privacy. it does. because this has private stuff in it. there's just no real dispute about that. i'm sympathetic to the fact that inn keepers have been regulated for a long time. in 99.4% of the jurisdictions in this contry this is not the rule. there are hundreds, but there are 18,000 other jurisdictions in which this is not the rule and apparently has never been the rule. and the nature of that regulation isn't one that inpings on our sense what does that tell us about whether our records are private? certainly, we can identify a huge array of other businesses that are regulated. 1.i wanted to make was in 2002 the department of justice did a study and it found that 335 different -- of federal law is what i described to you. subpoena first in order to get the records. there was a handful of them are none of them involving the records with the possible exception that you never have to get a judge involved >> 99.4%

jurisdiction spirit is that include, are you comparing the little hamlet in indiana with los angeles or new york? >> i don't know the answer to the 21 question of the particular city. >> they can do that by keeping their own record. you have conceded they can require the information as a matter of law. that's my point is this. my point is because they can do it here, they can do it anywhere pair the government can require any business to keep track of all of its transactions and customers and if the government can then just say, all right give us that information, they

reduced the fourth amendment appeared to -- amendment. the amount of government regulation here is massive. the reason the general is here on behalf of the united states is that there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of regulatory schemes the federal government ministers where it is now required to use a subpoena. >> a subpoena is worthless when what is sought is something that could be easily destroyed hidden, or falsified. trying to get complicated records that can i get is lee altered during the time the subpoena is issued and the time it is enforced. nobody issues a subpoena for the murder weapon that you suspect is in somebody passes house. these weapons are more like the murder weapon. you seem to concede when you say the police concedes them.

the subpoena is worthless then. >> the record is how many hours are worked with how many hours of pay. i just do not understand the nature of record-keeping. this is a bear constitutional minimum to keep the enforcement officer in line and let them know the enforcement officer is in line. they do not want to put undue burdens on the subpoena. >> you think payrolls in general are no more complicated than the hotel that runs by the hour question mark ice it is relevant, the question is, the records is 50, the accurate -- the actual record would say 50 and i just want to fill in 35, yes. the court did not even think that was a remotely plausible argument in the line of cases i am describing.

>>, counsel. four minutes. >> thank you p let me start with the facial point and an circle back to the merits. is it here, mr. goldstein is describing the rule come the only objections are whether this is for a legitimate purpose. if that is a concern, that is a challenge where if a hotel has come of to them five times a day and they come in and say, this is really harassed and the searches are in a brick, if it is the purpose of the officer doing criminal investigation rather than actually caring about whether my records are complete, that is a challenge. the plaintiffs have not even try to demonstrate that this ordinance is unconstitutional in every circumstance. we developed numerous scenarios

and mr. goldstein mentioned only one of them. for example, where the hotel is required to upload records to the police department every day it may not even be a search, but it is less intrusive. >> i cannot understand those examples. the police could act without this in some of those examples. >> not that one. in some of them, the event has the purpose of requiring someone to do something they were not otherwise have submit to. the women i just gave as an example, the scenario of uploading the documents, it is less intrusive. the problem here is that the plaintiffs have tried to invalidate every half will application of the ordinance but they have not done the in truth

this net -- intrusiveness balance one needs to do for each of them. let me circle to the merits. >> i am still very confused about this. there is really a potential exception to a warrant. even a fourth amendment warrant of going into someone's home. there is someone to come the others i. if there is a felon into the place. but that does not eliminate the need for a warrant. it is not, tell us later. police cannot keep going in and fish around for an excuse. it is a process issue. you are entitled to a warrant, a subpoena. that is let they are challenging. they are not challenging the other reasons why the police could go in legitimately, and us action -- an exception to the

fourth amendment. they're asking whether this kind of search, generally without all of those other circumstances or other fourth amendment objections is constitutional. >> understood. let's not talk about exceptions. let's talk about another. the open like they did for a hundred years, and is match away when the lease come to a request that is a different issue. it is in the public. >> for that reason, they would have no expectation of privacy in the fourth amendment calculus would be totally different. >> then it is not a search at all. >> know, if they snatch it away there is work. >> no expectation of privacy, we would not say it is a search at all the police were taken away. >> exactly.

we would win the fourth amendment case there that is being invalidated by deciding this. >> light on you take an extra minute or so. >> thank you. let me emphasize this is a narrow rule we are talking about. we are talking about a rule unlikely to be repeated in so many of the other circumstances discussed today. it is about an inspection of only a single vote of information the government requires a host to me and and that mr. goldstein has admitted the government can require hotels to maintain. it is in a context especially prone to criminality, that people are using these precisely to commit crimes, where the gaps are quite detectable in real and not detectable otherwise.

in industry weather has been hundreds of years of regulation, including a history of warrantless searches even broader at the time of the founding third hotels were being searched without warrants at the time of the founding. a history of 100 years of police inspections in los angeles itself and even 100 years of these things being open to the public. the court has no further questions. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> hillary clinton will speak to the media today. the office will hold a -- the office says she will hold a brief press conference. live coverage here on c-span. meanwhile, the hill reports democrats are urging her to speak out about conducting business in a private account. democrats on a house panel demonstrating the house attack

on -- in libya. they wrote his secretary of state john kerry to provide the no. this afternoon, reporters are lining up to recover this conference. by having it at the united nations, only reporters with u.n. credentials can attend. it usually takes 24 hours to get approval. look here on c-span in just over an hour or so. tomorrow on capitol hill, john kerry and ashton carter answer questions from the senate foreign relations committee in particular about the request for operation of force against isis and efforts for military and diplomatic solutions. live coverage here on c-span beanie and 9:30 a.m. eastern. keep track of the republican led congress and follow the new members through their session.

on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. the hill reports the war of words over president obama's's foreign policy over iran is increasing as democrats criticized senate republicans, issuing an open letter to iran. the rebukes came all the way from the top of the party with president obama saying republicans are making common cause with factions in iran. washington journal talked about the issue. >> we're here to talk about iran negotiations. >> we're getting to the wire. the deadline for there to be an agreement, a framework is what they have been calling it. with an agreement. they're calling it a framework. we have just come out from the last negotiations last week in

switzerland, and secretary kerry and the iranian foreign minister will be going back to switzerland a week from yesterday. for what could be the decisive meeting. it may not be because we still have a little bit of time, the end of march. but i think there is reason to believe that they are getting very close to an actual agreement. host: your organization said in lieu of that, there were a couple of technical things that had to be resolved or were in the process of being. what are some of those issues? guest: some of them had to do with the time over which this agreement would last. there are still some issues in terms of the iranian facilities. there is still some issue although i think this has largely been satisfied with the number of centrifuges iran will be able to maintain.

and there are some questions about the enrichment levels that those centrifuges will be able to -- what they will be able to produce. host: as iran been forthcoming in this process? guest: that is a question. i think this bit about his forthcoming as one would suspect. which is, not particularly. but they have approached these negotiations, at least from a u.s. perspective, looking for a way to make a deal. now, one could argue about whether the iranians are prepared to make the political decision to go ahead and do this and to really forswear the idea of developing nuclear weapons but i think what we have seen so far is that there has been a genuine back and forth. whether or not be back and forth on the iranian site goes far that to satisfy everyone's questions remains, and probably

one will see the answer to next week. host: if i understand it correctly, the iranians have set the process of what they are going through with their nuclear program has been for energy purposes. guest: correct, that has been their argument for quite some time, that they have the right to a civilian nuclear energy program. the concern has always been for the united states, for israel for others in the west, that they are using what could be a civilian energy program to mask to hide the development of atomic weapons which pretty much everyone is supposed to. host: we have heard about the u.s. interests in all of this. talk about the other countries involved. what are their interests particularly in a deal going through? guest: most broadly, they have the same concerns about iran possessing a nuclear weapon.

this is not good for anyone. one could argue it might not even be good for iran. because then makes an a target. they have an interest in not seeing a nuclear arms race throughout the middle east, which is one thing that a lot of people have said will most likely happen if there is no deal here and iran goes ahead and continues its program trying to develop nuclear weapons. but apart from that, there is huge commercial interest at stake stop -- at stake. the sanctions relief, which is what iran will get in exchange for the deal, is not just good for the iranian economy. it is also good for multinational corporations that want to do business there. and there are already companies that are lining up, waiting in anticipation of there being some kind of deal. it is hard to understate the commercial interests that

companies have, but the broader security interest is at the top of the list. host: of all of these countries that think iran should not have this program why is there concern of them having these capabilities? guest: well, this is a country that has been original player in the most volatile region in the world, and has not, to be charitable, always done the right and good thing in terms of stabilizing the situation. it is, as the uss, the leading state -- as the u.s. says, the leading state sponsor of terrorism in lebanon with hezbollah, and now has troops fighting in iraq. which in the short-term, that is an interest that the u.s. shares against isil, but they have also been destabilizing in

trying to be destabilizing throughout the gulf. and the thought is that if a country that has that kind of history and policy gets a nuclear weapon, -- and i forgot to mention the whole iranian leadership wanting to wipe israel off the map, which is clearly of concern to the israelis. the concern is that if a country like that is able to develop a nuclear weapon that all bets are off and this will be horribly destabilizing, if not deadly for people in the region. at the same time, they are trying to develop long-range missiles so they can deliver whatever weapon they might develop at some point outside the region. and i think that is a serious concern for everyone. host: the iran nuclear negotiations are at the top of our first segment this morning. we have matthew lee from the associated press, a diplomatic writer for that organization. if you want to asking questions

the numbers are on the screen. and you can send us tweets and e-mail. if the deal goes through, who gets what out of it? guest: let's remember, the end of march deadline for this framework agreement is not a final deal. that they have set a june deadline for. i think what we will see if they do get an agreement at the end of march, we will see some more limited easing of sanctions. and we will see a much more forceful push going into the last three months of the space they have allowed themselves to get the details, the appendices the technical aspects of what

the final agreement would look like. but i think just getting the framework still is not -- you know, the final deal is not done just for the framework. i think we have another 3.5 months of waiting if they get this framework. host: the first call for you is from boca raton, florida. here is ken for matthew lee. go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i read rouhani's book and he rhapsodize is about how he pulled the wool over the eyes of the english and the germans and the french in previous negotiations about nuclear materials. i'm also concerned -- i remember in 2002 and they discovered the secret hits behind the nuclear

facility buried beneath the ground. and i'm also aware that in the wikileaks that were published all of the arab states, assuming the sunni arab states would be against israel if we take out iran. also our member that rafsanjani said that retaliation would mean that they kill 5 million israelis but lose 20 million persians or iranians, that it would be considered worthwhile. i also remember reagan, who was not my favorite president, who said "trust, but verify."

these people will not allow nuclear inspectors into some of these facilities. i wonder if we should not just tighten up more sanctions and possibly allow the israelis to be given -- they have already used saudi airspace in an attack on iran. host: color, thank you. guest: these are valor -- valid reasons to question whether or not an agreement will be reached and viable, and if it will, in fact, produce the results that everyone wants. iran has a past history of serious deceit on this kind of thing, and still to this day the iaea, the un's nuclear watchdog, has not been able to close its file on what are known as possible military dimensions of

the premiums -- the previous nuclear war capabilities in iran. what we are told about negotiating this agreement is that it will be verifiable. the inspections that will be allowed at the iranian facilities will be intrusive. i suppose, one has to take them at their word for that, but that is only -- that only goes as far as what the iranians will actually agreed to and then actually allow. it's one thing to say ok, you're inspectors can show up anytime, or with 10 minutes to us or whatever. it's another thing to actually let them do that. so we are a long way from people's concerns being satisfied that the iranians are negotiating in good faith and even if they are, whether or not whatever they greet to -- agree to, they will allow.

host: donna, go ahead. caller: my comment is that we have two republican senators and both of them have signed on to this letter. i am distraught over this. i think they should have allowed this process to move forward with our president and secretary of state and waited to see what would happen. that is my comment. thank you. guest: certainly that is the democrats line in the administration's line. the letter is unusual to say the least. 47 senators writing an open letter directly to the leaders of a country they believe is out to destroy israel and destabilize a big part of the world.

what i find to be interesting about the letter is i think there is an argument to be made, that the argument for those opposed to the mill seems to be shipping. for a long time, the argument was, whatever will come out of these talks is a bed deal. they cannot guarantee iran won't get the bomb, and it will allow them to keep a pathway. this letter, we are now seeing a different tactic, a different kind of strategy, writing indirectly because this is an open letter, to say shifting the argument from this is a bad deal to the president does not really have the authority to negotiate and agree to a deal that will last longer than his residency. that is clearly upset the white house and you see the comments

from the white house spokesman yesterday. i am not sure the letter will have much of an impact. it may make the administration even more determined to try to get a deal done. you have seen the response from the rainy and -- the iranian foreign minister. he has a phd and it's highly educated. he is not a dummy. whatever else one might think of him, he called it a piece of propaganda and said it would not have any impact. outside of the political discussion people are having in washington, it will probably not have that much of an impact, not a large impact, on the actual negotiations. i think it shows the concerns about a deal are getting stronger as we get closer to the first end of march deadline.

i think that is why the strategy or the tactic is shifting a little bit here the argument that this is absolutely a bad deal. it does not seem to have caught on that much. one of the reasons is the israelis said, the steel is not good and let's keep the interim deal they struck in november of 2000 13. let's keep that in place and keep negotiations going on and let's not agree to this framework. that i think undercut the argument that what is happened so far is bad for everyone but iran. i think we on -- that is why we are now seeing the shift that the president does not have the authority. host: mitch mcconnell on the sunday shows talking about this process, whether this is a treaty or agreement. let's hear his comments and talk about that.

mitch mcconnell: would require the deal to come before congress for approval. i am hoping we can get 67 senators to assert the historic role of the senate and the congress in looking at matters of this magnitude. obviously, the president does not want us involved in this but he will need as if he will list -- with any of the existing sanctions. he cannot work around it forever. i am glad the premise to came. we point out the problems with the deal we anticipate will be made and also to point out he should not ignore iran passes other behavior unrelated to nuclear program, revolution all over the middle east. they have built ied's that have

killed and injured in number of our personnel. this is a very dangerous regime. host: he cannot work around us and he will need us. guest: one of the most interesting things in the clip is heme mentions the chairman of the senate relations committee who did not sign the letter. senator corker has been pushing for a middle way, one that is not so of vertically hostile to the administration's's ability to negotiate, but one which would give congress and in particular the senate, a say in what is happening. although 47 republicans did sign this, mitch mcconnell talking about senator corker of -- i am not sure is his best argument to make there. host: matthew lee of the

associated press joining us. good morning. go ahead. caller: the expertise of mr. lee is of course very much appreciated. but as an 83-year-old, i just wonder whether he remembers history. i remember what it was like to see the juice my parents had hidden in my home hauled out and brutalize before they were even taken away. if i remember what george senti on a set about history that if we forget it, then we are bound to repeated. the next thing would be, would you ever negotiate with a rattlesnake?

if we look at what we just heard from the majority leader in the senate, then we could say they have proven that they are not trustworthy. guest: those are good points. doomed to repeat history. there is a lot of history here. a lot of deceit. a lot of lying by iranians in terms of what they have been doing in terms of their nuclear program over the course of many years. those are problems the negotiators will try to have to resolve within inspection rizzi -- regime that satisfies everyone. is that possible? you know, i do not know. those who are opposed to the deal i think will oppose it no matter how strict the

verification pair they will not necessarily be wrong in doing so. if iranians choose to have a secret facility someplace or secret facilities or continue what people alleged to be there previous possible military dimensions i am not sure how an agreement reached now will ever satisfy people concerned about this. host: from florida, democrats line, hello. haywood from florida? we will move on to frank in troy, new york, independent line. caller: how are you doing today? in the past problems we have been having in the middle east, they have been fighting for hundreds of years they do not really realize anything unless we educate them. how do you educate them? most of the time, it is usually

they come up with an action and we have to come up with, you're done, we have had enough. so we do not understand that and they do not understand these -- peace. they are never going to understand and they need to be handled correctly. just done with. then they can come to terms with us because it seems like our democracy always works. their stuff never really works. oppression does not work. we have to understand that our democracy does work and their stuff does not work. that is just the way it is. guest: there is a millennia worth of history that would suggest otherwise. maybe he is talking about most modern history, the last couple centuries or so, but let's not forget the persian civilization

was an enormous civilization and it far predates any concept of democracy. we look at the birthplace of civilization, which a lot of people believe is a rack. -- iraq. it is now a mess and in shambles but i do not think one can say that systems or whatever you might want to call them in the middle east are always wrong and the united states is always right. i want to go back to wanting the previous caller said about, do you negotiate with a rattlesnake . it is a good point but we are talking about a rattlesnake here. we're talking about something that operates with basically no thought. this is a regime, not an animal. it is capable of rational thought, whether or not you think they always go along with that. something a lot of people said

is you do not negotiate with friends. if you're trying to make peace you cannot do it by negotiating with the choir. negotiations go on all the time with enemies. if you decided there is not a military solution to the conflict, as what has been decided here apparently, although they say all options remain on the table you have to talk to your enemies. if you do not, that means you have given up on that. i do not think any partners are going to acknowledge or allow that the diplomatic solution is dead and cannot be arrived at. host: we talk about the nuclear situation, influence in iraq and what is going on there does one influence the other? guest: you certainly can.

as it relates to iran's broader strategy, and its increasing assertiveness in the region, sure. not just iraq, but you look at what is happening in yemen. you look at all of the sunni and arab gulf states are very concerned. trying to stir up unrest. i think yes you can look at that but it is something distinct in these negotiations from what is going on. prime minister netanyahu came in and spoke to congress and he talked about the greater threat beyond nuclear weapons capability that iran opposes it

may be the case you should have a deal with them unless it addresses the other issues of concern. what the administration has done and what the negotiating team has done is to try to separate it out. if they get a deal, it does not mean all the other concerns go away. i think critics and skeptics of the deal will say, it is kind of like you opened the door a little bit and the camel gets its nose under the tent a little bit and then they lose the urgency they once had. they're very good questions and i do not know if they can be handled at of time. host: tony, you're on with matthew lee. caller: i have a couple of

questions. first of all i would like to make a comment first. anytime i hear mitch mcconnell talking about working with the president, he was one of the guys on the president first took office is said he would not work with them. when weiner comes on tv and talking about the president going along with congress, my job always open spirit they do not want to open with the president. how can i fix problems in another country when they have nothing in this country. my second question is, how do we determine who can have an who cannot have nuclear weapons? pakistan is in that region and they have nuclear weapons. israel has nuclear weapons. even north korea has nuclear weapons. how do we determine who can have them and who cannot have them and why are we the world police?

guest: the whole idea of nuclear nonproliferation is one successive presidents of the united states have made a priority. the goal is to get the situation down to where no one has any. that is an impossible dream that i do not think will ever happen. clearly, it is hard to make the argument that more countries should have nuclear weapons. i think the argument is much better to say fewer countries should have nuclear weapons and those who have them now should respect their pledges to not use them. that seems to me to be the best way forward.

