic political regions. if that is the case, that is a sad commentary on the u.s.. crisis is a multilateral agreement. >> thank you so much for coming. i wanted to ask you about the effect of netanyahu adjusting

congress in the past. if you are in congress today would you attend and what would you advise members to do about the predicament? >> you are really tried to get me in trouble, aren't you? [laughter] bottom line -- this is about domestic politics. i would tell you that i think netanyahu's appearance before the congress in joint session is a mistake. i say this as a supporter and friend of israel. i do not want to see the u.s. -israel relationship be politicized. what netanyahu is doing is politicizing this critically important relationship at a historic moment and i'm afraid

that it is not going to be beneficial for israel and it is not going to be beneficial for the united states. it was a bad choice and a bad decision in my judgment. but i somebody who thirsts for information, i may very well attend the speech. but, i may not. i may read about it. if i decide today, i would not attend the speech because i believe that his coming here at this time is showing disrespect to the office of the president. i think about president truman. how would president truman react to this and something like this? i was thinking -- in fact, i was at the truman library last friday. i asked the archive is there to plot all the documents that they had between communications

between truman and dean hutchison. i had a wonderful time reading all those documents. last time something like this happened historically, ma very well have been when the republican congress invited macarthur to speak before the joint session of the congress after he had been fired by the commander-in-chief for insubordination. think about that. as we look back on that historic moment, president truman was acting courageously, doing the right thing, supported by general marshall. the partisanship of the moment overwhelms the day. here, we had a great speech. but it was the wrong time for the great speech in the wrong place for a great speech. >> i think we have time for one more question very quick. in the back, all the way.

and very quick. >> thank you very much. i'm a former member of parliament in ironic -- in iran. i really had a great chance to visit here. did you have a chance to invite current members of congress to visit iran? >> >> have you invited current members of congress to visit iran? >> i would love to see current members of congress visit with the members of the parliament. i would like to see iranian officials come to washington. in fact, let me throw out a crazy idea. if we're going to have netanyahu come and speak to a joint session of congress, perhaps members of congress would like to have ministers the reef

testify before the congress and have opportunity to ask him questions. why not? >> i think he has enough problems with his own congress. [laughter] >> he might be invited to come and testify before congress and answer questions and talk about this stuff. why are we afraid of information? why are we afraid to talk to people and learn from them? that sort of puzzles me. >> we at the olympic council are not afraid of it. we are really grateful that you had time to come by today. >> really great to visit with y'all. [applause] >> german chancellor angela markel and president obama held a news conference at the white house yesterday. that is next on c-span. topics on this morning "washington journal" -- combating the militant group isis.

and we will have a guest on federal -- historic black colleges and universities. >> we will hear from dr. mark sawyer. live coverage from the health, education, labor, and pensions committee start this morning at 10 a.m. eastern. on c-span3, former senators who were part of a tax deal with president reagan will be at the senate finance committee. they will talk about possible changes to the u.s. tax code. is also light at 10 a.m. eastern you -- that is also live at 10 a.m. eastern. during a joint press conference, president barack obama and german chancellor angela merkel

said no decision had been made about whether to arm ukraine. they also answered about u.s.-german relations. >> good morning, everybody. please be seated. as always, it is a great pleasure to welcome my close friend and partner chancellor on july merkel back to the white house. -- angela merkel back to the white house. she has been here many times, but this is a chance for me to congratulate her on two achievements. she is now one of germany's longest-serving chancellor's. perhaps more importantly, this is my first opportunity to public the -- public that -- publicly congratulate germany on their fourth world cup title.