that is part of what the united nations is around four. outside of the normal protocol spear north korea did as well. what we're seeing now is an attempt to prevent iran from joining that club. it is a goal everyone seems to agree with. it is just the method getting there that has caused friction, and international friction. caller: good morning. i want to thank you for taking my call to i am from maryland. my opinion of what i heard mr. netanyahu say during his speech i listened to the entire thing is an overreach by our congress and mr. net yahoo!, to run israel from our congress. it is wrong. also, there are countries at the

table listening to the details about iran who was persia at one time. no decision has been made yet. we need to learn how to be patient and wait to hear about the decision. and not run off to war to fight with iran, syria, and anybody else. i do not want to see my sons in either one of these wars. that is my opinion. thank you for the call. guest: as it relates to the prime minister's speech to congress, it is undeniable israel has an interest. it is also undeniable that israel is not at the table. it is, i think, perfectly normal for a leader of the country that feels it faces an exit essential

threat to its very existence from iran to be concerned. whether or not his speech to congress was a good thing or changed anyone's mind, i think it is very open to debate. i am not sure. i was away when the speech was given. i saw a little bit from my hotel in switzerland. if anyone has changed their minds regarding the negotiations as a result of the speech. clearly, i have not pulled everybody and i do not know. it seems to me to have entrenched positions even further rather than changed opinions. host: what do you see that we do not see except out of news coverage in the negotiations,

things people would not be privy to. guest: we are not in the room so we do not see them except at the very beginning when they pose for photographs. what we do see that the average person would not is during breaks you see them go for strolls and take walks either to gather or secretary kerry as they did a month and a half ago geneva, a lot of grief about it. the situation was separate here they go off on their own with their own delegations. it is interesting, sometimes you get a comment out of them and you can gauge the mood sometimes

they are not a mind reader. i do not know how to do that to gauge moods. it is pretty clear someone is upset, angry as opposed to more lighthearted and more smiley more open to making cap rolled conversation -- casual conversation when you pass by on the boardwalk. host: here is kenny from maryland on the independent line. caller: good morning. how are you guys doing today? i just have a quick clot -- a quick comment. i think it would be best for america to give the piece still a chance -- peace bill a chance. i think america is tired of war. thanks. guest: that is one way to look

at it and i am not sure the only alternative to a deal right now is war. prime minister netanyahu and many others make the argument that iranians are essentially brought fling -- bluffing if congress takes actions on new sanctions. bettis is one strategy, but it seems to be a very risky strategy. it almost mirrors the idea that they would call their bluff on this and not call the bluff on the verification for inspections. why would you automatically assume the iranians come back to the table, tail between legs, ready to give up more than they

are willing to give up now? why would you automatically assume that and at the same time, automatically assume whatever they agree to, they would implement. critics with city answer is iranians have very little history of being truthful and honest in these talks. the other side is if they do not have a deal in the iranians really get their backs up and they are upset they are not getting the sanctions, that they will go full barrel into developing nuclear weapons and then that may leave you with no choice. host: who do they affect most in iran? guest: the government most, companies, the shipping lines with banks but also they affect the iranian people. it means they session means they have fewer choice and fewer

things and fewer goods they could buy. they have had significant sanctions relief since it took place, but clearly, they're looking for more and the question is, what are they going to give up? host: are there potential for more extensions? guest: i think it is unlikely. we have seen twice, the negotiators failed to meet a deadline that they set themselves that left us with an end of march target for framework and a june target for the final deal. none of the sides have said they think an extension is desirable. that said, if we get to the end of march and there is agreement on say 99% of what the framework will look like, i do not think

they will throw in the towel and say forget about it. i think it is possible the chance is small and they want to get it done as soon as possible. host: president obama weighed in on the process. here is a little of that conversation. president obama: it is fair to say there is an emergency because we have been negotiating for well over a year and the good news is, during this time, iran has abided by the terms of the agreement. we know what is happening on the ground in iran. we have been able to roll back their 20% highly enriched uranium during this time. it has given us unprecedented access into what it -- into what they're are doing. we are not losing anything through these talks. >> you have said, if there is no deal, you will walk away. president obama: absolutely.

that there is a breakout time so even if they cheated we would be able to have enough time to take action. if we do not have that kind of deal, we will not take it. host: do you sense what he is saying is truthful? guest: yes, it is true it in so far as what we know under the terms of the interim deal. i do think he is serious that he will walk away if they do not get a deal that is except double. the problem or the question or the concerns arrive when you talk about what is actually acceptable. what is enough to make you not walk away from the deal? verification will be the key to this.

as a side issue the verification will only apply to whatever it is iran agrees to if it is also on the side, in secret doing nefarious work at places not covered, that is a whole other issue, and it is one reason why critics of the deal continually refer back to the international atomic energy agency's concerns about iran still, after years and years still not having addressed the possible military dimensions of past work. host: from michigan, christina is up next. caller: well good morning and thank you for allowing me to talk on c-span. please let me say most of what i want to say. in regards to your first question on where you get your

information, i get it from c-span, watching all the boring conferences, watching all the hearings, because usually what you hear on the news is not what i got out of all of that stuff. that is where i get my information. about the situation we refused to look at history. we refuse to look at what has been going off or 100 years in what we are doing. we all talk about how we do not trust iran. we opposed a duly elected leader in iran. they used to be our allies. they do not trust vested i know people will say, you're being anti-american. no, i am looking at the facts. i just read recently this weekend that, i believe in 2005 there was a deal being worked out where i ran only had 164 and they did agree to turn a lot of their enriched things into

fuel rods, which could not be used for a weapon, and that deal was going on in 2005 but the united states under the bush administration got britain to veto that and that seems like it would be a good deal. look what we have got now. guest: it is true there were negotiations that did not involve the united states going back into the early part of the bush administration in 2003 in 2005. -- and 2005. it is also true that after that round of negotiations failed iran ramped up its enrichment capability and started to do more. we cannot know, since those negotiations did not work, we

cannot know what would have happened had they gone through. i think the situation today, or at least the situation before the interim agreement they reached, that they are now negotiating from, that agreement was reached november 13. the situation is better than it was prior to november 13 november 2013, but it is still a long way from being satisfactory to anybody. host: here is ron from pittsburgh, pennsylvania republican line. you are on. caller: thank you. i have three main questions. the first question i don't understand why most of their program is underground and number two is which countries

provide programs to event. number three people and it ran usually good side understand why they are letting these things happen. those are my three questions. let us never forget. good morning. guest: in terms of the underground nature of the uranium facilities -- of the iranian facilities, it is a good point to have it above ground and visible. this underground nature is protective and to keep a secret. that is problematic. that is what these negotiations

are meant to address. i am not sure i remember the second question. host: which countries provide the technology? guest: there is a long history of illicit trade. you can look at the north koreans and pakistanis. this know-how is out there. there are components to do it. people generally .2 north korea and pakistan -- people generally point two north korea and pakistan. the third thing about the irnani anian people, i am not sure the leadership of iran operates in the same way that the leadership of countries that are democratically elected operate.

i don't think it is fair to say we need to blame the iranian people because of the way the government is formed and its very nature. host: how much influence of this process does to the supreme leader? guest: the supreme leader will not sign off on a deal when a deal -- then a deal will not happen. it is him that makes the decisions. the president is the supreme leader. if you judge is the deal is not the interest of the revolution which he is there to protect and guard, then it will not happen. host: from virginia, robert go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a couple of questions. the first one is the alternative if this deal goes through. if we want to go to war with

this country. the second thing is would you think about the situation of the supreme leader and negotiations. if we make the deal, it will be best for the whole world economically and the whole region. guest: in terms of the supreme leader and his health, i don't know. we are hindered from knowing exactly because it is not an open society. it is more open than north korea, but it is tough to tell. rumors were circulating, and there were quite a lot of them over the weekend, that the supreme leader died. they turned out not to be true.

this is not the first time this has happened. it is fair to say that any disruption in the leadership the death of one later and an interim. time when there is a caretaker and then a selection of a new leader will have an impact. if the successor is not of like mind, there could be big and petitions for the talks. that is something we cannot know at the moment. you have to proceed from where you are now. you can't anticipate what a leadership change might or might not bring. host: as you watch this process play out, what are you looking for next? guest: what we will look specifically at his next week -- at is asked week.

is it possible to get as close to this framework or get it as they possibly can? it is interesting to me that the last two rounds they have had to have brought in the energy secretary from the u.s. that suggests they are getting down to the details and nitty-gritty of what is going on. it is my understanding he will be joining again. what is interesting is that the next round which will begin on the 15th seems to be open ended. it will end around the 19th or 20th. there is no fixed and the time -- fixed end time. host: matthew lee covers the dramatic affairs for the associated rest press.

>> potential 2016 presidential candidate hillary clinton will be speaking in about 20 minutes to reporters about her use of e-mail, in particular, private e-mail account during her time as secretary of state. a news conference and about 2:15. we will have it live here. jenner -- jennifer epstein is one of the reporters covering. a tweet -- this is where hillary will make her first public remarks about the e-mails. the stakeout spot at the u.n. abc's white house correspondent tweeting -- we will have that news conference live when it starts and we look forward to your comments afterwards here on c-span. until then, more from today's "washington journal." [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2015] is with the coalition for public safety and is there a second of director. tell us about your group first. itwhat is your group and what are your issues and who supports you? guest: this is a very unusual venture in washington. became together as a result from groups on the progressive side of the spectrum. we have seven partners on board including the aclu and americans for tax reform and the center for american progress. freedom works and the leadership conference. all of them have decided to work together for terminal justice reform. we have four core supporting entities right now including the john and catherine macarthur foundation and the koch brothers. it is the one topic where they

all agree. it is not the case where they agree on much else, but this is an area where there is more that they agree on then they disagree. they decided to work together to see if we can get something done about the federal and state levels. host: because, no justice reform is a big term, what are you looking for? guest: all the groups are really committed to supporting meaningful substantive changes. this is in an effort to get press opportunity or to get some quick visibility. they are committed over the next three years to work with legislatures and other executive branch officials to see where we can reduce the rising incarceration rates across the country as well as the changes that will maintain public safety in our neighborhoods. we want to see more effective systems of justice in place. host: for the partners involved

what would be the interest from the republican side? guest: what has happened over the last 20 years is we have seen the cost of incarceration go up dramatically. at the same time, it is an unusual moment where crime rates are on the decline. the consequent is for people who are arrested or served time have large applications for all of our communities in terms of how they can return to work and have productive lives. one of the common themes for a lot of partnering organizations is we want to make sure the justice system respects the personality of the offense. for people who pose less serious risks to our community is, we should probably make sure we have approaches reflective of what should happen with those individuals. perhaps lengthy incarceration stays are not the best. maybe treatment is better than a

long time in jail. host: as of 2013, 7 million people total are part of the correctional system. about 1.5 million in prison and 4.7 million on probation or parole. you want to see numbers go down from that level? guest: the statistics are very sobering. and majority of the incarceration rates reflect populations across the country at the state and local level. what is very significant about that is that most of these individuals are not serving long sentences. a majority of them will come home. what we are focused on is when these individuals to come home do they have the tools for success to find a place to live? in the have access to meaningful employment? what we want to try to avoid is the repeating cycle of crime that brings people back to the jail system because they haven't been able to find a path as they come back home.

host: some will make the argument that you can relate crime rates directly to long, tough sentences. guest: the argument is made, but at the same time, our law enforcement leaders and prosecutors are the ones on the front lines. they deserve and equitable amount of credit for the reduced crime rates. they want the resources invested in the right place. when you talk to individuals who are running correction facilities across the country the disproportionality of people struggling with drug addiction is not what i think is a public safety concern. it is a flawed system. corrections officials are the ones left trying to resolve the challenge. host: christine leonard with the coalition for public safety is our guest. 202-748-8000 for democrats.

202748-8001 for republicans. send us an e-mail also at journal@c-span.org. how do you go about this? what is your plan of attack so to speak? guest: one of the most exciting aspect is even strong organizations with diverse memberships across the country the first task is to figure out where we can be most effective in their conversations. there is a lot of education that needs to happen on capitol hill and across the capitals throughout the united states. the number one concern is we want to make sure people understand why crime rates have gone down and what are the most effective approaches to make sure we are maintaining public safety while being smart about reform. host: you mentioned the groups

involved in different reasons why they are coming to the table. is that it can turn over how you go about doing this on a day-to-day level that everyone is looking for their best interests and that may cause friction? guest: it is a very unusual moment for me personally to work with a diverse range of groups. it is striking that so many of them or all of them actually have come to the table not with a predefined agenda but more about trying to find common ground. despite the rhetoric and a lot general disagreement here in washington, our discussions have been reductive because it has been about moving forward and being focused on solutions. want

>> we are life now at the united

nations in new york where we are going to hear from former secretary of state and potential 2016 candidate, hillary clinton. her news conference here is expected to focus on her use of e-mails, private e-mails during her tenure as it secretary of state cured we will have the news conference live here on c-span. we will follow that with your phone calls and comments. this is the state department -- a full trove of hillary clinton e-mails will be published on a website after they are reviewed. a briefing at the state department the review of the 55,000 pages of e-mails will take several months. they will be posted online afterwards for the public to see.

what you are not seeing is the crush of reporters that are there appear. what hillary clinton will see when she takes the podium shortly. we will have the news conference live when it starts here on c-span. in the meantime, back to this morning's "washington journal." [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] that is causing independent drillers to cut back production, lay off workers, not expending as quickly.

there's a lot of effects of those low oil prices on the drillers. host: the jobs in the mining sector, 198,000 jobs. those support activities -- relate those numbers to the past couple of months. we have seen decreases now? guest: in pretty much all of those areas. in the last year some of the biggest losses had been in coal mining. all sectors that have been down over the last year. host: this is directly related to the cost of oil? guest: oil prices going down is a good thing for consumers. you pay less when you fill up your car.

that is great for you as a consumer but not great for an oil company because the price you pay is the price they are bringing in to fund their activities and to expand and keep growing and when prices go down, they cannot do all those things. host: who is directly affected? guest: all along the lines. must you did -- the most immediate effects are the frontlines. you are seeing those fx in -- effects c. louisiana is a big oil-producing state. they rely on offshore. they are not feeling the pinch quite as immediately. host: jobs in the energy sector the topic of our last segment.

if you want is begun about these things happening -- if you want to speak about these things happening. guest: in terms of the overall economy, the stimulus affect you get from oil is offsetting the trouble in the energy sector in terms of rotter economic impact. that's a broader economic impact. there is always uncertainty around where the oil price is going to go but i don't think many analysts are expecting to get back to $100 a barrel anytime soon. drillers are evaluating their businesses and trying to figure

out how to live within the range they are going to be in. host: what other options do they have? guest: production cuts, doing less. there are all sorts of financial strategies they can employ to readjust their expenses or manage their books that way. a lot of smart guys in houston and new york trying to figure that out. host: why are we keeping that if we have such a glut? guest: that is one of the big concerns, there are storage tanks around the country -- they are scattered about. there is a set amount of big oil drums you can fill up and keep stored there and we are running out of that space and that will have pressure to bring the price down. host: if we see jobs in the

mining area come is the refining area protected as well? guest: not necessarily. oil is an input for refiners. we saw in the latest jobs report , a decrease over the last month. it is affecting the entire sector. host: jobs being affected because of lower gas prices. our guest to talk about it -- we will hear from gary in tennessee. republican line. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: this is a complex question. the oil prices got something to do with the reinvestment in the profits and what have you.

my question is whenever the prices drop or rise, the market is based on what the overall prices are. why do the profits rise or fall based on what the oil people have to pay for the price of it? it is kind of confusing why they lose all this profit and their ability to reinvest because of all of a sudden they are getting a better deal. guest: part of the issue here it depends on where you are drilling the oil. what type of oil you are drilling and what process you are using. there is the breakeven price in places like north dakota, the price is higher than it is for

offshore drilling in the gulf of mexico. the nature of the reserves, you are drilling smaller wells -- if you are doing shale exploration. when oil drops to $50 a barrel and it cost you $40 to produce that barrel, you don't have a lot of profit. host: joey in winston-salem north carolina. go ahead. caller: as far as the price of gas and stuff goes, i -- you talk about these jobs that were lost. with the potential keystone pipeline, with that bring back some of these jobs? guest: it is tough to say. keystone gets a lot of attention

, outsized amounts of attention. keystone is a transportation project. it would bring crude from the oil sands in alberta, canada to the gulf coast. it would help producers in canada to have another outlet to produce their transportation cost. some north dakota oil would be traveling along the keystone route as well. the state department would create a few thousand jobs in terms of construction. there's only about 35 jobs that would become permanent. keystone is a relatively small piece of the overall picture. host: one of the recent headlines. energy-related jobs.

this tweet says -- guest: i don't think we are quite to that point yet. they would have to fall quite a bit farther than they are going to. when they get to that point they would come back up. there will ultimately be an equilibrium and that is what the market is trying to find. host: joe from west virginia. democrats line. caller: i would like to make a comment and then a question. i'm a retired coal miner in west virginia. energy has a lot of ups and downs. the price the people have paid for coal mining is horrendous. we have had major layoffs. in the 1960's, there were

120,000 union coal miners in west virginia feared today come , less than 15,000. you should come look at what it has done to southern west virginia. president obama has put $2 billion into this year's budget to try to retrain coal miners and absorb some of this devastation. but the republican congress does not want to help them. what do you think about that? guest: an interesting point about mountaintop removal mining. an area that has gotten quite a bit of attention and push back from the environment to community. there was a story today that pnc bank has announced they will not be financing on top removal anymore.

a trend we are seeing, putting pressure on those types of activities. in terms of worker retraining come republicans in congress are putting together an energy bill putting together legislation -- a few details of that. one piece is focused on workforce development. some worker training pieces. i'm not sure that's what the obama administration has proposed in terms of targeting west virginia, but there is an effort to try to establish more jobs on both sides of the aisle. republicans would prefer coal miners to remain coal miners and democrats would prefer them become solar panel installers. host: kent from michigan.

caller: the u.s. strategic reserve, are those things topped off now when we have lower gasoline prices? to me, this is all a game. prices are down as low as $1.70 around here and then i paid $2.40 the other day. do you have an explanation? guest: there are a lot of factors that go into gasoline prices. the oil price is about half of the overall price there is transportation, local demand, various aspects like that. it is case-by-case. i don't know why they would have

gone up that sharply although oil prices have in trending upwards -- have been trending upwards. the strategic petroleum reserve is mostly full. the administration did a test to make sure that if we ever needed to tap it, the infrastructure is available in terms of pipeline and other transportation to get the oil out of the spr and get it to where it is needed. they tend -- it makes economic sense to fill it when prices are low and tap it when prices are high. host: the wall street journal reports $50 a barrel for oil currently. they expect a drop in the coming weeks. some analysts say by the and of the quarter, $40 a barrel. -- end of the quarter, $40 a

barrel. guest: the domestic benchmark that tends to be cheaper than any international benchmark. the issue is referring to -- gasoline prices are set on the international market. that may also explain some of the discrepancies. host: from jackson, mississippi this is jewel. caller: i was calling in to find out why is it we complain and cry about big oil companies and big jobs losing their jobs and when a grocery store in our neighborhood closes and we lose all those jobs, nobody is crying. in the old days when switchboard operators lost their jobs because of progress -- progress

means you are going to lose jobs. i tell them to go to mcdonald's like they told me. guest: jewel raises a good point. it's a dynamic economy we live in. people lose and get jobs all the time. i'm sure the workers at the chicken plant were quite upset and making some noise when they lost their jobs. there are macroeconomic forces that affect all of us. in fact of life, i guess. host: rob bishop spoke about issues when it came to the energy sector. the announcement of proposals to open up offshore areas. [video clip] >> the bottom line is, the administration -- leases that

are bound to be accessible by the industry or bound to be sued in some kind of -- they are bound for litigation. in the atlantic ocean -- host: the brown areas on the map would be the proposed areas. guest: it was already proposed in 2005. they will put that on the table and then eventually pull it back again. it is the least amount you can propose. this is the starting point. >> hillary clinton: i am especially pleased that so many leaders here from the private

sector are standing shoulder to shoulder with advocates who have worked tirelessly for equality for decades. 20 years ago, this was a lonelier struggle. today, we'v mark the progress since the community rather do in beijing and declared with one voice that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights. we can say that there has never been a better time in history to be born female. yet as the comprehensive new report published by the clinton foundation and the gates foundation this week makes clear, despite all this progress, when it comes to the full participation of women and girls, we are just not there yet. as i said today this remains the great unfinished business of the 21st century. and my passion for this fight

burns as brightly today as it did 20 years ago. i want to comment on a matter in the news today regarding iran. the president and his team are in the midst of intense negotiations. their goal is a diplomatic solution that would close off iran's pathways to a nuclear bomb and give us unprecedented access and insight into iran's nuclear program. reasonable people can disagree about what exactly it will take to accomplish this objective. and we all must judge any final agreement on its merits. but the recent letter from republican senators was out of step with the best traditions of american leadership. and one has to ask what was the purpose of this letter.

there appeared to be oh logical answers. either these senators were trying to be helpful to the iranians or harm for old -- or harmful to the commander-in-chief in the midst of high-stakes international diplomacy. either answer does discredit to the letter's signatories. i would be pleased to talk more about this important matter but i know there have been questions about my e-mails so i want to address that directly and then i will take if you questions from you. there are four things i want the public to know. first, when i got to work as secretary of state, i opted for convenience to use my personal e-mail account, which was allowed by the state department, because i thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal e-mails instead of two. looking back, it would have been

better had i simply used a simple -- a second e-mail account and carried a second phone. but at the time, this did not seem like an issue. second, the vast majority of my work e-mails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the state department. third, after i left office, the state department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work-related e-mails from our personal accounts. i responded right away and provided all my e-mails that could possibly be work-related, which totaled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though i knew that the state department already had the vast majority of them.

we went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related e-mails and deliver them to the state department. at the end, i chose not to keep my private, personal e-mails e-mails about planning chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes. no one wants their personal e-mails made public and i think most people understand that and respect that privacy. fourth, i took the unprecedented step of asking that the state department make all my work-related e-mails public for everyone to see. i am very proud of the work that i and my colleagues and our public servants at the department did during my four years as secretary of state.

and i look forward to people being able to see that for themselves. again, looking back, it would have been better for me to use two separate phones and two e-mail accounts. i thought using one device would be simpler and obviously it hasn't worked out that way. now i am happy to take if you could questions -- a few questions. nick is calling on people. >> madam secretary on behalf of the yuan correspondents association, thank you very much for your remarks and it's wonderful to see you here again. madam secretary, why did you opt out using two devices at the time? if this hadn't come out, it probably would not have been an issue. if you are a man today, would all this fuss be made?

hillary clinton: i will leave that to others to answer. but as i said, i saw it as a matter of convenience and it was allowed. others had done it. according to the state department, which recently said secretary kerry was the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state.gov e-mail account. and when i got there, i just wanted to use one device for both personal and work e-mails instead of two. it was allowed. as i said, it was for convenience. and it was my practice to communicate with state department and other government officials on their .gov accounts so those e-mails would be automatically saved in the state department system to meet recordkeeping requirements. that's a me is what happened.

i heard just a little while ago the state department will begin to post some of my e-mails, which i am very glad to hear because i want it all out there. >> andriy -- andrea, thank you. >> can you explain how you decided which of the personal e-mails to get rid of, how you got rid of them and when? and how you will respond to questions about you being the arbiter of what you release? and can you answer the questions raised about foreign contributions from middle eastern countries, like saudi arabia that abuse women or permit abuse against women to the family foundation? you are rightly celebrating 20 years of leadership on this issue. hillery clinton: i will give you some background.

in going through the e-mails there were over 60,000 in total sent and received. about half were work-related and went to the state department and half for personal that were not in any way related to my work. i had no reason to save them, but that was my decision because the federal guidelines are clear and the state department of west was clear. for any government employee, it is that employees responsibility -- employee's responsibility to determine what is work-related. i am confident of the business we conducted and the e-mails that were produced. and i feel once the american public begins to see the mills they will have an unprecedented insight into a high government official's daily communications,

which i think will be quite interesting. with respect to the foundation, i am very proud of the work the foundation does. i am very proud of the hundreds of thousands of people who support the work of the foundation and the results that have been achieved for people here at home and around the world. i think that we are very clear about where we stand certainly where i stand, on all of these issues. there can't be any mistake about my passion concerning women's rights here at home and around the world. so i think that people who want to support the foundation know full well what it is we stand for and what we are working on. >> i was wondering if you think you made a mistake index lucidly

using a private e-mail. if so, what have you learned from that? served -- secretary clinton: looking back, it would have been probably smarter to have used to devices. but i have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the state department. and i have to add, even if i had had to devices, which is obviously permitted -- many people do that -- you would still have to put the responsibility where it belongs, which is on the official. i did it for convenience and now, looking back, think that it might have been better to have two devices from the very beginning. >> did you or any of your aides delete any government-related

e-mails from your personal account? what lengths are you willing to go to to prove that you didn't? some, including supporters of you, have suggested an independent arbiter. secretary clinton: my direction to conduct the thorough investigation was to air on the side of providing anything --to err -- to err on the side of providing anything that might be work-related. out of an abundance of caution and care, we wanted to send that message unequivocally. that is the responsibility of the individual and i have fulfilled that responsibility and i have no doubt that we have done exactly what we should have done. when the search was conducted

we were asking that any e-mail be identified and preserved that could potentially be federal record. and that is exactly what we did. and we went beyond that and the process produce over 30,000 work e-mails. and i think that we have more than that in the request from the state department. the server contains personal communications from my husband and me. i believe i have met all of my responsibilities. and the server will remain private. i think the state department will be able over time to release all of the records that were provided. >> madam secretary, a w o quick follow-ups. you mentioned -- two quick

follow-ups. you mentioned the server. that is a server that you own appeared is that appropriate? was there any precedent for it? did you cleared with any officials? did they have full access to it when your secretary? will any of this have any bearing or affect on your timing or decision about whether or not you run for president? secretary clinton: the system that we use was set up for president clinton's office. it had numerous safeguards. it was on property guided by the -- guarded by the secret service and there were no security breaches. so i think that the use of that server which started with my husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure. now with respect to any sort of future issues, look, i trust the

american people to make their decisions about political and public matters. i feel that i have taken unprecedented steps to provide these work-related e-mails. they will be in the public domain. and i think that americans will find that interesting and i look forward to having a discussion about that. >> madam secretary how can the public be assured that, when you deleted e-mails that were personal in nature, you did not also delete e-mails that were professional and possibly unflattering? what do you think about this republican idea of having an independent third-party come in and examine your e-mails? secretary clinton: first of all you would have to asset question to every federal employee. the way the system works, the

federal employee the individual, whether they have one device, two devices re-devices, how many addresses they make the decision. so even if you have a work-related device, with a work-related .gov account, you choose what goes on that. that is the way our system works. we trust and count on the judgment of thousands, maybe millions of people to make those decisions. i feel that i did that and even more, that i went above and beyond what i was requested to do. and again, those will be out in the public domain and people will be able to judge for themselves. >> madam secretary madam secretary -- excuse me -- madam secretary, state department rules when you are secretary at

the time stately -- clearly states that the employee needed to turn over those e-mails to be preserved on government computers. why did you not do that? why did you not go along with state department rules until nearly two years after he left office? also, the president of the united states said he was unaware that you had this unusual e-mail arrangement. the white house counsel office said you never approved this through them. why have you apparently cut the white house by surprise? [laughter] does all of this affect your decision in any way on whether or not to run for president? secretary clinton: let me try to unpack your multiple questions. first, the laws and regulations in effect when i was secretary of state allowed me to use my e-mail for work. that is undisputed.

secondly, under the federal records act, records are defined as reported information regardless of its form or characteristic. and in meeting the record-keeping obligation, it was my practice to e-mail government officials on their state or other .gov accounts so the e-mails were immediately captured and preserved. now there are different rules governing the white house than there are governing the rest of the executive branch. in order to address the requirements i was under i did exactly what i have said. i e-mailed to people and i not only knew but expected them to be captured in the state department or any other government agency that i was e-mailing to at a .gov account. what happened in, i guess, late summer, early fall was that the

state department sent a letter to former secretaries of state not just to me, asking for some assistance in providing any work-related e-mails that might be on the personal e-mail. and what i did was to direct my counsel to conduct a thorough investigation and to err on the side of providing anything that could be connected to work. they did that. that was my obligation. i fully fulfilled it and then i took the unprecedented step of saying, go ahead and release them and let people see them. >> why did you wait two months? why did you wait two months to turn those e-mails over? secretary clinton: i would be happy to have some a talked to you about the rules.

i fully complied. >> were you ever fully briefed on using your personal address e-mail with the president? secretary clinton: i did not e-mail any classified materials to anyone on my e-mail. there is no classified material. i am certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material. >> [indiscernible] secretary clinton: because they were personal and private about matters that i believed were within the scope of my personal privacy. and that particularly of other people. they had nothing to do with work. i didn't see any reason to keep them. at the end of the process.

>> [indiscernible] forced to resign two years ago because of his use of personal e-mail. secretary clinton: i think you need to go online and read the entire ig report. that is not an accurate representation of what happened. thank you. >> thank you. thank you all. announcer: hillary clinton at the united nations. she had been speaking at the women's conference and speaking to reporters about a number of issues in particular about her use of a private e-mail account during her tenure as secretary of state. you are on c-span and c-span radio. we are opening up the phones to hear your thoughts on the issue.

(202) 737-0001 democrats. republicans (202) 737-0002 independence (202) 628-0205 she opted to use one e-mail for personal convenience. she was asked by the state department to release all of the e-mails related to government work which she said total sum 55,000 or 60,000 10 she called it an unprecedented release of material. we will have more about that in just a moment from the state department spokeswoman. let's get to your calls. to huntington, west virginia, go

ahead. caller: i hope somebody was paying attention because this lady violated in 1950 federal records act. she used it as a government -- host: you are still on the air. go ahead. caller: she use it as a government website or whatever. that belongs to the people. that is a felony. host: let's hear from frank in st. petersburg, florida. caller: i think this is all icing and no cake. everything that is government related, the government does have. the fact that shealy had one e-mail account and not two, i

believe it was convenience. but what was more striking about the press conferences that she mentioned the 49 or 47 senators that sent a letter to the head of iran and did not get one question on it. i am saying to myself, my gosh, scuttling a potential agreement on nuclear weapons in iran could lead to regional war and maybe worse. and none of the reporters were interested in that? i am at a loss to understand why those reporters were so myopic and just focused on these e-mails that are public and anybody could read them. the government has them. i just don't understand reporters sometimes. they love to play gotcha and they don't realize their responsibility to citizens like me who want to know what her position is in regard to what can happen in iran if we don't

stop this from getting -- stop them from getting new where weapons. host: she did address the issue at the top of the news conference but the vast majority of time was and -- was spent answering e-mail questions. we have some tweets. back to calls. martin in texas on the republican line. caller: i would just like to make a comment. what i find interesting is how she talks about devices but never mentioned the cell phone or the land phone. i am 83 years old and i am old enough to remember fdr's day of infamy speech to congress. but my question is how many people in the business world

worldwide don't talk on the phone or the cell phone now in modern times to private things that relate to their personal life? hillary talks about that she spent more time splitting hearst -- her time between her government job and chelsea and bridal activities. the reporters never asked her about what she refers to a defies -- refers to as a device. host: she did get a question, maybe two, about the clinton global initiative. a tweak here -- let's hear from dubuque, iowa on the independence line. caller: hey, god bless c-span.

i just wanted to weigh in here if that's ok. my only problem is that hillary looks like she's got more bags under her eyes than a pullman porter. thanks a lot. host: here is paul in eagle nebraska. caller: yes, i would like to say this. let's see boehner and crews and those other racist republicans publish all of their personal e-mails and put them up there and see all of their racist and bigoted comments. host: thanks for your call. politico has a story about senator lindsey graham who, the other day, said he did not use e-mail.

here is cindy in holden, indiana, gop line. caller: thank you for c-span. i enjoy watching a lot the hearings and stuff on your channel. i also wanted to say about the hillary clinton mess -- hillary has a past of lying. we've got watergate, where she was fired for unethical behavior. we have travelgate, fileit, all the gates that we had with the

clintons when bill was president. i wasn't a big fan of bill but i really do not like hillary clinton. she seems like she thinks she is above the law. and i would just like to tell her face-to-face no, you are not above the law. you have to follow the rules that everyone else does. i just don't see how she can come out with a straight face and say, well, she gave them all the government -- where she was working on the government, she gave them all those e-mails, because how do we know? there is no way we can find out. i'm sorry, i just -- i am tired of the clintons. i'm tired of the bushes. i'm ready to move forward and get our country back on track. host: there was talk of her announcing a run for president in april. she mentioned the 55,000 e-mails

that were released. that issue came out in the state department briefing today. she talked about where they are on the release of those e-mails. jen: that is consistent with what we have been discussing internally. we will release the entire 55,000-page set and release in one batch and make sure that standards are consistently applied throughout the entire 55,000 pages. we expect the review to take several months. they release will be posted on a publicly-available website. i will have more information about that hopefully soon. the only documents from that 55,000 pages that we will review for a second earlier release are the approximately 300 e-mails already produced to the select committee. those will be reviewed and released prior to the completion of the entire set. those will also be posted and made publicly available. >> even if you haven't filed a

request, you will be able to see -- you will put them up publicly anyway. jen: yes, they will be publicly available. we are using for your standards. >> i realize that it might be hard for 55,000 pages for you to have an estimate to do by hand. jen: i don't have an estimate on that particular piece. i can check and see if there are more specifics. let me add one more thing. specific foyer production area would conclude in the same standards, national security, trade secrets, among others. as for a regular process, we

will identify any reductions. >> went asked, given the amount, the volume of this, did you all as for electronic version of it as well as the paper? jen: i don't think so. this has been handled in a specific way for some time. host: we are getting your reaction to the hillary clinton news conference which mainly dealt with her use of personal -- for use of a personal e-mail account during her time as secretary of state. is one tweet. -- here is one tweet.

she did talk about the letter issued by republican senators to iranian leaders. and lastly, a tweet about the e-mails -- we will also take a quick look at facebook in a minute, too but first let's hear from virginia on the independence line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe that this is politics as usual. our country is still in deadlock. we can't agree on anything within our congress or with the politicians. this is all political. if she runs for president this is why that have brought this up. my advice is for everybody to pray for the united states of america and that god would bless us because we are definitely in

need of prayer. thank you. host:. is michael in greenbelt, maryland, democrats line. caller: good evening, how are you? host: doing fine, michael. make sure you turn down your tv or radio. and go ahead with your comments. caller: i will be very quick here. just a reminder that this is business as usual. i am saying that because i was hoping she would address the case about saudi arabia. i remember a reporter asking her about the way saudi arabia treats women. clinton is a champion of women's rights. i was a little bit in awe that she did not say anything about it. this goes to show that it is just as nice as usual. host: let's hear from cincinnati

, eric on the independence line. go ahead. caller: -- host: re: there? i'm sorry, we lost you. let's look at facebook. the conversation continues at facebook.com/c-span. let's hear from dolores next in springfield. caller: yes, i was just listening to mrs. clinton -- [background sounds] host:

host: we will let her take care of that. here is dennis on the republican line. caller: it's amazing how she said the government server is in government control. her server is in her control. it just is not mesh. she has total access. the government has total access to their server. eight reminds me of the lois lerner lost e-mails. it's quite disappointing to see how this is going. she must not be having sex with that computer. host: here is indianapolis on our independence line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i guess it was very ironic, while waiting for this press conference on c-span the interviews of the state of criminal justice in this

country. she hinted around about the 47 senators who clearly violated the logan act. in our country, the average citizen would be tried with treason and probably locked up at guantanamo bay. why are we not holding up our politicians to the same standards as our citizens who elected them into office? this seems like a pure injustice. and for starters, we need to put term limits on all these legislators and senators thank you. host: we appreciate your call and all of your calls and comments online. we love to hear from you. up next, we are going to show you the news conference that just wrapped up 15 to 20 minutes ago in new york. secretary clinton.

i want to thank the united nations for hosting today's events and putting the challenge of gender equality front and center on the international agenda. i am especially pleased to have so many leaders hear from the private sector standing shoulder to shoulder with advocates who have worked tirelessly for equality for decades. 20 years ago, this was a lonelier struggle. today, we mark the progress that has been made in the two decades since the international community gathered in beijing and declared with one voice that humans rights -- human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights. we can say that there has never been a better time in history to be born female. yet as the comprehensive new report published by the clinton foundation and the gates foundation this week makes clear, despite all this progress, when it comes to the full participation of women and girls, we are just not there yet.

as i said today, this remains the great unfinished business of the 21st century. and my passion for this fight burns as brightly today as it did 20 years ago. i want to comment on a matter in the news today regarding iran. the president and his team are in the midst of intense negotiations. their goal is a diplomatic solution that would close off iran's pathway to a nuclear bomb and give us unprecedented access an insight into iran's nuclear program. reasonable people can disagree about what exactly it will take to accomplish this objective. and we all must judge any final agreement on its merits. but the recent letter from republican senators was out of step with the best traditions of

american leadership. and one has to ask what was the purpose of this letter. there appeare to be two logical answers. either these senators were trying to be helpful to the iranians or harmful to the commander-in-chief in the midst of high-stakes international diplomacy. either answer does discredit to the letter's signatories. i would be pleased to talk more about this important matter but i know there have been questions about my e-mails so i want to address that directly and then i will take if you questions from you. there are four things i want the public to know. first, when i got to work as secretary of state, i opted for convenience to use my personal e-mail account, which was allowed by the state department,

because i thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal e-mails instead of two. looking back, it would have been better had i simply used a second e-mail account and carried a second phone. but at the time, this did not seem like an issue. second, the vast majority of my work e-mails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the state department. third, after i left office, the state department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work-related e-mails from our personal accounts. i responded right away and provided all my e-mails that could possibly be work-related which totaled roughly 55,000

printed pages, even though i knew that the state department already had the vast majority of them. we went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related e-mails and deliver them to the state department. at the end, i chose not to keep my private, personal e-mails e-mails about planning chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes. no one wants their personal e-mails made public and i think most people understand that and respect that privacy. fourth, i took the unprecedented step of asking that the state department make all my work-related e-mails public for everyone to see. i am very proud of the work that

i and my colleagues and our public servants at the department did during my four years as secretary of state. and i look forward to people being able to see that for themselves. again, looking back, it would have been better for me to use two separate phones and two e-mail accounts. i thought using one device would be simpler and obviously it hasn't worked out that way. now i am happy to take if you -- to take a few questions. nick is calling on people. >> madam secretary, on behalf of the yuan correspondents association, thank you very much for your remarks and it's wonderful to see you here again. madam secretary, why did you opt out using two devices at the time? if this hadn't come out, it

probably would not have been an issue. if you are a man today, would all this fuss be made? hillary clinton: i will leave that to others to answer. but as i said, i saw it as a matter of convenience and it was allowed. others had done it. according to the state department, which recently said secretary kerry was the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state.gov e-mail account. and when i got there, i just wanted to use one device for both personal and work e-mails instead of two. it was allowed. as i said, it was for convenience. and it was my practice to communicate with state department and other government officials on their .gov accounts so those e-mails would be

automatically saved in the state department system to meet recordkeeping requirements. that indeed is what happened. i heard just a little while ago the state department will begin to post some of my e-mails which i am very glad to hear because i want it all out there. >> andriy -- andrea, thank you. >> can you explain how you decided which of the personal e-mails to get rid of, how you got rid of them and when? and how you will respond to questions about you being the arbiter of what you release? and can you answer the questions raised about foreign contributions from middle eastern countries, like saudi arabia, that abuse women or permit violence against women to

the family foundation? you are rightly celebrating 20 years of leadership on this issue. . hillery clinton: those are two very different questions i will give you some background. in going through the e-mails there were over 60,000 in total sent and received. about half were work-related and went to the state department and half for personal that were not in any way related to my work. i had no reason to save them but that was my decision because the federal guidelines are clear and the state department of west was clear. -- the state department request was clear. for any government employee, it is that employee's responsibility to determine what is work-related. i am confident of the business we conducted and the e-mails that were produced. and i feel once the american public begins to see the mills

-- the e-mails, they will have an unprecedented insight into a high government official's daily communications, which i think will be quite interesting. with respect to the foundation i am very proud of the work the foundation does. i am very proud of the hundreds of thousands of people who support the work of the foundation and the results that have been achieved for people here at home and around the world. i think that we are very clear about where we stand, certainly where i stand, on all of these issues. there can't be any mistake about my passion concerning women's rights here at home and around the world. so i think that people who want to support the foundation know full well what it is we stand for and what we are working on.