our u.s. team however gets better each world cup. so watch out. germany is one of our strongest allies so whenever we meet, it is opportunity to court may closely on a whole range of issues critical to our shared security and prosperity. as merkel and our friends prepare to host the g7 the spring, it is also important for us to be able to coordinate on a set of shared goals. at a working lunch this afternoon, we will focus on what to do to keep them up -- economy growing and keeping jobs. we are strong supporters of transatlantic trade and investment partnership. we agree that there needs to be meaningful progress this year to an agreement that boosts both of our economies and protects our consumers and the environment. i look for to hearing her assessment about europe and the imf working with the greek

government to find a way to return greece to sustainable growth within these are -- within the eurozone. and the growth is critical to the united states in the world economy. we are also working to get the world economies to take ambitious action on climate change including our initiative to illuminate public financing for power plants overseas and our global efforts to save us from the most dangerous greenhouse gases. our discussion this morning focused on global security issues. we reaffirmed our commitment to training afghan security forces supported sovereign and united afghanistan. we agree that the international community has to continue enforcing existing sanctions as part of our diplomatic effort to keep iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. we have to do everything we can to try to achieve a good, verifiable deal. two issues of particular that we

worked this morning are russia's aggression against ukraine and the international fight against i soul. with regards to russia and the separatists support in ukraine it is clear that they violated just about every commitment that they made in the minsk agreement. if that of withdrawn from eastern ukraine, russian forces continue to operate there, training separatists and helping coordinate attacks. we have sent in more tanks and heavy artillery. with russian support, the severus have seized more terry and shelled civilian areas. these are the facts. russian aggression has only reinforced the unity of the united states germany, and our allies and partners around the world. i like to thank angela for her strong leadership and partnership in this challenge.

merkel and vice president joe biden met with for checo over the weekend and i will also share the result of her talk and moscow. we continue to encourage a diplomatic resolution to this issue. as diplomatic efforts continue this week, we are in absolute agreement at the 21st century cannot stand idle. we cannot stand idle and simply allow the borders of europe to be redrawn at the barrel of a gun. today, we agreed to move forward with our strategy. along with our new allies, we will keep bolstering our presence in central europe. we have an unwavering article five to our collective defense. we will continue to work with the imf and other partners to provide ukraine with critical financial support in the pursuit of economic and anticorruption reforms. we discussed the issue on how to

assist ukraine if it defends itself. we agreed that sections on russia need to be remaining fully enforced until russia fully complies with its obligations. as we continue to work for a diplomatic solution, we are making it clear again today that of russia continues on its current course which is ruining the russian economy and hurting russian people as well as having such a terrible effect on the crane, russia's isolation will only worsen politically and economically. with regards the isis, germany and the united states remain united in our determinations to destroy this barbaric organization. i think angela for her strong support as a member of the international coalition that is working in iraq. and a significant milestone and its foreign policy, germany has taken a story step to it equipping its forces in iraq.

germany is a close partner in combating foreign terrorist fighters which was focus and a special session of the u.s. security council that i chaired last fall. under angela's leadership, germany is moving ahead with legislation to prevent fighters from traveling to and from syria and iraq. at the same time, both angela and i recognize that young people of both of our countries especially in muslim communities , are being threaded and targeted by terrorists in al qaeda and isis. we are protecting our people from these ideology so that there not vulnerable to these recruitments. faith leaders who know these committees best. we can help these communities starting with the tone in the example that we set our own countries. i commend angela for her leadership. her leadership -- speaking out

forcefully against the the phobia and prejudice. she has made it clear that all religious communities have a place in germany just as they do here the united states. we are grateful that our german president will be joining us at a summit next week and countering violent extremism because this is a challenge that countries have to meet together. let me and on a historic note. this year marks the 70th anniversary of the end of the second world war. in march the 25th anniversary of the reunification of germany. at a time when college flicks -- conflicts seem intractable germany's story gives us hope. we can and wars. countries can rebuild. adversaries can become allies. walls can come down. divisions can be healed. germany story and the story of

angela's life show that three people stand united and are interests and values will ultimately prevail. as we look into the future and i prepare for june, i am grateful for my partnership with angela as americans are grateful for their partnership with the people of germany. chancellor merkel. quotes>> thank you, president. i delighted to be back in washington, months ago we were here for the last time. first of foremost, we have to do with the fact of the presidency this year at that we coordinate on these legislative associates. we will address issues related to the global economy when we meet in the marriott. from a european vantage point, i think that we can say that we have made significant progress

in a number of areas. we are now iconic -- back on the growth path. strong phase of structural form have now made significant progress in new commissions and we have launched a growth program in which germany will participate. we will pen our hopes basically on growth and infrastructure but also another growth project. i think if the states in the additional economy in the united states. there is a lot of things to be done by the europeans. i would say that a free trade agreement would go a long way towards increasing growth. we know that you are very engaged with the asia-pacific area. germany will come out very forcefully and seeing that the

negotiations between the eu and the united states on free trade agreements are pursued in a vigorous manner. it is in our own best interests and it is also in the united states enters. we are dealing with the g7 and initiative with health issues. what lessons have we drawn from the terrible ebola academic? -- epidemic? we have to be quicker and reacting to the next epidemic. we are also interested, for example, in seeing david be successful. this has just been completed it in germany so successfully. we have dealt with security issues this morning. this year celebrates the 25th anniversary of the reunification

of germany. this would not have been achievable without transatlantic partners and the support of the united states of america. we will always be grateful for this. and one case import, it is important to stand by once values and to pursue long-term goals and not relent in those efforts. i think society will turn out a more easily and less cop located. now, we are confronted with a whole wealth of conflict. we worked together in afghanistan. germany has decided in the fight against isis to give help, to give training missions, and to also give weapons if necessary. we will work together on the iran nuclear program. one particular priority is the

conflict between the ukraine and russia this morning. we stand up for the same principles of territory integrity. as someone from europe, i can only say that these principles of of territorial integrity, we would not be able to maintain a peaceful order of europe that we have achieved. this is an essential and crucial point and we have to stand by it as russia has violated the territorial integrity of ukraine in two respects. in crimea and also in donis and luhansk. we have called upon them to come up with solutions. not just as a mediator, but we also stand up for the interest of the european also. this led the french president and i have been trying to do over the past two days and we will continue those efforts and i'm very grateful that the ukraine crisis, we have been in

very close contact with united states of america. we are dealing with the sanctions and the. this is going to be continued. i think that is indeed one of the most important messages that we consent to russia. we need to send to russia. we continue to pursue a diplomatic solution. we have some other setbacks. these days, we will see whether all sides are ready to come to negotiate a settlement. i've always said that i do not see an immediate solution to this conflict, but we have to put all of our agreement to a diplomatic solution. there is a whole host of issues that we need to discuss over lunch. we will continue to talk about climate change and the sustainable development goals. yet again, thank you very much. thank you for the close correlation and the possibility

to have exchange of views on these crucial issues. i think, not only in hindsight we can safely say the united states has always provided and helped us regain our unity and peace and freedom. we also think that we continue to cooperate closely if it is about solving the conflict of the world today. unfortunately, there many of them and we will continue to do so in the future. thank you for your hospitality. >> first question. >> thank you. he stressed that u.s. and europe need to have cohesion on the issue of sanctions in dealing with ukraine. yet, the administration is discussing sending legal weapons to ukraine which is very different than what the chancellor said over the weekend. i was wondering whether this is a good cop-bad cop or this is a real reflection and differences of views in the situation on the

ground. and more broadly, if there is no agreement this week, what lies ahead? i'll be looking at a broader set of sanctions -- are we looking at a broader set of sanctions? >> let me start with the broader points. i think both angela and i have said that a prospect for the military solution for this problem has always been a problem. russia has always had an extraordinarily powerful military. give it the light of the russian border with the ukraine and the history between russia and ukraine, expecting that if russia is determined that

ukraine can fully rebuff a russian army, it is always been unlikely. what we have said is that the international community working together can ratchet up the cost for the violation of the core principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity. that is exactly what we have done. russia has paid a significant cost for actions first in crimea and now in eastern ukraine. it has not yet dissuaded mr. putin from following the course he is on. but, it has created a measurable negative impact on the russian economy. that will continue. my hope is that through these diplomatic efforts.