>> i was wondering if you think you made a mistake index lucidly -- either exclusively using your private e-mail or the response to the controversy. if so, what have you learned from that? served -- secretary clinton: looking back, it would have been probably smarter to have used to devices. -- two vices. -- two devices. but i have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the state department. and i have to add, even if i had had to devices, which is obviously permitted -- many people do that -- you would still have to put the responsibility where it belongs, which is on the official. i did it for convenience and now, looking back, think that it might have been better to have two devices from the very

beginning. >> did you or any of your aides delete any government-related e-mails from your personal account? what lengths are you willing to go to to prove that you didn't? some, including supporters of you, have suggested an independent arbiter. secretary clinton: we did not my direction to conduct the thorough investigation was to air on the side of providing -- to err on the side of providing anything that might be work-related. out of an abundance of caution and care, we wanted to send that message unequivocally. that is the responsibility of the individual and i have fulfilled that responsibility

and i have no doubt that we have done exactly what we should have done. when the search was conducted, we were asking that any e-mail be identified and preserved that could potentially be federal record. and that is exactly what we did. and we went beyond that and the process produce over 30,000 work e-mails. and i think that we have more than that in the request from the state department. the server contains personal communications from my husband and me. i believe i have met all of my responsibilities. and the server will remain private. i think the state department will be able over time to release all of the records that were provided.

>> madam secretary, two quick follow-ups. you mentioned the server. that is one of the distinctions here. this was not gmail or yahoo!. that is a server that you own appeared is that appropriate? was there any precedent for it? did you cleared with any officials? did they have full access to it when your secretary? will any of this have any bearing or affect on your timing or decision about whether or not you run for president? secretary clinton: the system we used was set up for president clinton's office. it had numerous safeguards. it was guarded by the secret service and there were no security breaches. so i think that the use of that server, which started with my

husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure. now with respect to any sort of future issues, look, i trust the american people to make their decisions about political and public matters. i feel that i have taken unprecedented steps to provide these work-related e-mails. they will be in the public domain. and i think that americans will find that interesting and i look forward to having a discussion about that. >> madam secretary, how can the public be assured that, when you deleted e-mails that were personal in nature, you did not also delete e-mails that were professional and possibly unflattering? what do you think about this republican idea of having an independent third-party come in and examine your e-mails?

secretary clinton: first of all, you would have to asset question to every single federal employee. the way the system works, the federal employee, the individual, whether they have one device, two devices, three devices, how many addresses, they make the decision. so even if you have a work-related device, with a work-related .gov account, you choose what goes on that. that is the way our system works. we trust and count on the judgment of thousands, maybe millions of people to make those decisions. i feel that i did that and even more, that i went above and beyond what i was requested to do. and again, those will be out in the public domain and people will be able to judge for themselves. >> madam secretary, madam

secretary -- excuse me -- madam secretary, state department rules when you are secretary at the time were perfectly clear that that the employee needed to turn over those e-mails to be preserved on government computers. why did you not do that? why did you not go along with state department rules until nearly two years after he left office? also, the president of the united states said he was unaware that you had this unusual e-mail arrangement. the white house counsel office said you never approved this through them. why have you apparently cut the white house by surprise? -- why have you apparently caught the white house by surprise? [laughter] does all of this affect your decision in any way on whether or not to run for president? secretary clinton: let me try to unpack your multiple questions. first, the laws and regulations in effect when i was secretary of state allowed me to use my

e-mail for work. that is undisputed. secondly, under the federal records act, records are defined as reported information regardless of its form or characteristic. and in meeting the record-keeping obligation, it was my practice to e-mail government officials on their state or other .gov accounts so the e-mails were immediately captured and preserved. now there are different rules governing the white house than there are governing the rest of the executive branch. in order to address the requirements i was under, i did exactly what i have said. i e-mailed to people and i not only knew but expected them to be captured in the state department or any other government agency that i was e-mailing to at a .gov account.

what happened in, i guess, late summer, early fall was that the state department sent a letter to former secretaries of state not just to me, asking for some assistance in providing any work-related e-mails that might be on the personal e-mail. and what i did was to direct my counsel to conduct a thorough investigation and to err on the side of providing anything that could be connected to work. they did that. that was my obligation. i fully fulfilled it and then i took the unprecedented step of saying, go ahead and release them and let people see them. >> why did you wait two months? why did you wait two months to turn those e-mails over?

secretary clinton: i would be happy to have somebody talk to you about the rules. i fully complied. >> were you ever fully briefed on using your personal address e-mail with the president? secretary clinton: i did not e-mail any classified materials to anyone on my e-mail. there is no classified material. i am certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material. >> [indiscernible] secretary clinton: because they were personal and private about matters that i believed were within the scope of my personal privacy. and that particularly of other people. they had nothing to do with

work. i didn't see any reason to keep them. at the end of the process. >> [indiscernible] forced to resign two years ago because of his use of personal e-mail. secretary clinton: i think you should go online and read the entire ig report. that is not an accurate representation of what happened. thank you. >> thank you. thank you all. host: hillary clinton's news conference focusing largely on her use of a private e-mail account while she was secretary

of state. we are going to open up our phone lines again to hear from you, your thoughts of the underlying issue. democrats, (202) 737-0001 republicans, (202) 737-0002 and independence, (202) 628-0205 let's check facebook first before some folk calls.

let's hear from you. alfred first in hoffman, north carolina on our democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just finished watching former secretary of state hillary clinton give her assessment of the e-mail issues. i believe she answered every question professionally and she did not stray away from any questions. i would like to say to mrs. clinton, hillary, keep on trucking. thank you. host: to fall river massachusetts, hello tom on the republican line. caller: i am kind of on a rant right now. she really kind of ticked me off. the people deserve to know what

is going on. and she needs to stick with that plan. i'm sure she is screwed in the regina a lot of the time -- in the vagina a lot of the time. host: let's go to troy ohio. caller: hillary is lying. she could not even look at anyone with the benghazi. she mentioned the senators, the 47 senators. people say that president obama is so secretive. he is with the muslim brotherhood. so is eric holder. they've got something bad for the united states. they are taking over the world. barack obama tried to take over jerusalem to get to the iranians and the muslim brotherhood. you all better wake up.

hillary clinton is a crook. they are all crooks. no bushes, no clinton's. we need somebody who loves >> former secretary-general did mention the reaction from capitol hill about the benghazi committee. it reads in part, benghazi committee leader representative trey gowdy, regrettably we are left with more questions than answers. he says the select committee was left with no choice but to call for here to appear at least twice to discuss e-mails.

gene from tampa. go ahead. caller: hillary clinton is the best. she is a wonderful person. i trust her, i know she knows what she is talking about. it does matter who she is e-mailing, or what is going on i believe her actions speak louder than words. i'm confident her, and i trust that her e-mails are exactly what she stated. host: do you think this hurt or helped her potential candidacy? caller: for me, it did not do anything but help her because she is very educated, she is prepared, and she is ready for all questions and comments from the republican side as well as the democratic side.

she is ready, and i think she is going to be president in 2016. host: we will show the entire news conference again this evening at 7:30 p.m. eastern. you can also find it anytime online at c-span.org. bowling green, kentucky, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i honestly believe that hillary clinton did a great job as secretary of state, has fully complied with all of the laws and i think this is more a news and media issue. we have a potential to incite controversy. i have a problem when we cannot trust our highest leaders. she was rightly appointed as secretary of state, and i think americans should respect that for what it is. that is my comment.

host: more of your calls momentarily as we hear from capitol hill. i am pleased that the state department will release the second -- secretaries e-mails about benghazi first. here's some of the briefing. >> that is consistent with what we have been discussing internally. let me give you a brief update of where we are. we will review the entire 55,000 page set in one batch. at the end of that review, to make sure that standards are consistently applied to make surehroughout all the pages. i will have more information about that hopefully soon. the only documents from that 55,000 pages that we will review

for a separate release are the 300 e-mails produced for the select committee. they will be released prior to the completion of the entire set. they will be made publicly available. >> you are going to be able to see -- your with them about publicly anyway? >> they will be publicly available. we're using for you standards. >> i realize it might be hard for 55,000 pages, but how much time do you think it will take? on 300 seems pretty much easier? >> 900 pages is 300 e-mails. it is short of the 55,000. i do not have an estimate on that particular piece. i can check and see if there are more specifics.

specific reduction criteria has included and will include same standards, national security personal privacy, entry and secret -- and trade secrets. >> one last thing, did anyone ask for an electronic version as well as paper? >> this has been handled in a specific way for some time. host: the state department saying that the 300 e-mails that deal in with particular -- deal in particular with the benghazi attack will be made public first. trey gowdy of south carolina released a statement earlier today which talks in part about calling secretary clinton to testify.

because secretary clinton has created more questions than answers, the select committee is left with no choice but to call her to appear at least twice. let's get back to your calls and comments. sue, fort myers, florida. caller: i think that she probably solidified her campaign. they have done everything, and they keep pulling up the dirt that has already been used. why don't we think about what is going on in the world? what about the letter that went to iran? what about the prime minister of israel w coming over without the authorization of the president? that is all i have to say. host: some of those comments

reflected in this tweet. disappointed in the journalists who ask hillary about e-mails before they ask her women, ron, or anything important at all. caller: thank you for taking my call. the republicans are rather desperate. three things, the first being benghazi. it is all just a bunch of smoke to discredit a woman who is very qualified. a man would be as qualified equally. this is one thing coming close to election, but a third thing there is a young congressman who has reared its ugly head by the name of galilee.

yes fashioned himself after some big prosecutor, and he is decided that he is going to pull her up. i wish you would have listened the other day when they had the irs people off, and he was he relating to the people who were public service in the irs. it was very cruel. it is not serving anything but the republicans. after this dies in about a month, they will find something else, anything before we get into that election cycle in which hillary hopefully will be a candidate. please be aware of what you are listening to. host: the congressman from south carolina released a statement about her news conference he says that there remains series

questions about the security of the system she employed from a national security stamp white. who authorized this exclusive use of personal e-mail despite china's to the contrary from both her state department and the white house? in a headline in the national journal -- hillary clinton failed to address concerns about her homebrew e-mail system. charles, republican line. caller: i have been listening to not only secretary of state clinton's news conference but i've been listening more intensely to some of your callers. i'm 72 years old, and i'm nothing but a republican. we had a couple of callers, and they said filler was a qualified -- they said hillary was qualified, and she has my vote from there is no one near as

intelligent as her running. she is not a first-class job. my grandfather, who was also a republican, always told me one thing, do not ever point your finger at somebody, because if you look you have three pointing back to you. host: texas, democrat line. make sure you meet your television or radio. -- mute your television and radio. caller: i am calling in regards to all of the sexist remarks made about mrs. clinton. you cannot find a more educated

or qualified lady running for any office but her. that is my comment. host: howard beach, new york, independent line. caller: first, i totally agree with mrs. clinton. a woman president might make a better president in general than a man, so i'm all for a woman president, but not this one. this one will start us back to the road of what is is. what about elizabeth warren? there are plenty of women, but not this woman. host: here is from florida -- ed from florida. caller: as i have been listening to the comments on the tv, i have a question.

in my the only one who notices the difference in the response to her reporting herself? maybe i'm the only person who noticed it, but it seems like there's something different. host: in her response? caller: in her mannerism. host: in her mannerisms. when was the last time you saw hillary clinton and in public setting of a speech or news conference? caller: i've seen her many times in many speeches. host: we appreciate your comment. on twitter we're looking at the hashtag c-span chat.

hillary just spent her time talking about nothing. hillary puts it in the hands of the american people. she says e-mails deleted that she did not want anyone to read but she allowed the nsa to look at ours. little rock, arkansas, democratic line. caller: how are you doing today? i am happy to hear all of the people who are for hillary clinton, because i support her also. i feel like this e-mail thing is just propaganda. it is smoke and mirrors. nothing major. people are trying to throw as much as they can out there to stop her from being president. that says a lot about america. we are one of the best governed

nations in the world. we have an opportunity to put a woman in office who is smart intelligent, and her husband was in office in the 1990's. i'm an african male who was born in 1992. i feel like hillary clinton is suited for our first woman president. everyone needs to get aboard. we are one nation. we have opportunities to put a smart and intelligent woman in office these e-mails, if you have more questions, that is because it is nothing. people need to let it go. host: a couple more calls. new york, david, independent line. caller: i keep hearing all of this bs. there are a lot of smart intelligent people around. we do not need this kind of a person in there.

she has more baggage than a baggage car on a train. this goes way back to before arkansas. we do not need this type of person. this is doubletalk. she is excellent at doubletalk, talks a lot and says nothing. we do not need a person like that. host: bristol connecticut republican line. make sure that you make your television or radio -- mute your television or radio. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i only have one comment. hillary could be a president, i have no problem with that, she has done a good job as a secretary of state. but i have a problem with my republican party to go above our president and invite a foreign leader to speak on our turf. and say something to embarrass the president of our country which is the commander-in-chief of this country. that i have a problem with. why do we have to elect the president, speaker of the house, the majority leader, and the senate. host: several other callers mentioned that letter from the

47 senators who wrote to the iranian leadership. thank you for your comments. tomorrow morning on washington journal, we will have more. we will show you this news conference again at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. could also see it on c-span.org. the senate committees have been busy. foreign relations today held a hearing on ukraine, in particular looking at the issue of conflict with russia. senator bob corker pressed state and federal officials about the impact sanctions were having on the economy. this is about two and a half hours. >> we will come to order. we will begin this hearing by

expressing my condolences to the family and friends of boris nemtsov. he sought a better future for his people and we must remain committed to his vision for himself and his neighbors. russia has continued their occupation of crimea, and the destabilization of the country's eastern reasons -- we just pray made a commitment in 1994 to defend ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. more recently we lured ukraine west i supporting their desire for more interaction with europe.

the refusal of the administration to put more pressure on russia is a blight on u.s. policy in a 70 year defense. this now directly involves over 1.6 5 million refugees. the russian backed rebels continued their offensive activities occupying a strategic railway hub. putin has no intention of

honoring the cease-fire. while the violence has decided that subsided -- violence has subsided, in addition to the ambiguous constitutional electoral additions required of ukraine to maintain its borders the sentence -- second agreement is burdened by the first agreement as it stands. administration officials have referred to the second minsk accord -- it is not a strategy for success. in my view, any strategy will not be effective unless the united states against revived ukraine for the ability to inflict serious military cost

. yesterday we heard germany's ambassador to the united states say that president obama privately pledged to angela merkel in february that the united states will not deliver lethal military assistance ukraine despite the fact that he and other administration officials continue to tell the american public that they are seriously considering the policy. deputy secretary of state tony lincoln argued that no amount of military assistance would be sufficient to beat the rebels and the russian sponsors. our objective is not to provide ukraine with enough weapons to overwhelm the russian military and in direct confrontation.

we aim to increase ukraine's defense capabilities that will give you the ability to produce conditions on the ground favorable to a genuine peace process. by equipping them with the means to four defense, we will be contravening to a fair piece gone -- peace arrangement. i believe the government and kia is committed to more reforms especially in the energy sector where corruption siphons billions of dollars way from the

budget each year. even if the united states offers more help, and kiaev beats the russian backed rebels, who has had -- putin will have an even greater victory. during this hearing and hope to have a detailed discussion of explorers situation in eastern ukraine since the cease-fire agreement was signed. examine why the united states has provided them with no lethal military assistance, and find a way to support ukraine in this economic challenge. i look forward to your testimony, i thank you for being here, and i will turn it over to our distinguished ranking member of his opening comments. >> thank you for holding one is an extraordinarily important and

timely hearing on russia and ukraine. i were issued are -- i appreciate our witnesses being here. i want to offer my very heartfelt condolences to someone who was a courageous opposition leader. and sometimes true patriots pay a price. boris nuts caps led a movement for a true russia. to his family, to his friends, and his followers, you have our heartfelt dots and condolences. -- thoughts and condolences. there are many asked her to contend that the complexity of

the geopolitics that led to the u.s. retreat from europe created an opening for food men ukraine -- putin in the ukraine. i think without any doubt we can all agree on one point. that is that the united states must take the lead. i believe the administration should fully implement measures in the ukraine freedom support act which the president signed into law in december of 2014. it passed with unanimous consent in both houses of congress. it authorizes the president to provide much-needed military and humanitarian need to ukraine and poses additional sanctions against russia. it is necessary in december, and necessary today. we all want a diplomatic solution. i believe this can only come about when pputin believes that

the cost continuing to ravage ukraine is too high. given the ukrainians to see russians coming, but not the weapons to stop them is not the answer. night vision goggles are one thing, but providing antitank and empty armor weapons secure communications equipment would be much better. it is my view that it is time to start targeted sanctions on the energy sector it has already cost russia about 140 many of --

$140 million a year. i think the last thing we want to do is use american technology to create a serial revolution that would only region to europe and beyond. ukrainian freedom support act also called for a reduction of russian special crude oil projects, and we are waiting for the government's response. is it economically viable? the u.s. may provide an additional loan guaranteed by the end of this year on top of the $2 billion in guarantees already provided. this is a worthy investment, and anything that i continued reforms by the ukrainians. finally, we need to reinforce the transatlantic agenda. we must take a more strategic approach in russia.

we need to invigorate the institutions that have so long contributed to the relationship and police and stability -- peace and stability. in my view, the attention on confronting the threat in russia has been necessary. we also need to focus on the south, vulnerable to undo russian influence. our intelligence community also needs to reprioritize the russian threat. only by addressing the immediate security threat in ukraine can we be across-the-board the board in europe. communications, i understand the administration is working with the board of governors to russian language programming. i think that and other public diplomacy funds are very important to counter russian

propaganda, which when i travel to the region last year, and have listened to those who visited said they are overwhelmed by the russian propaganda. there is one key point, and at the end of the that is the strong american leadership that will matter. i think you for the opportunity to speak. >> we want to thank you for your comments, and we will turn to our witnesses. our first witness is victoria nuland. our second witness is brian mccain\\\ckeon. we thank you all for being here and sharing your viewpoints.

your full statement will be entered into the record without objection, so summarize and we will look forward to >> thank you chairman corker ranking member menendez and members of this committee. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on the situation in ukraine and for your personal investment in that country's future. as many of you know from your travels, your meetings and the establishment of the bipartisan senate ukraine caucus last month, ukrainians deeply appreciate this committee's support for their country's security, democracy, sovereignty and future prosperity. today ukraine is central to our 25 year transatlantic quest for a “europe whole, free and at peace.” my interagency colleagues and i are pleased to update you today on us efforts to support ukraine as it works to liberate the country from its corrupt oligarchic past, chart a more democratic, european future, and bring them into the rushing and separatists -- russia and

separatists aggression. in my remarks, i'll focus on two areas, first, the work ukraine is doingwith u.s. and international support to reform the country, tackle corruption and strengthen democratic institutions. second, i will give an update on our efforts to support implementation of the february and september minsk agreements including our readiness to impose further costs on russia if the commitments moscow made our further violated. the package of reforms put forward by the government and enacted by the rada is impressive in scope and coverage. they slashed the deficit significantly this year to give

more fiscal control to local communities. they made tough choices to reduce and cap pension benefits, increase work requirements and phase in a higher retirement age. they created a new banking provision to stiffen penalties for financiers for stripping assets from banks at the public's expense, a common practice among oligarchs. and, they passed laws cutting wasteful gas subsidies and closing the space for corrupt middlemen that buy low, sell high and rip off the ukrainian people. the ukrainian people will use the $400 million in increased revenue from state-owned gas companies to help care for the poor including some of the 1.7 million people driven from their homes by the conflict. with u.s. support, including a $1 billion loan guarantee last year and $355 million in foreign assistance and technical advisors, the ukrainian government is improving energy

efficiency and homes and factories with metering, consumer incentives and infrastructure improvement building e-governance platforms to make procurement transparent and basic government services cleaner and publicly accessible; putting a newly trained force of beat cops on the streets of kyiv who will protect, not shake down, the citizens; reforming the prosecutor general's office, supported by u.s. law enforcement and criminal justice advisors to help energize law enforcement and increased prosecution. they are supporting new agriculture lawswith the help of usaid expertsto deregulate the sector and allow family farms to sell their produce in local, regional and wholesale markets and helping those forced to flee donetsk and luhansk with usaid

jobs and skills training programs in places like kharkiv. and there's more support on the way. the president's budget includes an fy16 request of $513.5 million, almost six times more than our fy14 request, to build on these efforts. as you said ukraine's hard work , must continue. between now and the summer, we must see budget discipline maintained and tax collection enforced across the country, notably including on some of ukraine's richest citizens who have enjoyed tax impunity for far too long. we need to see continued reforms at naftogaz and across the energy sector. we need to see final passage of agricultural legislation, full and impartial implementation of anti-corruption measures including a commitment to break the oligarchic, kleptocratic culture that has ripped off the country for too long. as you both said in your opening statements, the best antidote to russian aggression and malign influence is for ukraine to succeed as a democratic, free market state. for this to happen, we have to

ensure that ukrainian government lives up to its own promises, but at the same time the united states, europe and the international community must keep faith with ukraine, and help insure that russia's aggression and meddling can't crash ukraine's spirit, its will or its economy before reforms take hold. that brings me to my second point, even as ukraine is building a peaceful, democratic, independent nation across 93% of its territory, crimea and parts of eastern ukraine have suffered a reign of terror. today crimea in eastern ukraine russia and its separatist puppets have unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage. this is a manufactured conflict control by the kremlin, fueled by russian tanks and heavy

weapons, financed at russian taxpayers expense. it has cost the lives of more than 6000 ukrainians, but also of hundreds of young russians sent to fight and die there by the kremlin. when they come home in zinc coffins -- “cargo 200,” the russian euphemism for war dead -- their mothers, wives and children are told not to ask too many questions or raise a fuss if they want to see any death benefits. throughout this conflict, the united states and the eu have worked in lock-step to impose successive rounds of tough sanctions, including sectoral sanctionson russia and its separatist cronies as the costs for their actions. our unity with your remains the cornerstone of our policy toward this crisis and the fundamental source of strength. and it is in that spirit that we salute the efforts of german chancellor merkel and french president hollande in minsk on to try again to end the fighting february 12 in eastern ukraine.

the minsk package of agreements the september 5 september 19, and have your 12th agreements offer a real opportunity for peace, disarmament, political normalization and decentralization in ukraine and , the return of ukrainian state sovereignty and border control. the osce reports that they are holding on many lines of the contact, withdraw of weapons although that process is incomplete as is osce access. the mining has already begun under osce auspices. the picture is very mixed. yesterday, shelling continued in

a key village over the weekend. just in the last few days, we can confirm new transfers of rush and tanks, armored vehicles, heavy artillery, and rocket equipment over the border to the separatists in eastern ukraine. in the coming days, we need to see a complete ceasefire in all parts of eastern ukraine. full, unfettered access to the whole conflict zone, a pullback of all heavy weapons and and in two unexpected convoys over the ukrainian border. if fully implemented, this will bring greater peace and security in eastern ukraine for the first time in a must to year. as the president has said, we will judge russia rides actions not by its words.

the united states will with our international partners start rolling back sanctions on russia only when the minsk agreements are fully implemented. the reverse is also true. we if they are not implemented, there will be more sanctions. we are already in consultations with our european partners on further sanctions if russia continues fueling the fire in the east or other parts of ukraine, fail to implement minsk or grab more land as we saw in debaltseve. mr. chairman, members of this committee, america's investment in ukraine is about far more than protecting the choice of a single european country. it's about protecting the rules-based system across europe and globally. it's about saying “no” to borders changed by force, and to big countries intimidating their neighbors or demanding spheres of influence. we think this committee for its

bipartisan support and commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine and to europe whole at peace, and free. >> senator menendez, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. it feels good to be back in this room, although a little daunting to be on the side of the witness table. the statement i have submitted to the committee is on behalf of myself and admiral tend off -- since the beginning of this crisis, the united states vigorously pursued a multipronged approach. we have assured allies unwavering support and provided tangible support through bodies

to ukraine. the department of defense has halted corporation with russia. the administration is also halted exports of sensitive technology and and post sanctions on 18 rushing defense firms. second, we are taking concrete measures to reassure our allies and to deter further rushing aggression. thanks to congress, the european reassurance initiative is helping to enhance united states air, sea, and ground presence in europe and to improve facilities along the border with russia. additionally, funds will be used to bolster assistance to ukraine and baltic partners. as part of our reassurance measures, we have maintained a persistent presence in each of

the baltic states, poland, and the black sea since april of last year. we haven't -- have in your persistent presence invoking it -- presence in bulgaria and romania. we tripled the number of u.s. aircraft taking part in our baltic air policing rotation provided refueling aircraft for nato airborne warning and control system missions, deployed u.s. navy ships to the black and baltic seas 14 times and increased training flights in poland. in 2015, using eri funds, the united states will increase its reassurance and deterrence efforts with additional measures detailed in my prepared statement. we're taking defensive measures, proportionate, and in line with our obligations under nato treaties. allies have agreed to improve the alliances long-term military posturing capabilities and ensure it is readily -- ready to respond to new challenges.

last month, nato defense ministers decided to enhance the response forth by creating a spearhead force, which will be able to deploy at short notice. the task forces consist of a land component of 5000 troops and mixed of air and special operations forces. it aims to strengthen the collective defense and ensure that nato has the right resources in the right place at the right time. we are providing substantial support to ukraine. ukraine has been a strong partner to the united states and nato since its independence, and our security cooperation with ukraine dates back to 1992. such cooperation over the past two during this time, the united states provided ukraine with military training, professional education, communications equipment, and support for border control and counter-proliferation efforts. unfortunately, the corruption of the yanukovych regime starved ukraine's armed forces of resources.

the neglect of the armed forces by the regime did not strip the military of its professionalism or its determination to fight. since the start of the crisis the united states has increased its security-related assistance to ukraine. we have committed $118 million in material and training assistance to ukraine's military, national guard, and border guard service. under eri, in fy 2015 we will dedicate at least another $120 million including $45 million for state department security assistance programs. our assistance has been consistent with identified ukrainian needs and priorities and it is vetted by our country team in ukraine and by a flag-level u.s.-ukraine joint commission that continuously assesses how to maximize the effect and impact of our assistance. key areas of material assistance include sustainment items, medical support, personal protective gear, secure communications, and perimeter security. we have also provided counter-mortar radar capabilities, which the ukrainians tell us they have used to good effect. similarly, we also continue to

conduct longstanding exercises such as rapid trident to increase interoperability among ukraine, u.s., nato, and partnership for peace member nations. the most recent rapid trident iteration in september 2014 included a multinational field training exercise and saw the participation of 15 countries and approximately 1,300 personnel. other measures remain under active consideration in the administration, including the provision of additional security assistance. as the president has said, we are looking at all our options including the possibility of lethal defensive weapons. at the same time, we have made clear that we do not believe there is a military solution to the conflict in ukraine, and are working actively to support the diplomatic track. in conclusion, russia's aggressive actions in ukraine are a threat to a bipartisan objective of american policy since the end of the cold war of seeking a europe whole, free and peace. the united states will continue to work closely with our ukrainian and european partners

to counter these actions and to provide reassurance and support to our partners and nato allies. thank you for the opportunity to be here. >> chairman corker, ranking member menendez, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the u.s. government's actions to support ukraine's economy. the objective of the u.s. and international economic assistance strategy toward ukraine has been to support the efforts of president poroshenko's government to stabilize, revitalize, and restructure ukraine's economy. my remarks today will elaborate upon this economic and financial strategy, and its evolution over the past year in response to the conflict in eastern ukraine. i would note at the outset that our efforts to mobilize the international effort to support ukraine financially have been complemented by the work of others at the treasury department to impose costs on russia for its aggressive actions in crimea and eastern ukraine that have exacerbated the challenges facing ukraine's economy.

last spring, the united states together with international partners, supported an international assistance package totaling $27 this assistance centered on a billion. two-year, $17 billion international monetary fund (imf) program, and also included a $1 billion u.s. loan guarantee and $2.2 billion from the european union. in exchange for in exchange for this support ukrainian authorities committed to an ambitious economic reform agenda to reduce vulnerabilities and increase economic growth potential. the imf and other donors agree that ukraine has lived up to its economic reform commitments. over the last year, the ukrainian government has initiated difficult and urgently needed steps to: reduce the general government deficit; reduce distortionary natural gas subsidies; improve targeting of social assistance to protect the most vulnerable; strengthen the rule of law and reduce corruption; increase transparency within the inefficient state-owned energy company; and initiate financial sector repair. in support of these efforts, treasury technical advisors are providing the ukrainian

government with expert assistance in the areas of bank supervision and bank resolution, and government debt and liability management. this was always going to be a challenging program of reform and adjustment. unfortunately, the intensification of russian aggression has created significant additional pressure on ukraine's economy and necessitated further international support to bolster the government's reform efforts. the fragile security situation has eroded confidence, increased capital outflows weakened the currency, and depleted foreign exchange reserves. the destruction of economic capacity in eastern ukraine has driven a deeper and longer economic recession than previously estimated. as such, during the past few months, we have mobilized the international community to increase ukraine's support package by at least $10 billion. as part of the international effort the united states intends to provide a new $1 billion loan guarantee in the first half of provided ukraine remains 2015, on-track with the reform program it has agreed with the imf. if ukraine continues making

concrete progress on its economic reform agenda and conditions warrant, the u.s. and ministration will also be ? willing, working with congress to consider providing an additional up to $1 billion loan guarantee in late 2015. as part of this up-sized economic assistance package, the imf now plans to support ukraine through end-2018 with a larger gross financing package allowing more time for the economy to adjust and for economic reforms to bear fruit. also as part of this package ukraine has indicated that it will seek to work with creditors to adjust the profile of its debt to provide additional financial breathing room. the next step in further driving this augmented international assistance effort is to secure imf board approval on march 11 for the new imf program, which will unlock a large disbursement of imf financing. based on international support pledged to date, ukraine's foreign exchange reserves are set to increase significantly over the next few weeks, which will bolster confidence and provide the authorities with space to further execute their ambitious reform agenda. to meet its reform requirements in advance of the imf board

meeting, the ukrainian government passed meaningful and difficult reform measures to improve public finances and reduce inefficient energy subsidies. since these measures were taken, ukraine's currency and capital markets have rebounded significantly. provided that the authorities adhere to the reform program and the security situation does not deteriorate further, the imf projects that ukraine's economy will expand next year and foreign exchange reserves will rise substantially. in view of the inherent uncertainties in the security situation, there continue to be risks. this year's intensification of the conflict has imposed severe damage on an already fragile economy particularly the export-oriented regions of eastern ukraine. currency depreciation and deposit flight have put a strain on the banking sector, and significant structural damage has occurred within the ukrainian economy. overcoming these impacts and restoring market confidence will be challenging. amid these challenges, the ukrainian government continues to demonstrate a strong commitment to an ambitious reform agenda, and deserves our continued support. core u.s. and global security interests are at stake in ukraine, and providing economic support to the ukrainian government is an essential part of our strategy to respond to russian aggression. as long as as long as ukraine's government continues to undertake the difficult reforms required to restore economic and financial stability, the international community must do all it can to help ukraine

succeed and be prepared to adapt its assistance strategy as required. and at the same time, the international community must continue to ensure that as long as russia disregards its commitments and fuels violence and instability in ukraine, the costs for russia will continue to rise. chairman corker, ranking member menendez, and members of the committee, as with all emerging market crises, our assistance strategy is not without risk and the path to success is not without obstacles, particularly amid the current security backdrop. however, critical elements needed for success an ambitious reform plan, a government and country committed to change, and a sizable international support package are currently in place. to that end, we will continue to work closely with the international financial institutions and our partners around the world to provide ukraine the support it needs and enable ukraine's people to achieve their the strong backing of congress economic aspirations. the strong backing of congress has been a critical foundation to these efforts to support ukraine, and we look forward to working closely together in the months ahead. i look forward to answering your questions. >> i will begin with you secretary . nuland. just for record, just because

russia does acknowledge that deaths of soldiers publicly, how many russians soldiers have been killed in ukraine as part of this conflict? >> as you can imagine, it is difficult to have a completely accurate assessment of russia's efforts to mask its dead. what are your estimates? >> hundreds and hundreds. >> i thought the numbers were substantially more than that. >> if we have a better number for you in the future, i will come back to you. >> i know that you have been a strong advocate for support in ukraine and have been a good person for us to talk to. what is the administration's position right now on debaltseve

, the withdrawal from that area, and by what timeline? >> mr. chairman, as you know and i think it is in my longer statement, we were extremely concerned to see the flattening of debaltseve after the signing of the minsk agreement. debaltseve it is outside the special territory. it is territory that the government of ukraine did have control of under the minsk there is supposed to be a complete withdrawal to the lines agreed on september 19. that would include the vacating of debaltseve by the separatists. >> we are demanding they leave and by what date question mark -- what date? >> yes. >> what is the timeline that they have to step back away from

debaltseve? >> the implementation agreement of february 12 calls for the full pullback of heavy weapons and military equipment within some days -- we are now beyond that -- that they are working on it. >> russia is working on that? >> we have seen in complete compliance in terms of osce access, debaltseve, in terms of osce being able to verify the pullback of heavy weapons and separatist's. when you get to the political phase of minsk which is to follow this, the political jurisdiction of the special status zone does not include debaltseve. if the separatists comply, they

should not be insisting on having political control of that area. >> secretary mckeon, we appreciate you coming to today and sitting on that side. we have talked about the fact that we would like to see defensive secretary -- weaponry supported. we have passed that unanimously at of both houses. there seemed to be some debate within the administration, and obviously the german ambassador thinks the president has made quiet commitments that were not going to do that. what is the status of this debate within the administration where we are all getting mixed signals and confused by the stands the demonstrations taking? >> i can't speak to what happened in the bilateral meeting between the president and chancel -- chancellor

merkel. it probably won't be a very satisfying answer. we are still working on the interagency and reviewing a number of options, including defensive weapons, but i can i give you a timetable on when we might provide additional assistance. >> you said there were other kinds of assistance, but it's my understanding that we committed $120 million. we have only delivered half of that, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> this feels like three years ago come the syrian opposition, we were basically going to help in doing all these things, way beyond their usefulness, what is happening? we have the secretary come in, speak strongly, we thank her for that, and the administration doesn't do what it said it would

do. what is going on with the administration question market is incredibly frustrating for all of us to think the administration truly support ukraine and yet it feels like it's playing footsie with russia . they're not really committed to this. i'm warning if you could speak clearly to what is happening? >> what i can say is that we share your frustration in the delivery of our commitments. the new secretary has presses on this. in one of my first meetings, he said let's start a new policy and not promise assistance and was we can deliver it quickly. >> what would keep us from delivering 118 main dollars worth of nonlethal assistance? >> sometimes it's finding it in the stocks of the u.s. military some agreements being purchased off the production line. i continue the head of our defense cooperation agency has made this a iparty we are pushing them all the time.

in the case of counter mortar radars, we have approval for those in late october and we got been delivered trained, and fielded within two months. we are able to move quickly in some instances and others it is unacceptably slow, but i can assure you that we are making it a top priority. i just can explain why some assistance is going slower than we would like. >> we know this is not your decision. we appreciate you being here. russia has invaded ukraine. we agreed to protect their territorial sovereignty. they gave out 1200 40 nuclear weapons, and we agreed to protect that. as russia has invaded, we are still not willing to give defensive weapons. i would just go to secretary

nuland. why would we be so feckless to agree to something in 1994, and be unwilling to defend them, why would we not be doing that? what is your impression of our inability to make that happen? >> we have provided some significant defensive systems which have saved lives in ukraine. we have not answered the entire shopping list from the ukrainians. there are a lot of factors that go into that. we are continuing to look at the situation on the ground and the needs and limitation as we evaluate this going forward. >> we have also dropped back from training the ukrainian national guard and put that on

hold. can you briefly tell me why that is the case? >> as you know, we have notified we are providing the assistance necessary to keep ukraine of float. we have never had a decision on the final timing and scope of it . we had talked about doing it this month but it is still under

consideration. >> pretty evident we are not going to do much. pretty evident the strong statements we have made our statements and i will close -- i will just say, thank you for your presentation. i do hope we are committed to providing the financial assistance necessary to keep ukraine afloat. i hope that the greatest victory for putin -- his greatest victory would be for ukraine to fall and him not to have two on it by break it -- i hope we are committed. others may ask you questions about how much we are committed. you are messengers and not making these decisions. >> thanks for the promotion. let me say -- i'm not quite sure why we cannot move ahead. the former national security advisor, former secretary of state both testified before the , senate armed services committee that the u.s. should provide defensive weapons to ukraine. when asked about providing such

weapons to ukraine, ash carter said we have to help ukraine defend itself. in order to provide the necessary muscle for a diplomatic solution. the chairman of the joints chief of staff have suggested the same. i have a question. are they all wrong? >> i take it that is a question to me? >> either you or -- the secretary of the defense department. whoever wants to take it. you have an overwhelming view from a wide spectrum. i don't get it. are they all wrong and if so why are they wrong? >> as the discussion on the

subject has taught us, there are factors on both sides and we are continuing to evaluate. from where we sit at the state department, if we can see these minsk agreements implemented and can see peace in eastern ukraine that offers the best hope for the ukrainian people. we will continue to evaluate the situation as we go forward. >> lets stop there. minsk i was a disaster. minsk ii -- it only went ahead and largely incorporated more territory that the rebels had taken since the first agreement and made the boundary lines to ensure less capable of being pursued because it is all dependent upon some votes on decentralization of the government.