those costs will become high enough that mr. putin's preferred option is for diplomatic revolution -- resolution. i will not prejudge whether or not 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 and we will continue to raise those costs we will not relent. one of the things that i am very encouraged about is the degree to which we have been able to maintain u.s.-european unity on this issue. now, it is true that if, in fact , diplomacy fails, when i've asked my team to do is look at all options. what other means can we put in place to change mr. putin's

calculus? and the possibility of legal defense weapons is one of those options being examined. i've not made a decision about that yet. i've consulted, not just with angela, but we will be consulting with other allies about this issue. it is not based on the idea that ukraine could defeat a russian army. it is rather to see whether or not there are additional things that we can do to help ukraine will start its defenses in the face of separatist but russian. -- separatist aggression. i want to emphasize that decision has not been made. one of the bigger issues is making sure that the ukrainian economy is functioning and that the president and prime minister can continue with the reform efforts that they have made. i'm clyde to see that because of our cooperation and our efforts

that we are starting to see a package come together with the imf and with the european union and others i can help bolster the european economies so that they have the space to continue and execute some the reforms of anticorruption that they have made. one of the most important things that we can do for ukraine as help them sustain economic growth. that is how people on the ground feel about this transformation inside of ukraine. of that experiment fails then the larger project of an independent ukraine will fail. so, we're going to do everything we can to help bolster that. but, there is no doubt that, if in fact diplomacy fails this week, there's going to continue to be a strong, unified response between the united states and europe. that is not going to change. there may be some areas where

there are tactical disagreements . there may not be. the broad principle that we have to stand up for not just ukraine, but the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty 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 agreements and have implemented them. the country has said the issue has worsened on the ground. there is a possibility to try and bring about a cease-fire and to also create conditions that are in place where you have not every day civilians dying -- civil victims.

i'm absolutely confident that we will do this together. i, myself, will not be able to live with not having made this attempt. so, there is anything but i have to be very clear about this. but if at a certain point in time one has to say that a success is not possible, even if one puts every effort into it, then the united states and europe have to fit together to try to explore further possibilities what one can do. just let me point out here that the prime ministers of the european union last week already tasked the commission to think about further possible sanctions. on the issue of what is effective and what's not, i'm somewhat surprised sometimes. just let me mention iran.

for a fairly long period of time we have had is sanctions in place there. people don't seem to question them. i think they have been fairly successful if we look at the current state of affairs with negotiations on the nuclear program. in parallel, i think it was a very good thing to put some costs on the is russians through these sanction that's -- sanctions that we agreed on because we see russia seems to be influenced by this. and this is why i'm 100% behind these decisions. as to the export of arms, i have given you my opinion but you may rest assure that no matter what we decide, the alliance between the united states and europe will continue to stand, will continue to be solid, even though on certain issues we may not always agree that this partnership bid on ukraine and russia, bid on combating terrorism on the international scene, be it on other issues is a partnership that has stood the test of time.

in europe we're very close but this transatlantic partnership for germany and you is indispensable. this will remain so and i can say this on behalf of my colleagues in the european union. sorry, i have to call you myself. from the german press agency. you have not yet made a decision as to whether weapons ought to be given to ukraine. what would be the red line that needs to be crossed for you to decide armament of the ukrainian army? and what do you think will hold by way of a promise, because the chancellor said it will make matters worse? what could the nobody the laureate obama do more to defuse this conflict?

-- nobel laureate obama do more to defuse this conflict? and madam chancellor, president putin today demanded yet again the government in kiev negotiate directly with the separatists. when do you think the right moment has come to do this and with looking at all of the big issues you discussed, this breach of confidence due to the affair of the u.s.-german relations, has that played a role today? >> do you want to go first on this? >> i can gladly start. the question asking how it effectiveness of certain measures been dealt with, the president has not yet made a decision and says what's important for me is we stand very closely together. on the question of a new

renewed diplomatic effort, we keep each other informed. we're in close touch and nobody wishes more for a success than the two of us as we stand here side by side. but this would also mean not only having a cease-fire in place but also over and above that having certain rules in place. you said the russian president himself thinks there ought to be direct contact. let me point out these direct contacts already exist through the contact group with represents -- representatives. and the problem with the last two days and last meeting was rather more than that there was not really that much of an end result, if at all, if representatives were there at all. this was for me the core of the minsk agreement, there are local elections in accordance with the ukrainian constitution and that the outcome of that is you have representatives and authorities who can speak for those regions and the ukrainian president paved the way for this and giving specific status to these

provinces and they are an essential point that will enable us to say now maybe there can be contact without a trilateral group. and this is on the agenda of the many talks we need to make but i can understand the ukrainian side that on the territory that they consider to be part of their territory is, and anything else would violate the territory integrity they want to actually see the elections take place there and that has also been stated by president putin that he wishes to see elections held there. now on the n.s.a. issue, i think there are still different assessments on individual issues there. but if we look at the shared dimension of the terrorist threat, we are more than aware

of the fact we need to work together i have closely and i as german chancellor want to state here very clearly the institutions of the united states of america have provided us and still continue to provide us with a lot of very significant, very important information that also ensures our security and we don't want to do without this. there are other possibilities, to continue to talk about the sort of protection of privacy versus data protection and so on and security. but this was basically combating terrorism. >> the question providing lethal weapons to ukraine is, it's important to point out that we have been providing assistance to the ukrainian military generally. that's been part of a longstanding relationship between nato and ukraine. and our goal has not been for ukraine to be equipped to carry on offensive operations but to simply defend themselves.

and the president has been clear he's not interested in escalating violence. he's interested in having his country -- his country's boundaries respected by its neighbor. so there's not going to be any specific point in which i say, ah, 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 it's done through diplomatic means. and i just want to emphasize here once again for the benefit not just to the american people but for the german people, we are not looking for russia to fail. we are not looking for russia to be surrounded and contained and weakened. our preference is for a strong

prosperous, vibrant, confident russia. they can be a partner with us on a whole list of global challenges and that's 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. and in the face of this aggression and these bad decisions, we can't simply try to talk them out of it. we have to show them that the world is unified and imposing a cost for this aggression and that's what we're going to

continue to do. with respect to the n.s.a., i'll just make this point very briefly. there's no doubt that the snowden revelations damaged impressions of germans with respect to the u.s. government and our intelligence cooperation. and what i have done over the last year, year and a half, is to systematically work through some of these issues to create greater transparency and to restore confidence not just for germans but for our partners around the world. and we've taken some unprecedented measures. for example, to ensure that our intelligence agencies treat non-u.s. citizens in ways that are consistent with due process and their privacy concerns. something that i put in a presidential order and has not

been ever done not only by our intelligence agencies but i think by most intelligence agencies around the world. there are going to be areas where we've got to work through these issues. we have to internally work through some of these issues because they're complicated. they're 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're communicating primarily in cyberspace and we have the capacity to stop an attack like that but that requires us, then, being able to operate within that cyberspace, how do we make sure that we're able to do that

carry out those functions, while still meeting our core principles respecting the privacy of all our people. and given germany's history, i recognize the sensitivities around this issue. what i would ask would be 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 the last 25 years in reinforcing the values that we share. and so occasionally i would like the german people to give us the benefit of the doubt, given our history, as opposed to assuming the worst, assuming that we have been consistently your strong partners and that we share a common set of values, and if we have that fundamental underlying trust, there are going to be