there have been about a thousand violations? >> i can give you a precise figure. >> 1000 violations since the cease-fire. we keep working on this aspirational basis while russia works effectively to take more ukrainian land. there is not enough money in the world to be able to help the ukrainians sustain themselves if they continue to bleed because

of the conflicts russia has created and still stokes in eastern ukraine. so much for our statements that we are not willing to forgive the fact that crimea is gone. i don't get it. i don't know how much the process is going to wait. according to the law, the administration is supposed to report on its plan for increasing military assistance to the government of ukraine. it was close to have done that by february 15. when can we expect this to be submitted? >> we are continuing to work on some of the program at issues we want to reflect in these reports. including those that flow from our 2015 budget. we are hoping to have them up to you in the coming weeks if not coming days. >> welcome back to the committee. on december 10, you testified before the armed services subcommittee that the u.s. was considering a variety of military responses to russia's violation of the treaty .

among the responses, you outlined the placement of u.s. ground launch cruise missiles in europe. which i assume would have nuclear capability. can you further elaborate on the military response is the administration is considering to russia's violation and how nato allies have reacted to the suggestion to the introduction? >> on last issue, where i talked about that in the hearing, it was in the hypothetical sense. it would not be in compliance with the treaty. i had put that out there is something we could do if we chose to come out of the training. -- treaty. what we are looking at in terms of options and countermeasures some of which are complying with the treaty, some of which would not be, i can describe a range of things in different buckets -- one would be defenses of nato sites.

second would be a counterforce capability to prevent attacks. third would be countervailing strike capabilities to go after other russian targets. we are looking at a range of things. we are trying to persuade russia to come back into compliance with the treaty. that does not succeed, our objective is to sure they have no significant military advantage from their violation of the treaty. >> so far, we have not succeeded in getting them back into compliance. >> that is correct. >> secretary toloui, at the height of the protests in december of 2013, russia extended a $3 billion bond an attempt to keep the president in power. he fled the country with unknown millions. ukraine and it's citizens retain

the debt. given the exorbitant terms of the bond, russia can demand immediate repayment in full and if ukraine refuses to pay, it would trigger default on all ukrainian debt. in my estimation, that is clearly an economic weapon. there is precedent for shielding countries from this type of coercion. in 2003, the u.s. and eu adopted in their legal systems un security council resolution 1483 which made iraqi oil and gas assets immune to seizure by private creditors. the u.k. parliament could similarly an act legislation legislation under english law. if russia refuses to reschedule payments on the bond or reclassified as a government to government debt under the auspices of the terrace club as -- under the auspices of the

paris club, as the administration engaged with the british government on the possibility of denying enforcement of the bond under british law? >> you touched on a few points. let me touch on a few aspects that are relevant. first of all, russia has not asked for or demanded so-called acceleration of this payment. in addition the ukrainian , government in the context of its imf program has indicated it intends to discuss with creditors, which would include russia, the rescheduling of obligations falling do. primarily within the scope of the imf program. that would include this russian $3 billion. those discussions are only beginning with what we anticipate will be the approval of the imf program tomorrow. let me also mention that second treasury, specifically

-- is cooperating with the ukrainian authorities on the other issue you mentioned, the recovery of assets. those assets went missing with the departure of the previous regime. we are willing to look at the issue you mentioned should that eventuality arise. right now, russia has not accelerated this claim. also, this claim is going to be subject to the discussions between the ukrainian government and its creditors. >> one final point, i hope we don't wait until russia pulls the trigger. i hope they don't, but then, if it's all too late in the process of doing what is necessary to create appropriate protection under international law as it relates to the un security council resolutions, it may be too late. it seems to me there is no harm in having a discussion to be poised for that possibility so that we are

not on the back end of trying to play catch-up ball. >> senator gardener? >> thank you to the witnesses for testifying today. i want to talk briefly about the comments that were made last week at a hearing the committee held with witnesses. when i asked the president about his role with ukraine, talking about the promises he believes have been made by the united states to ukraine and whether or not we had met those promises, the answer was clearly he did not feel we had lived up to all that we had promised. the bargain that the united states had entered into in terms of promises of our commitment to them. in your testimony you stated

, that the united states must keep faith with ukraine. how do you mesh his believe in ukraine with your statement that we have kept faith with the people of ukraine? >> i cannot speak to how a former georgian president comes to his conclusion. i would simply say that i think this congress has been an enormously generous and responsive, including going above and beyond in some cases, the requests we have made. we have more money for ukraine then we asked for. what we have been trying to do both through the loan guarantee program and through the bilateral assistance i outlined in some detail is to try to support the implementation of these very tough reforms the ukrainians are making and we will continue to do that. we have fielded a huge number of

technical advisors into the ministries to help them with the drafting of legislation and the implementation. on the security assistance side, the numbers are significant compared to previous support for ukraine. as under secretary mckeon said, we want to see it move faster. >> i believe this question is more appropriate to mr. mckeon. you mentioned in your comments ap articles, german ambassador president obama agreed not to send arms to ukraine. what is the current posture on lethal assistance to ukraine? >> we are still reviewing it. it is still an option. >> when do you believe this review will be completed? >> i hope soon. i cannot put a timetable on it. >> days, weeks, months? >> i hesitate to predict. >> what has your conversation been with ukraine leadership regarding this assistance?

>> conversations go on all the time. my former boss, the vice president has put the president on speed dial. he talks to them once a week, it seems. i don't know the latest of what he has said to them on this issue. in general, they are getting the same information i'm giving you. it is under consideration. >> they would say the same thing to you as well? they don't know when this assistance -- >> that is correct. they have made that request and interests known. there is no doubt about that. >> when we are talking about the cease-fire and the russian act -backed offensive, in your reports, how much time do we have before putin renews his push into

ukraine? mr. mckeon? >> getting inside president putin's had and predicting his next move is a challenge. they continue to operate in eastern ukraine. fighting alongside the separatists. they are providing command and control support, operating air defense systems, and fighting along separatists. they are moving military equipment and there are still tactical groups across the border. when they may make another move, i don't think anybody can say. >> you mentioned the sanctions. what are we doing right now in

in terms of the european governments those nations that , have been opposed to additional sanctions? what have we been doing to talk to them about the steps needed for additional sanctions? >> despite some publicly stated concerns, those countries have supported sanctions when the leaders come together. we continue to talk to them bilaterally about these issues. i will make another trip to those countries in the coming days and weeks. we are working with the commission to continue to design sanctions that if we needed to use them and they need to be applied in deterrent or actual -- have more effect on russia than the european economy, that is part of the conversation we have. >> in that consideration of sanctions does the

administration support expelling russia from the financial swift system? >> it's probably not good to get into a discussion of potential actions we could take. the framework we evaluate all potential actions is basically the impact they would have on russia and the russian economy against the spillover, blowback that would occur to the united , states and partners in europe. without commenting on specific actions, that would be the prism through which we would be a violating something like that. >> you have discussed this action with the european counterparts? >> we have discussed a range of options for further sanctions. >> last week we also talked about the length of time it would take for nato to train a ukrainian military they could successfully defend its territory. how long would it take?

>> depends on the type of training and scope of training and how many units. the training the chairman asked me about that was on the books is being looked at for the national guard forces. it would be over the course of six months. it was five or six companies or battalions. do you know the details on that? >> for -- four. >> if we were to train all of their military come over 100,000 people, that would take a much longer period of time. >> secretary shaheen? >> we are all getting promotions today. thank you. thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. i want to begin by sharing the frustration we have heard from

other members of this committee about the slowness with which we are providing assistance to ukraine. on the weapons aside, not just about the decision which aims to -- which seems to be taking a lot of time, but the other form of assistance that would be helpful to the ukrainian military. i had the opportunity to meet with representatives of ukraine. one of the things they talked about was -- i got into a back and forth with them about the reservations that have been expressed by this administration and chancellor merkel and other europeans about providing weapons and the extent to which that might escalate the conflict.

they said a couple of things that resonated with me. they were not sure that the conflict could be escalated to much worse than they expected to be. in fact, under the current circumstances, and that there was a real symbolic impact should we provide offensive defensive weapons that would have a real morale boost on the military and the people of ukraine. so, in our analysis of the pros and cons of providing defensive assistance, do we disagree with that assessment that there would be a symbolic impact to providing that help? i guess this is directed at either you secretary nuland or

brian mckeon. >> all of our assistance to the ukrainians is providing not just symbolic but real assistance. to support their government across the board, economic and security assistance. i'm not going to deny any assistance we provide would be of importance to the ukrainians. what i can say about what we have already provided and committed, it is meeting real ukrainian military needs. the armed forces were stripped bare by the corruption of the last regime. >> i appreciate that. i am not disagreeing with that at all. i'm expressing my frustration with the timeliness of providing that assistance and a decision about whether we are in fact going to provide defensive

weapons. do we think there is a point at which chancellor merkel would feel like the second minsk agreement has failed and that an effort to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict has failed and therefore we may need to think about other steps? >> we are in intense conversation with our allies about a common standard for measuring implication -- implementation with minsk and making sure the osc gives us all a clear picture of where the cease-fire is holding and where it is not. where weapons are being pulled back, so we can measure. we have talked with european allies about two things. not only seeing those things implemented, but also the danger of any future land grab, which is why i shouted out this

village. there is now this third concern, the continued resupply over the border, which is not compatible with either the spirit or letter of minsk. we need to watch all those things together. sanctions will have to increase in pressure will have to increase. >> as i know you all know, there was a european subcommittee hearing last week on ukraine. one of the concerns expressed was about the economic assistance. because if the economy of ukraine fails, then a resolution of the conflict probably is moot. but one concern we discussed was the ability of the ukrainian people to continue to support

the reforms that are being enacted. i'm wondering if you could speak to that. secretary nuland. >> thank you, senator. this is a real concern for ukraine's leaders, whether they are in the executive of the rad a. the kinds of intensive changes to the structure of the economy are going to have impacts in people's pocketbooks and people's lives. this is why we are working so hard with the imf that as ukraine takes these tough measures, the support comes in quickly so that the economy can stabilize and investment can come back and the people can see a light at the end of the tunnel. we have to get ukraine growing again. >> thank you. one of the other things mentioned at last week's hearing , and i guess that this question is probably for you.

the concern that putin might try to test the article five of nato countries. what kind of steps are we taking to try and deter putin? from thinking that he should test us. >> our commitment to article five is ironclad. to emphasize that, nato has enacted some reassurance measures which include increasing air, ground and sea forces in the eastern parts of europe. they are adapting their force structure with a task force, standing up what is called nato force integration units. these all come out of the wales conference, so it's a heads of state level commitment, and nato is moving forward with that.

the eri moneys authorized by the congress are also appreciated. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to echo the frustration you are hearing this morning. because of the intransigence of this administration, it seems to me that all of a sudden we are in an era where our allies don't trust us and our enemies don't fear us. ukraine gave up 1000 nuclear weapons on the assurance that their national security would be protected. nato and the united states was behind that. last september, the president promised to help ukraine buildup an effective security of force to defend themselves from aggression.

here we are talking about more delays to that support. a former u.s. ambassador to nato has written that this new cease-fire leads to a frozen conflict inside ukraine. this is exactly what the kremlin wants. do you think putin's objective is to create a frozen conflict like the ones in georgia? >> his objective is to keep ukraine destabilized so it does not join the west. he is threatened by progressive democracies on his border, in my opinion. he is trying everything he can to prevent that from happening. in response, as secretary mckeon and secretary nuland have pointed out, he has implemented a wide array of initiatives focused on generating pressure to try to

force the russians to stop this behavior and respect the territorial integrity of ukraine. >> thank you. from a strategic perspective russia has kidnapped and estonian intelligence officer. warned latvia of its consequences of treatment of ethnic russians. forcing sweden to reroute a civilian airliner to prevent collision with a military jet. and flown strategic bombers over the english channel. and sent unannounced formations of military aircraft into our airspace. i would like to follow up on the question about article five, but do you believe putin's strategy is to undermine nato's credibility to defend all its member states? >> i do. i think president putin would like to undermine the nato alliance and we are working hard to communicate to him the solidarity of the

alliance taking these steps to illustrate that solidarity. >> can you talk about what is being done by nato and east area, latvia and lithuania in regard to that? >> the reassurance measures being taken to include -- it include rotating forces through the baltic states, engage in those states and facilitating additional aircraft being stationed in those countries. nato a >> are flying over eastern europe. -- nato awacs are flying over eastern europe. ships are in the baltic and black seas. all of this is designed to bolster and underlined the article five commitments. >> we have said -- all four of you have said that the solution is diplomatic, economic and military. my question is on the sanctions. they don't have a consumer economy. russia doesn't have a consumer

economy. their banking sector can be hit and their military arms manufacturing sector. can you speak about what needs to be done from a sanctions perspective that can get his attention at this point? >> thank you for that question. the sectors he mentioned have been targeted through the sanctions. the defense sector and financial sector have been subject not only to sect oral sanctions -- sectoral sanctions. in the defense sector, there have been individual companies listed subject to asset freezes. they are part of the reason why the sanctions have had the effect they have had on the russian economy with the currency depreciating by more than 40%, the economy expected

to contract this year, inflation rising to over 17%. those sectors are very important and have been part of our tailored sanctions program and these are the effects we have seen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator murphy? >> thank you to the panel for being here today. senator mccain was in connecticut yesterday and we held a town hall meeting with the ukrainian american population and we had an overflow crowd, probably around 400 people. they raised some of the similar concerns raised here today but also expressed real and heartfelt appreciation for the fact that if it were not for the leadership of the united states rallying the international community, if it wasn't for our

leadership on rallying the international community towards a policy of sanctions, this story would have played out in a different way. this is a dire situation in ukraine today. many people understand what we have done thus far and its importance to continue -- i want to talk about some of the concerns many of us have about a policy of providing defensive arms. first is this question of what the budapest memorandum obligates the united states to do. already today, i have heard my colleagues talk about the budapest memorandum

obligating the united states to defend or obligating nato to defend ukraine from a territorial attack. it is important for us to know exactly what we are obligated to do when we sign these international agreements. maybe i will post this question to you, secretary it obligates each country to respect the territorial integrity of ukraine but is not a mutual defense treaty, does not obligate any of those countries to defend ukraine. it is not comparable to article five. it is important for us to understand if that is the case. >> as a native connecticut girl, i'm glad to see the connecticut ukraine americans are active in support of ukraine. i was part of the negotiating team that work on the budapest memorandum. it was a political agreement among the four signatories

notably the united states come u.k., russian federation and ukraine to respect the territorial integrity of ukraine , not to attack her. it did not have legally binding treaty force or legally binding national defense obligations. that said, it is russia that has miley did the spirit -- violated the spirit of that agreement. >> i want to talk about how circumstances on the ground would play out in the effect that we decide to give substantial defensive weapons to the ukrainians. the supposition is that putin is not paying a high enough price and the price you would pay in greater numbers of lives lost that he would not be able to cloak in secrecy with changes

-- would change his calculus. it is a chance and there is also significant chance that is not how things will go. he will continue his march straight through the lines we have fortified. i don't know if you are to this point in terms of your thinking or the proposals you have been making to the president and secretary. what would we do in the event that we provided a certain level of defensive weaponry, putin moved straight through the lines that we supplied? would we be in the position to have to send additional supplies , additional weapons? how does this play out in the case that it doesn't go the way we hope it goes whereby putin pays a bigger price, stops his

aggression or comes to the table? what happens if that does not work? >> without getting into the specifics of the internal debate , you have put your finger on the conundrum. from the beginning of this crisis, we have looked at ways to increase costs on president putin to deter further aggression and change his calculus. that is part of the thinking that goes into weighing whether additional weapons including lethal defensive would achieve that. does this raised the ante? i don't want to say does this provoking because he has that he doesn't need any provoking. what would ukraine feel that the united states owes them in terms of additional assistance? it is trying to see down the

field to the third and fourth move on this chessboard. >> i don't buy this argument that supplying ukraine with defensive weapons will provoke prudent. he has a plan that he will carry out. i just want to make sure and i think you were suggesting you are having these conversations we are playing this out not to step one but step two and three and four. speak to us about the greater challenge here. we are seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the tools that russia is using. our government is vastly under resourced to try to prevent the next ukraine from occurring. at the same time we are debating the assistance we should be giving to ukraine, we need to be having a discussion about how we

resource state and defense to help these other countries we are talking about, the baltics the balkans, georgia to make sure this is the last crisis of this proportion we face in the region. >> thank you for your attention. in addition to the security challenges, not only the challenges and ukraine and the other keeper periphery states like moldova and georgia and the alliance itself, there are all sorts of asymmetric challenges. the use of energy as a weapon come original cars us to work more intensively with the eu on energy diversification. we would like to be able to do

more to help bulgaria, hungary and croatia. we are doing a lot together with the eu. things like use of corruption as a tool to undermine sovereignty, whether you are talking about directly paying political candidates are just ensuring there is enough dirty money in the system to undercut democratic institutions or to make individual political actors vulnerable to outside pressure. we are working with countries to expose that and to close the corruption in their system. the propaganda which is not simply what you see in terms of news, but also under the table

efforts to some or that support -- efforts that support -- there is a lot to focus on particularly in the balkans where they are at risk, but also in allied territory. >> i do want to say that countries watching, the last exchange, from a person who helped write the budapest agreement, apparently it was a superficial agreement, only a political agreement. i would say that countries

watching that last exchange would be pretty reticent to come to any agreement with the united states, the u.k. and russia regarding nuclear arms. that last exchange would be a major setback to anyone who thought we were ever serious about an agreement relative to nuclear proliferation. >> the answer to that question is not reassure the allies, one of the phrases i heard in the testimony. the hearing we had last week in our european subcommittee -- i called that hearing to try to lay out and describe the story of what russia has become under vladimir putin. i would refer you to my opening remarks were we laid out a

timeline. 29 political assassinations. we saw the assassination of boris -- gary kasparov -- we have talked about the objectives of the vladimir putin. he rebuilt the police state in russia in full view of the world and is confident in his power to export that police state of broad. -- police state abroad. only this with an immediate action can stop putin's strategy to -- do you agree that is what vladimir putin is trying to do? if you don't agree, what is his strategy and overall goal? >> i certainly agree with the way he characterized his motive earlier in this hearing.

he is looking to keep countries in the former soviet space under his political and economic control. he is looking to roll back the gains of europe. which is why all the things we're talking about here, whether it's ally reinsurance making sure where we do have treaty commitments that every millimeter of spaces defended. also to help strengthen and provide more resilience. >> earlier in his aggression against ukraine, i heard a number of officials saying that we are offering an offramp to vladimir putin. does anybody on the panel believe that he is looking for

an offramp? he is simply looking for on ramps. anybody want to dispute that? >> i don't know that i would call it an offramp. there was a point earlier in the crisis were he arguably was trying to keep ukraine out of the west and keep it in 80 stabilize the situation. whether he seeks to go further and ukraine, i cannot say. -- and keep it destabilized. >> according to the ihs consultancy firm, the potomac institute, currently, 14,400 russian troops

on ukrainian territory backing up the 29,000 illegally armed separatists. there are hundreds of pieces of two and rocket artillery. there are 29,400 russian troops in crimera and 5500 along the border. is this the administration's assessment of what russian troop strength is in crimera and ukraine? collect senator johnson, without going into the specifics of the intelligence, on the number of russians in eastern ukraine, i -- he changes from week to week.