times where there are disagreements and both sides may make mistakes and there are going to be irritants like there are between friends but the underlying foundation for the relationship remains sound. christi parsons? >> thank you, mr. president. the iran nuclear negotiators have now missed two deadlines. should the upcoming march deadline for talks be the final one? and what are the circumstances in which you think it would be wise to extend the talks? also, sir, some have suggested you are outraged by the israeli prime minister's decision to address congress. is that so? and how would you advise democrats who are considering a boycott? >> first of all, we understood i think, 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 their nuclear program. so i think there was always the assumption that, although the interim agreement lasted a certain period of time, that we would probably need more time to move forward. the good news is that there have been very serious discussions. that time has been well spent. during this period of time issues have been clarified, gaps have been narrowed, the iranians have abided by the agreement. so this is not a circumstance in which, by talking, they've been stalling and meanwhile advancing their program. to the contrary, what we know is the program has not only been frozen, but with respect to, for example, 20% enriched uranium,

they've reversed it so we're in a better position than we were before the interim program was set up. having said all that, the issues now are sufficiently narrowed and sufficiently clarified where we're at a point where they need to make a decision. we are presenting to them, in a unified fashion, the p5 plus one supported by a coalition of countries around the world, 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, and if, in fact, what they claim is true, which is they have no aspiration to get a nuclear

weapon, that, in fact, according to their supreme leader, it would be coptrary -- contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon, if that is true, there should be a 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, i guess, is, at this juncture, i don't see a further extension being useful if they have not agreed to the basic formulation and the bottom line that the world requires to have confidence that they're not pursuing a nuclear weapon. if the framework for a deal is done. if people have a clear sense of what is required and there's some drafting and t's to cross and i's to dot, that's a different issue.

but my view, and i've presented this to members of congress, is that we now know enough that the issues are no longer technical. the issues now are, does iran have the political will and the desire to get a deal done. and we could not be doing this work if not for the incredible cohesion and unity that's 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've actually served a constructive role. and china's served a constructive role. and there has been no cracks in this -- on the p5 plus one side of the table and i think that's a testament to the degree to

which we are acting reasonably in trying to actually solve a problem. with respect to prime minister netanyahu, as i've said before i talk to him all the time. 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, if she was two weeks before an election, she probably would not have received an invitation to the white house and i suspect she wouldn't have asked for one. so, you know, the -- so this is just -- some of this just has to do with how we do business and i think it's important for us to maintain these -- these protocols because the

u.s.-israeli relationship is not about a particular party. this isn't a relationship founded on affinity between the labor party and the democratic party or likud and the republican party. this is the u.s.-israeli relationship that extends beyond parties and has to do with that unbreakable bond that we feel and our commitment to israeli's security and the share of values that we have. and the way to preserve that is to make sure that it doesn't get clouded with what could be perceived as partisan politics whether that's accurate or not, that is a potential perception and that's something we have to guard against. now, i don't want to be coy. the prime minister and i have a very real difference around

iran, iran sanctions. i have been very clear and angela agrees with me and david cameron agrees with me and the others who are a member of the negotiations agree that it does not make sense to sour the negotiations a month or two before they're about to be completed and we should play that out, if, in fact, we can get a deal, then we should embrace that. if we can't get a deal, then we'll are to make a set of decisions and as i've said to congress, i'll be the first one to work with them to apply even stronger measures against iran but what's the rush? unless your view is that it's not possible to get a deal with iran and it shouldn't even be tested.

and that i cannot agree with because as president of the united states i'm looking at the options should we not get a diplomatic resolution and those options are narrow and not attractive and from the perspective of u.s. interests, it is 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. >> ms. merkel, you just said the question is what will be effective in the ukrainian crisis and diplomacy, as you said yourself, has not really brought about that much of a progress. can you understand the impatience of the americans when they say we ought to now deliver weapons and what makes you feel confident that diplomacy will carry the day in the next few days and weeks, and on greece, i

have to ask you, what is your comment on the most recent comments of the greece prime minister who says let's end those programs and i'm going to stand by the promises i made you in the election campaign? how do you envisage the further cooperation with the greek government? and mr. president, i address the question, there's quite a lot of pressure by members of your government who say weapons should be delivered to the ukrainians. you yourself said you want to ratchet up the cost that putin has to bear and then make him relent and give in maybe and you said all options have to be on the table, also weapons. what makes you so sure that these weapons will not only go into the hands of the regular ukrainian army but will then also perhaps get into the hands of separatists, militias on the ukrainian side, accused by amnesty international of having violated human rights.