>> senator johnson, without going into specifics of the intelligence, on the number of russians in eastern ukraine, it changes from week to week. >> you are not saying that this is an accurate? >> i cannot say that the number is exactly right in terms of 14,000. in terms of the numbers on the border. there are 11 russian tactical battalion groups. >> they were concerned about a potential spring offensive by russia. secretary newland, you talked about them moving additional heavy equipment into russia. isn't that a bit concerned? -- a big concern? >> that is why we are seeking the greatest deal of fidelity as to whether this is being implemented so it can give us an accurate picture. that is why we are here calling out some of the specific concerns that we have, whether

it is about the rearming that we have seen in the last couple of days, whether it is the continued firing in strategically important villages. if things pull back, that will allow space for politics to begin in eastern ukraine. if not, we have to be prepared to have more sanctions and pressure on russia. >> i would argue that sanctions haven't worked. the comment was made that as russia becomes weaker economically, they become more dangerous. i kind of agree with that assessment which is why i believe we have to provide a military response, lethal defensive weaponry. he was there on the front lines

when russia invaded jordan. the bush and ministration, setting and supplies. without russia really not knowing what was on the cargo plane. certainly one of the factors in causing russia to stop further expansion into georgia. so, shaka spewing said that appointments from the far east are proof that the kremlin is rise to the -- they have a very thin later of tolerance for human casualties. if we would show some resolve, respond to president poroshenko's plea. they will provide the boots on the ground to fight vladimir putin's aggression but they cannot would with blankets. -- do it with blankets.

>> i think all of our witnesses. there is no question, there is some consensus that the united states needs to do more to help the ukraine defend themselves. i just want to make that clear from the beginning, the ukrainians need defensive support so they can defend themselves as far as weapons are concerned. this committee has spoken and many of us have voiced this. this committee has been pretty clear about our position in this regard. it is clear that we need to take strong action against russia. the tragic assassination of boris nemtsov points out how extreme the putin regime has gotten. what we can do, madam secretary,

and i would urge you to look at this. he exposed individual gross appropriations of russian rights. let us not forget, nadia --who was taken from ukraine i russia. there is continued efforts and the russian violations of the agreements including the cease-fire, i'm pleased to see you are looking at additional sanctions. understand that it will take u.s. leadership. if we wait for europe to act, it

will not be effective. we have to be out there, with our european partners, but it will require u.s. leadership. i want to change years, if i might. we have had a lot of questioning on the defensive issues. my assessment from visiting key of was that what happens in the protests of their, it was as much about basic rights and political rights. we have to make sure that they have been effective government with the institutions to protect the rights of all of the citizens to express their views and to be treated fairly, free from corruption, as well as economic opportunities that that country should be able to provide for its citizens. i know that the imf originally made a commitment in 2014, i think it was $17 billion, four and a half billion was released. they have a new commitment that

the injured into february this year. the united states has provided some direct assistance. how confident are you that the ukrainian government is moving towards the development of institutions critical for democracy to flourish and how successful they are on their path for economic reforms? >> i cannot agree more that what we saw reflects the desire of the ukrainian people for a better life including a better economic life. i think that one reason that we have been successful in mobilizing such a large international financial assistance for ukraine is because the actions that the government has taken reflects a decisive rate from the past.

their willingness to address subsidies and inefficiencies for their government spending. all of these are actions that the ukrainian government has put forward, not that the financial institutions have imposed on ukraine when secretary lou and myself have visited ukraine in the last couple of months, the departure from the past practices of ukrainian governments couldn't be more evident. so, our responsibility is to ensure that the international community and the united states

as part of the international committee is doing everything it can to support this reform agenda that the ukrainian government has embraced and has been embraced by huge legislative majorities with the recently elected ukrainian parliament. >> is there more that the united states should be doing? >> we think we have the right package right now. we are satisfied with the imf package. as we know, the u.s. has provided a $1 billion loan guarantee for ukraine last year, they will attempt to provide another one in the first half of this year and working with congress, they consider another $1 billion loan guarantee at the end of this year, so we appreciate congressional support for that. we have had europe and other bilateral donors increase their assistance to ukraine in recent

months. that is something that the senior officials within the treasury as well as the state department have worked on and we'll continue to work on. we think that this government merits continued support not only from the united states but other countries in the international situation. >> this must support account ability and progress being made into the governance issues. we will be patient, they must demonstrate their ability to carry out their verbal commitment. i would ask one last question and an assessment of the mission. >> thank you for your work. this is a tool of foreign policy and of european policy that was underutilized. without the eyes and ears of the osce, i would not have been able to give the rundown of where things are going well and where things are going poorly in the ukraine at the beginning of this

hearing. they are an unarmed force. they can only operate in a permissive environment. that is one of the challenges that they have, whether it was getting into secure the crash site or whether it is now working in separately withheld areas to get the kind of access that they need. that is what we have to continue to work on. we are trying to work now with european partners to make sure that every nation carries its weight in terms of fielding monitors, in terms of paying the budget increases that this requires, but also in terms of

the specialized skills. we now need monitors who know the difference between annex kind of artillery piece and a smart rocket and that kind of thing. >> the chairman and i were in a private meeting this morning so i cannot quote by name the individual but it is a very well-respected journalist and commentator in america who as asked questions, the greatest threat of u.s. security. they directly cited the threat of cutin as the biggest threat to the u.s. and the world. >> i would defer to the ic in their judgment of the current threats to united states security in terms of the terrorist threat. we are certainly worried about the negative trend with russia and what it is doing not just in ukraine but along europe's borders and the core of the

reason we have taken a lot of the reinsurance measures we have and thinking hard about making sure that the alliance commitment can be met, not just through the united states but through all of our nato partners. >> traditionally, a degree of threat is defined as capability and intent. the russians are world-class state with a world-class military. with intent, it makes it important that we do the kind of initiatives that we talk about this morning, to try to minimize the risk.

>> one of the benefits of old age is you have memories of life. i have memories of the u.s. cuban crisis and what kennedy did in response. and the potential of what is going on in the ukraine. finally, president kennedy put a blockade around cuba and called khrushchev possible off. i don't think we are at that place yet by any stretch of the imagination but you spend a lot of your careers looking into the future and saying, what if. what senator johnson was saying, what if things get worse, we need to be prepared to have the same kind of response to match the threat with the force necessary to support that threat. in my right or wrong?

>> senator, at the department of defense, we are always worried about the threats right in front of us and also the threats of the future and we do a lot of planning to look out ahead and the military monitors nation of russia and its activities in central europe have no doubt got the mind focused on looking ahead at various permutations of what russia might do. this is definitely an area of concern and we are giving a lot of thought and attention to. >> i know you have to be careful in your answer and i respect that and understand that but i think it is a fair enough comparison to underscore the need that the committee feels in its entirety for us to look down at possible calculations down the line and be prepared

confront power with power and threat with threat. admiral. >> readiness is absolutely key to deterrence. it is fundamental to what we do and it is coupled to, as the secretary has said, alliance solidarity. those are the best way to ensure stability and security. >> secretary nolan, i want to ask you a question for my own edification. would you consider russia's use of infinite supply of oil soft power?

>> certainly, it's use of energy as a weapon. i don't know if i would call it soft but it is certainly a tool of its influence? looks this is not a loaded question. but had there been a counterbalance to the supply in petroleum and gas that russia could supply in that part of the world? could that have forwarded what they have done? >> well, i think that their interest in controlling supplies of energy to europe is a factor, there were many other factors in play in russia's decision that it made. >> an alternative supply would have made possibly difference in how far russia went? >> i'm not trying to bait you. >> i think if ukraine had been able to be more energy independent earlier, it would have had more resilience and it would have had more ability to resist and that is one of the reasons why we are putting so much effort now into energy diverse, energy security for ukraine as well as for the rest of europe. >> it is important for us to understand that the national defense interest of developing all petroleum resources we can in the u.s., we have control to kind of balance with the russians are able to do in russia. thank you for your time and interest. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, thanks to witnesses.

i want to pick up on where senator isakson picked off and i have some questions. i've been a strong supporter of the economic sanctions against russia and i understand there has been early questions about the possibility of more sanctions in the energy sector. it seems that this is the tool that russia uses most. whether it is sanctions or helping nations that over rely on russia to have alternate sources of energy or develop their own sources, these are shy gza strongly support. senator johnson made a comment repeating some comments from a hearing last week and i am curious. to the extent that we are more successful on economic sanctions, to the extent that it extended time of low oil prices puts economic pressure on russia, there was some testimony that that makes russia more dangerous militarily and i would be curious as to your thoughts on that, i'm a supporter of

sanctions and energy pressure, but does that raise the risk of unpredictable military behavior? >> i don't know that it raises the risk or makes russia more dangerous, it is hard to understand the provocations and actions and dangers to the actions that president cuban has already taken. he will face some hard economic choices if oil prices stay down and the ruble continues in the direction it is going. he has a big investment. he will have to make some hard choices if he continues to sustain those investments. he will have to weigh that in terms of his internal politics. i know it is not exactly a democracy but he does have to pay attention to what is going on in the country and the public attitudes. >> any different positions? this is not something we should be overly concerned about if we decide to do more sanctions in the energy sector or take steps to help ukraine and other nations diversify their energy portfolio?

let me ask about the questions or this issue of the internal russian dynamic. we have given a lot of questions about how much the sanctions are having an effect, how the low oil prices are having an effect. we have seen statistics about capital outflow and about direct investment, devaluation of the ruble. what is the best that you can tell me now in an unclassified setting about the combined effects of either sanctions on oil prices on the internal political dynamic in russia today? >> the assistant secretary has given you some of the facts and figures that this policy has wrought, not only russia's phone

ability to the low oil prices because of their lack of economic diversification over the last 15 years but also as a result of sanctions. i think we have yet to see what the political impacts will be but we can clearly see from some of the statistics that russian kitchen tables are being hit now by these policy choices that the kremlin is making. when you hear the secretary talk about inflation at 15%-17%. when we have statistics of skyrocketing food prices across the russian space, 20%-40% in some places. we know that average russians are having difficulties paying for apartments and cars. we see imports way down. that goes to the point that the kremlin has prioritized their international adventure over the

quality of the life of their own people and at what point that has an a political effect, we will see. >> the question about where will oil prices be in a year. this is something we should be worried about. there are people that have to make that speculation. some of the productions that -- projections that the oil prices would stay the same. if we are a year and the oil prices have stated this historically low level, talk about what you would predict that you would see in terms of the internal russian economic dynamic and we can draw the line between that and likely political feelings. >> i think it is important to recognize that the economic outcomes that we have seen in russia have really been an interaction between what we have seen in oil and the impact of economic sanctions. higher oil prices would definitely be a positive for the russian economy. i think it is relevant to look at what both moody's and s&p have done to russia's credit

rating. russia has been downgraded to junk for the first time since 2003-2004. the responsibility of agencies like moody's and s&p is not to react to what the oil price is today but to think about how russia's economy is being managed, what the impact of sanctions is, and how that affects the russian government's ability to meet its obligations not only to foreign creditors but to its people. and so, i think if we saw higher oil prices, and i will not speculate on oil prices like you mentioned, but i think that even if we see oil prices rise, the

combination of economic mismanagement and the impact of sanctions has cost the shadow on the russian economic aspects that is expected to persist and one manifestation of that is the decision of the rating agencies to designate russian debt as junk. >> thank you, mr. chair. i don't have any other questions. >> thank you all for being here. secretary newland, in your statement, you outlined the goal as threefold. first, we want these, then political normalization, then a return to borders. the question i have is how realistic, and the hope that minsk would offer that promise with peace coming first as a

precondition for all of these things. how realistic is that goal given the goals that putin has himself. i think the goal that putin has, is not about the ukraine, it is but completely we the post-cold war, post soviet border in europe. it is not just about ukraine. in the context, he was to weaken, divide, and force nato to fall apart. he has openly said that they believe that they need to establish a sphere of influence and not just throughout the

former soviet space but also in former warsaw type packed countries. this is just the excuse that he uses moving forward. the ultimate goal is to reorder the post soviet order in the region and to carve out for russia a strategic space for themselves, for influence. in light of that, why should we have any hope that these cease-fires were hold given that we know what his goals are? maybe, this is why there has been arguments that we should not go on sanctions alone because a good cause friction with the european union and

split us with them. he might agree to a cease-fire to consolidate gains or to try to create a point of friction between hoping that we will jump out ahead of the europeans and create that. ultimately, his goal unquestionably is to completely rearrange the order in this area and carveout a russian sphere of influence. how is it realistic knowing that about him to think that he is ever going to allow stabilization to return to ukraine and if he will ever return back to the borders given that we know what their goal is. he's a criminal and a thug, he is also a determined one. so, why should i feel optimistic that there's any chance of that happening given the goal that he has now unless the cost benefit analysis changes for him? >> i will not dispute any of your analysis, i will simply say that minsk is a test for russia. russia signed it, the separatist signed it, it is also a choice for russia. if fully implemented, it would bring back sovereignty and territorial it integrity. now, we have to test. as i said, the record is mixed and we have to be ready. both for the opportunity for success but also to impose more significant costs on russia with our european partners if minsk is violated. either because the agreement is not implemented or because there is a further landgrab, or because the separatists are further armed.

>> what is wrong with laying out clearly exactly what we're going to do if that test fails? if this test fails, we will arm the ukrainians. by the way, as a sovereign country, ukraine has a right to defend itself against any aggression. in fact, we are trying to strengthen the writ of that government, part of that to provide for their own defense. we should be doing that anyways. is it the position of the ministration that we will lay out a clear picture about what the specific sanctions will be and what specific military aid we will provide a fresh a fails? >> i think in my opening, i made clear that we are working with the europeans to map out the costs. we generally don't signals those in advance but we are prepared. with regard to security assistance, we are continuing to evaluate that based. >> continue work on denying access to russia the swift system? >> generally we don't discuss in a public forum any specific measures, but we discuss a whole

range of things as we are evaluating it. we look at the impact it would have on russia as well as the spillover that would have on the global economy of the united states and of our european partners, but i don't want to, than any specific action. >> irrespective, my question is -- maybe i don't expect you to comment on this, but irrespective of whether russia adheres to minsk or not, is it not the fact that we want to stabilize ukraine, and give the ability to defend themselves to

aggression that may exist? we understand the absence of it invites aggression and the future. why is it a bad idea to provide them defensive systems irrespective? is there an argument to be made against providing defensive weapons irrespective of how the cease-fire turns out since we are trying to help them stabilize government, and part of that has to be the ability to provide for the national defense. >> as you know, we have provided a range of security assistance in the nonlethal situations, because the armed forces were not fully stripped bare but they were left lacking by the corruption of the last regime. i expect long pass this crisis we will have a defense partnership with the government of the ukraine. at the present time, defense of

lethal options are being reviewed but it is not something on offer at the present time. >> i have heard some commentary even among putin's critics within russia, there are those who do not support giving defensive weapons to the ukraine because that would lead to the death of russians and they cannot support that, the washington post had commentary from opponents. putin says there are no russian troops in the ukraine. if we provided -- if that is true he has nothing to worry about. >> as i make clear my opening not only did we believe that there are russian forces in the ukraine, we believe they are responsible for command and control, arming, financing this conflict. theythere are many hundreds of russian debt in the ukraine. it poses a threat for the

kremlin at home. >> one quick point. i read in your statement is it not accurate that at as these coffins are returning to russia, russian families of the dead are being told not to comment on it or they will be denied death benefits. >> i did say that here. >> thank you mr. chairman. think the year testimony. madam secretary the budapest memorandum was basically a way to entice the ukrainians to give up their nuclear weapons, is that a fair statement? >> ranking member menendez, the primary intent was for russia to get russia to assure ukraine that it would not seek to take

advantage of ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity so ukraine thought that political guarantee primarily from russia. there was never an intent to have treaty obligations. >> i gather that from your answer to senator murphy. it was a political agreement right? yes. so we also signed that political agreement so while you say the concern for ukraine was russia, not seeking to attack it or interfere with its territorial integrity, if it gave up its nuclear weapons right? that is the essence of what was induced. is that not fair to say? they wanted the guarantee from russia and we just join with great britain another's to give them further comfort in this

political agreement. it was to give up their political weapons. otherwise, their nuclear arms, otherwise there was no reason for such an agreement. >> they also sought assurance from the other nuclear powers, united states and great britain, that we would not seek to exploit ukrainian sovereignty and we obviously have not done that. >> the whole purpose of it was to guarantee territorial integrity, and not to face the threat from any of these powers, if it did what? give up its nuclear weapons? >> of course. >> how is this agreement different than the one we are trying to strike with iran? is it basically the agreement we are trying to strike with iran a political agreement? it is not a treaty agreement. >> i am not qualified to get into the interest of the deal we

are tried to strike with iran. >> i'm not asking about the intricacies of the agreement. that is for another time with another panel. the question is, it seems to me that what we have heard from the administration as it relates to iran is to say that it is not going to be a treaty therefore the congress has no need to have a say. it is going to be basically a political agreement. if that is the case, the we need to know the nature of what that means, as i see it unfolding here in the budapest memorandum which was a political agreement ultimately to entice the ukrainians to give up their nuclear weapons, which they did the understanding that all of these powers were not going to affect the power integrity.

i don't see the difference. i do think it is very much on point. it raises concerns from yes to where we are going in that regard. you tell me you are not capable of answering that question. >> with regard to the budapest political commitment, the united states of america lives of its dish lives of to his commitment under budapest. i think one can be reassured by our behavior vis-à-vis budapest. >> we have certainly, nor do we have any intention of interfering with ukraine territorial integrity. the reason we joined is to give comfort, support and the ukrainians would think, that in fact that political agreement with these three powers, because the radiance didn't think we

would invade their territory was that we would be supportive of their security, and their territorial integrity, but that at this point, while we have not done anything to enter here with its integrity, the ukrainians would feel far short of what that agreement meant, and in terms of the actual implementation, select the end of the day it is a political agreement that can be interpreted as those who signed it wish to interpret it. that is i think a challenging proposition. >> i very much appreciate the line of questioning our ranking member put forth. this has been a very good hearing. we thank you for the testimony. it has been very unsatisfying to mean.

i would ask the secretary who meets with people consular around the world, surely on the heels of us never doing the things we said we would with freeing the syrian rebels, and now we are aware of this budapest memorandum, knowing the administration, i assume this is another decision that sets -- sits on the president's desk, unsigned. this has to have affected our credibility with others around the world. i would love to have your sense of that, and how damaging our lack of ability to make simple decisions, they have complex outcomes with the decisions themselves, relatively simple. certainly highly some or did by congress.

we are all in this together should a decision be made, but i would like to get your sense of how badly on the heels of a we never did in syria, on a redline that was never adhered to which is so important to world stability. i would like to know how it is affecting us with others. >> chairman, i would say with regard to my patch, europeans do see the strong bipartisan bicameral support for ukraine whether it is on the economic side or the security side, per capita we have done -- we have done far more than most nations to support ukraine. i do think that our leadership in this is recognized.