thank you. >> whenever you have political conflicts such as the one we have now between russia and ukraine but also in many other conflicts around the world, it has always proved to be right to try again and again to solve the conflict. we've spoken at length about the iranian conflict. here, too, we are expected to try time and again and there's always a point where you say well, all of the options are on the table, we've gone back and forth but then one has to think again. looking just at the middle east conflict, for example, how many people have tried to bring about a solution to this conflict and i'm going to participate and support it every time because it's well worth the effort. when you have a situation now where every night you see people dying, you see civilian casualties, you see the dire conditions under which people

live, it is incumbent upon us as politicians, we owe it to the people to explore every avenue until somebody gives in but we've grown up under conditions -- i have to point this again, where we've said, nobody would have dreamt of german unity. people who have said in west germany, remember, they said should we keep up citizenship of germany, they've been criticized by people, some who have ideas and think of president reagan when he said, mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall, standing in front of the gate, many people said at the time how can he say that? but it was right. we have no guarantee. i captain give -- cannot give you a guarantee for the outcome of the wednesday talks or further talks and maybe nothing will come out of it and then we're called upon again to think about a new possibility and since we thought about this every step of the way, will this be effective or not, we will

continue to do so. a lot of things have to be thought about and i'm very glad that with the american president, i have always been able to put all of the cards on the table and discuss the pros and cons. in my speech in munich, i give -- gave you a clear view of where i stand but we'll continue to try it. that's why we're politicians. that's why we chose this profession. others have to do other things. researchers have to all the time find other things to explore and the wellbeing and prosperity of our people isn't sure but we never have a guarantee that the policies we adopt -- i'm sorry, greece. on wednesday, there's going to be a euro group meeting. and i think what counts is what greece will put on the table.

at that euro group meeting or perhaps a few 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. and the basic rules have always been the same. you put in your own efforts and on the other side you're being shown solidarity, quid pro quo. the three institutions of the troika, the e.c.b., the european central bank and the i.m.f. have agreed these programs are the basis of any discussion we have. i've always said, i will wait for greece to come with a sustainable proposal and then we'll talk about this. >> the point angela made i think is right which is we never have guarantees that any particular course of action works. as i've said before, by the times a decision reaches my

desk, by definition, it's a hard problem with no easy answers otherwise somebody else would have solved it and i would never even hear about it. the issue that you raid about can we be certain that any lethal aid that we provide ukraine is used properly doesn't fall into the wrong hands, does not lead to overaggressive actions that cannot be sustained by the ukrainians, what kinds of reactions does it prompt not simply from separatists but the russians, those are 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 -- that 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 kerry have spent countless hours on this issue, as has angela and her team on the german side. and 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 the strong transatlantic solidarity that's 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.

wlikes -- >> washington journal is next. health officials testify about fixing use and the reemergence of preventable diseases. the starts at 10:00 eastern. the house is in at noon and legislative work starts at 2:00. they will take up a nasa bill today. live coverage is here on c-span. coming up, we will talk to gerry connolly. we will discuss whether congress grant president obama new authority to fight isis in syria and iraq.

we will discuss historically black colleges and universities. you can join the conversation. host: good morning, everyone on this tuesday, february 10. here are your headlines. yesterday, president obama said he will wait for a solution -- a diplomatic solution in ukraine. also the "washington times" reporting today that the congress could send the president new authority to begin fighting isis as soon as today. we will be talking about security issues, that is, cyber security. should the u.s. go on the offense when it come