we are having as spirited debate as this ongoing questions, there is a transatlantic debate. that question gets asked also in our diplomacy. europeans come out it at both sides depending on where they said. >> we are one of the record open for questions and move into the second panel area i would just say that i have very much enjoyed our conversation. you have been very forward with your statements regarding the ukraine. i think that needs to be done and that has been appreciated very much by most of us. i would have significant difficulty coming to work each day with these decisions lingering in the way that they have, and not taking the steps that many people within the

administration as i understand it feel need to be taken. yet we continue for some reason not to do those things. we have acted as if we might do. i have a number of other nations that i will send in writing. in all cases you are messengers and not the ones that have the decisions on your desk. we thank you for your service to our country and appreciate your candid testimony. our first witnesses former assistant secretary of state and foreign u.s. ambassador to journey -- germany and as you are getting seated and comfortable, we will begin with ambassador korn long --

cornlow. [no audio] >> i do want to thank you for being here in particular. you are a national of tennessee. we are always glad to have bright people from nashua, tennessee. if you would begin, i would appreciate it. >> thank you. you may even be more pleased to learn, i have direct contact with chattanooga, tennessee. the mayor is going to be at a meeting i am managing to talk

about the tremendous success chattanooga has had in revitalizing the city and supporting entrepreneurship there. i think you had a little bit to do with that. i have heard that. i am pleased to be here both because of tennessee and also because these are issues that i worked upon a law in the 1990's. i was the assistant secretary during this. not the budapest paper but most of the others. to you and to ranking member menendez i am pleased to be here . i have a very special point to make. you have heard in very extremely good detail, about how our government sees things.

i think there is one thing we need to think about which senator rubio in particular talked about that is the direction of this conflict, and the definition of this conflict. my own view is, and i have been living in germany for a long time now, after i stopped being ambassador, i think that i can say with a certain amount of accuracy that whatever we are doing in ukraine and with russia, we are losing the public affairs battle on this crisis. the narrative, as we say in the journalistic world. the narrative that is most prevalent in the united states even more so in europe, is that this is a russia which is reacting angrily because it was cheated, misuse by the west

after 1990. i think it is important that we focus on this fact because many of the decisions, and i will say couple points about that, will depend on whether the russians believe that they have the upper hand on believe they have the upper hand on this and whether we can maintain that we have the strong direction. the fact is that after 1990, we dealt with the russian leadership, we saw the collapse of the soviet union as liberation and not as a western attack on russia and they knew exactly what our plans were. we talked to them in great detail about it. we didn't talk to them about details of nato or e.u. enlargement but we certainly told them that our goal for them and for europe was to establish

democracy, establish free-market systems and to allow russia to join the western world, and on many of the discussions i had, the ambassador was long and i think he can attest to this we worked very hard to make this point not only clear but to establish things to make it real and now 20,25 years later, for me the narrative of this crisis is not whether russia somehow is now a wounded power but the fact that the united states, three administrations in connection also working with the congress have established between the baltic states and now hopefully ukraine also and the south a community of nearly a billion persons which is democratic,

which is secure, which is oriented towards free markets and which wants to be part to have the western and the atlantic world. now, i say this so precisely because we have to remember what the situation was 25 years ago. 25 years ago we had the western part of the continent democratized. the eastern part was to put it mildly, a mess. when we first came in to establish relation with the new governments in poland, czechoslovakia hungary we found they had hardly any of the basic conditions for modern industrial western society, so the cooperation within nato and with strong leadership of these countries have -- has, in fact, succeeded and many of the reasons that we have this conflict with russia right now is not because ukraine violated orders or not because russia has somehow felt threatened by the

west. it is because russian -- leadership in russia after the beginning of this century has covered its own misdeeds, its own poor performance with an increasingly totalitarian system. and they're finding that the countries on their affirmativery and also until recently, much of their population wanted to join the west and not maintain an eastern orientation. this suggests, for example, that entering into negotiations with the russians over how to conclude this crisis are not very relevant at the moment. there isn't any new security system which we can offer the russians which wouldn't include influence in these very countries we're trying to protect. there isn't any military

arrangement with which we can enter into with the russians can help defend the countries to the east who have become democratic. there's no new political forum which would change the fact that the real reason that putin and his co-horments and russia in general feel threatened at the moment is not because of anything we've done and not because of nato sanctions although i favor them but because of things we've discussed here today. the oil price. russia's lack of investments in the high-tech sector. russia's inability to build an infrastructure necessary for a modern industrial economy, etc., etc. it also, i think has to do with the fact that russia has in also failed to have the political

leadership since 2000 which helped its population come out of the shock of the end of the cold war and to understand how closely its interests are involved with being part of the west. so we have a situation now which is important for all the reasons that our government officials mentioned to you today. they gave, i thought a very comprehensive view of what's going on. but we are in effect facing an even larger challenge, a challenge which is not only a challenge to europe but a challenge actually across the entire world, and that is that russia is -- whether consciously or by accident, is taking account of a growing unease around the world at the dislocations caused by what's caused globalization what is the modern information technology world. what is happening with the

dislocation of industries, etc., etc., and that the russians have been able to harness this dissatisfaction in their own country. but i can tell you with a lot of experience. i've been living in berlin now for 17 years and am still very politically active there. that these arguments are also having an in effect western europe and also in other parts of the world. one of the senators mention that would russia is financing with very large every time movements in western europe who are anti- democratic, who are trying to undermine the western system, and russia is also continuing to threaten in one way or the other the weakest points of our system such as the baltic states, such as the republic of georgia, write worked quite diligently in

recent years. and so we are facing not just the question -- and it's a very important question -- i mentioned to senator murphy that my wife grew up in hartford, connecticut. she's very aware of the election there twice already so we are very committed to ukraine but the real challenge of this crisis is that russia, after immense efforts on the part of the west. and i must say immense efforts have broken out of the channel of unity and cooperation among the countries of europe and is now adapting an anti-western awe -- but ultimately that means anti-globalization and anti-american approach and to turns importance of this. there was an extremely good article in the "washington post"

this week talking about the rhetoric that's being used inside china about the west. it turns out to be almost word for world the same rhett rake -- rhetoric that russia is using. the same rhetoric is heard in the middle east and even in india, which we consider to be a very important partner, putin has been visiting and the indian leadership more or less agreed with many of the things he was saying. so we're talking about not just a problem with russia, which is an important one. we're talking, and that's what i mentioned to senator rube yo, about a wearing away at the found -- town days -- foundations of the western community in europe but even more so, a wearing away of the ability that the west is going to have to influence control, if you will, the content of the new globalized world which is coming up. and so that's the main

consequence that i see in this conflict. my final point would be, i'm very appreciative of your personal efforts to increase our information budgets. to have radio free europe be more active and i think that winning back the narrative and using tools such as the ones you're financing is almost as important as considering military support for ukraine, which i support very strongly. will you thank you. >> thank you. ambassador? >> chairman corker. thank you very much for testifying. it's an honor to be here. i've been asked to talk about -- -- >> sorry. >> ok. i've been asked to talk about kremlin aggression on ukraine and how to counter it. we need a wilder lens to take it on properly. there are influential people in the united states and especially

in europe who do not understand the gravity of this crisis because they think the crisis is simply about ukraine and moscow's aggression there. with that narrow understanding they oppose to strong measures necessary to counter kremlin aggression and to secure vital american interests. not simply important interests. the question we face, as i think almost every senator today said a crisis of critical lynn revisionism. mr. putin does want to overturn the post cold war order. this order has been the foundation of the unprecedented peace and prosperity that not just europe but the entire world has enjoyed the past 25 years. mr. putin has stated he must have a sphere of influence in not just the post russian war but the warsaw pact countries and he has the fight to protect russians wherever they preside.

mr. putin possesses the world's sixth largest economy, one of the world's two largest nuclear arsenals. mr. putin has committed multiple acts of aggression in georgia in 2008, in crimea early last year and since april of last year he's been conducting an increasingly overcovert war in ukraine's east. in this covert war he has escalated intervention multile times, agreed to two cease-fires and violated each one of them. his goal in ukraine is what the admiral said earlier today, to destabilize the country. but to achieve that and this is not clearly understand -- -- understood -- he cannot settle for a frozen conflict. he needs to be regular lay on the offensive, albeit with tactical pulses. -- pawses. he has made clear by his

statements and action, if a that if he squeeze in ukraine, there will be future targets. recent kremlin provocations include the kidnapping of an estonia intelligence official from estonia and what that happened on the day that the nato summit ended last september. they claimed the seachture of an international ship from the baltic seas. he's telling the baltic states and all the other states you are not secure even if members of nato. we have to stop these policies before they move to other countries, especially to the baltic states. i think it was senator issac son who said that the kremlin menace is the most important national security measure we face today.

i endorse that high heartedly. is ill is a ragtag bunch of terrorists. a serious danger to -- danger to individual meshes, not an existential threat to the united states. moscow is an extenl threat to the united states. even aaron -- iran with its nuclear program is not as big a threat as the world's two largest nuclear powers on the move. if westerners clearly understood this they would devote more funds to dealing with and it draw a line to putin in ukraine. to date, western policy has been slow reactive and all too concerned about giving mr. putin a graceful way out of the crisis and not sufficiently -- sufficiently focused on coasts -- costs that would make it too

expensive for him to continue his aggression. we had a very distinguished panel the first two hours but they were all too aact -- reactsive to slow approach. we need to do things that work on putin's weaknesses. strong sanctions are part of this. with esm to deal with mr. putin's economy. we must persuade mr. putin by -- that by announcing strong, additional sanctions for aggressions to come -- i think it was senator rube yo who said why can't we tell mr. putin now what will happen? he asked a very good question. we need to have sanks in place now if he moves again. that way it may deter him but if it doesn't it will weakening his economy, weaken his political support at home and give him fewer resources for his next aggression. i give the obama administration

three good marks for dealing with sanctions. the other area we need to work on is on the security side. mr. putin has a serious vulnerability. the russian people do not want russian troops finding in ukraine. -- fighting in ukraine. that's why he's lying to him. that's why the families of the russians are told if you tell the neighbors these folks your sons fought and died in ukraine you will not get benefits. with -- if we provide defensive lethal equipment to ukraine, that means that either mr. putin will be detered from going further into ukraine because he doesn't want to risk the political fallout of the craurnlts or if he goes further into ukraine, he suffers those casualties, his support at home will weaken. this is a compelling reason to give weapons to ukraine. some people who argue against

this say if we do that he will simply escalate. programs but if he escalates again, he suffers more casualties he weakens his support and he has fewer resourcings with which to pursue aggression beyond ukraine. i was a one of group of eight former officials who produced a report on this we suggest giving ukraine $1 billion a year for each of the next three years, $3 billion of weapons total. the report provides the details. i want to mention just two elements of that. one, we should be providing anti-armor equipment because the russians have used mass tanks in order to commit their aggression in ukraine. we should also be providing counter battery radar for missiles because ukrainians have suffered 70% of their casualties from russian missiles. we're giving them anti-counter

battery radar for mortars. they're needed for missiles. we also need to keep in place the sanctions for the seizure of crimea. is and the atlantic council just released a report of substantial russian human rights violation is in crimea. two other essential elements of our policy. we need to do more in nato to bolster the deterrence to russian aggression against the baltic states. the administration and nato have taken some good stems forward. we also talked about creating this rapid reaction force and deploying a company of soldiers to the baltic states. that's a nice first step but it's very small. we should put a battalion intos tonea and the other baltic states properly armed as a serious trip wire against further russian aggression. we need to make sure that nato

has a contingency plan dealing for a war in the baltic states. especially vulnerable is a russian-speaking enclave of estonia. finally, we need to do the right thing in the information war against russia. john mentioned that. i know this committee supports additional funding for radio free europe and radio liberty. this is important for offsetting the massive russia propaganda campaign. these four steps will give us a good good start in stopping mr. pulet than ukraine, making sure he doesn't go beyond ukraine. again, this is a vital american interest. >> thank you both for outstanding testimony and i'm going to defer questions at this moment to senator menendez.

>> thank you platform, and thank you both to your -- mr. chairman and thank you both if -- to your service at other times. always great to welcome a fellowen thian. we have a great tennessean here is your chairman and we should all be very proud of him. i think you've laid out a pretty compelling case, probably done it better than i've been successful at trying to do in terms of the importance of it. you spent time in kiev as our ambassador, had a lot of time to obe president putin's behavior towards his neighbors. i think you largely already referred to his intentions but would you expect for example, if unchecks -- unchecked, russian forces to move into mari

pal? >> mr. putin cannot expect a frozen conflict. then ukraine could develop as a stable democratic pros rouse state and that's what he's against. that's the most likely target but not the only one. he could move further into the northern participates. russians have been conducting a terror campaign in harkev but they've been unable to establish -- the russians have been unable to establish a clear presence there. they'll probe there. they'll move wherever they can with the least crarblets to themselves and the least uproar in europe. we need to provide ukraine the means to stop that from happening. otherwise he'll continue to go forward. >> let me ask you to answer questions that are often posed

in a contrary view to mine, that providing defensive lethal weapons to ukraine would create serious problems with europe or that providing such weapons would just lead russia to further escalate. what would you say in response to those questions? >> i'll start with the second because the answer is quicker. mr. putin escalated half a dozen times because he's had no pushback. you push back the chance of him escalating go down. that's the second question. the first question -- i watched very carefully the chancellor merkel's visit to washington in february. she said "that she opposing sending weapons to ukraine." she also said that if the united states were to do that she would work hard to make sure that there's no transatlantic disease harmony. that is an amber light, a like which we can't go through

because she understands the united states may ultimately make the intelligent decision to provide ukraine the weapons to defend himself. i don't have any doubt that we could manage the alliance in this what you need the strong leadership, which unfortunately we have not seen. strong leadership from washington in europe and nato. with that, this is manageable. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> jim, i apologize for not having questions at this moment. i have to get to a meeting at 12: this has been a very long but a very informative meeting. i want to thank you both for your testimony and we'll have some written questions we'd like for you to respond to. i do think the strategy you've laid out, ambassador is very clear, very helpful. i think, ambassador kornblum, the insights into what's driving russia were also very helpful. we appreciate yo both your as

much as to our country for being here as an asset as we try to serve our country. with that, this meeting -- the questions i guess will be open until march 12 so if people have questions they'll send those in and hopefully you'll respond promptly to those. we thank you again for being here. the meeting is adjourned. >> hillary clinton spoke to reporters today about her use of a personal email account for official business while she was secretary of state. you can see her news conference here on c-span at 7:30 eastern. until then, a conversation from this morning's washington journal. >> joining us now from environment and energy news, a reporter for that publication to talk about jobs specifically relating to the oil and energy industry. what's happening in that industry? guest: it's been a wild ride.

prices have fallen to the $50 or $60 a barrel range over the last few months. that's causing especially independent drillers. they're cutting back production, laying off workers. not expanding as quickly as they thought they would. there's a lot of effect sket on this on the drillers. host: especiallyically when it came to oil and gas ex-traction losses. the support activities, 440,000. relate those numbers to the past couple of months. have we seen decreases? guest: yes, in pretty much all of those areas you just displayed. i was looking at that report yesterday. in the last year some of the biggest losses have been in coal mining refiners' oil and gas, exploration production, all

sectors that have been down over the last month, over the last year. host: and this is directly related to as far as the cost of oil or production going down? guest: oil prices going down is a good thing for consumers. you have more money to spend on groceries, rent, keep, etc. that's not great for an oil campaign because the price you pay is the price they're bringing in that they use to fund their activities to expand and keep growing. host: as far as jobs are concerned, who's directly effected? guest: the most immediately effects right now are the frontline, the guys working the rigs. you don't need the workers and you're seeing those effects in communities, north dakota, texas, the oil patch.

host: those two states primarily or are there others as well? guest: louisiana is another big oil-producing state. they rely a lot on offshore. that's a longer time frame so they're not feeling the pinch as immediately but anywhere there's oil and gas ex-traction -- host: jobs in the energy sector, the topic or -- for our last segment. if you want to speak to nick juliano, call our number. so is it only when we'll see a resurgence in the cost of price per barrel for oil we'll see more jobs coming back or are there other factors to blame? guest: the stimulus you get is offsetting the trouble in the srge -- energy sector in terms of broader economic impact.

the overall story is not necessarily a bad one in terms of price projection, there's always uncertainty but i don't think many analysts are expecting it to get back to $100 a barrel where it was last year anytime soon. so drillers are eswallow -- evaluating their businesses and trying to figure out how to live in more or less the range they'll be in nor a while. host: aside from jobs cuts what other choices? guest: production costs. doing less. i'm sure there are all sorts of financial strategies that could employ. readjust their expenses or manage their books that way. there are a lot of smart guys in houston and new york trying to figure that out right now. host: as far as all the minerals, where are we keeping that if we have such a glut? host: there are storage tanks in

various places around the country. cushing, oklahoma is the one that people tend to talk about the most. but they're scattered about. there are big oil drums you can keep it stored and we're running out of that space. host: if we see jobs in the mining area, is the refining area protected as well because it does a different type of thing when it comes to oil? guest: not necessarily. they have thin profit margins. we saw in the latest jobs report for products manufacturing, a decrease over the last month. so it's affecting the entire sector. host: the oil industry, jobs being affected because of lower gas prices. our guest is here to talk about it. the line is on your screen.

gary from madison, tennessee. hi, gary. caller: how are y'all today? host: fine, go ahead. caller: it's kind of a complex question but you say the oil prices have something to do with the reinvestment in the profits and what have you. my question is whenever the prices drop or they rise, they still -- the market is based on what, you know what the overall prices are so why does the profits rise or fall based on what the oil people have to pay for the price of it -- or it's kind of confusing why all of a sudden they lose all their profit and their ability to reinvest because all of a sudden the consumer is getting a better

issue in terms of profitability of oil production depends on where you are drilling oil and what type of oil you are drilling and what process you are using. it is known as the breakeven price. in places like north dakota, that breakeven price is higher than it is for offshore drilling in the gulf of mexico. the nature of the reserves you are drilling sort of smaller wells, but more of them when you are doing shell explosion as opposed to offshore drilling where you are drilling one well and depleting it for a longer. -- a longer amount of time. when oil drops and it cost you $48 to produce several, you do not have a lot of profit compared to what it is $100 a barrel. host: from north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning.

as far as the price of gas goes, i hate to say but i would rather have it low. with the guest: it's tough to say. keystone gets a lot of attention outside of the actual overall effect it would have on the industry itself. it is a transportation project that would bring primarily crude from the oilsands in canada to the gulf coast. it would help producers in canada have another outlet to reduce their transportation costs and increase production. some north dakota oil would be carried as well. the state department says it would create a few thousand jobs in terms of construction and the inducements that activity has

graded there are only 35 permanent jobs. it is a small piece of what is happening in the energy space. host: this is one of the recent headlines. that is the topic of our conversation. our guest is nick juliano. will this eventually collapse the gas market? guest: i don't think we are there yet are in they will have to fall farther. itwhen it gets to that point, it would come back up. there is an equilibrium and i think that's what the market is trying to find, where the price will settle for a long. of time. host: joe from west virginia, you are on. though ahead. caller: i would like to make a comment and ask a question. i am retired coal miner.

energy has a lot of ups and downs. the price that the people who live around weste virginia is karen this. we have had major layoffs. there were 120,000 coal miners in west virginia. today there are less than 15,000 in the united states. you should come look at what it's done to southern west virginia. my question is, president obama has put $2 billion in two the budget to retrain all minors and absorb some of this devastation. the republican congress does not want to help rid what you think about --. what do you think about that? guest: that is an area that has

gotten some pushback from the obama administration and the environmental community. they have pulled out their financing. there was a story that pnc bank has announced they will not be financing mountaintop removal anymore. that is a trend that we are seeing it, putting pressure on those activities. in terms of worker retraining, republicans are putting together an energy bill. the chairwoman of the senate energy committee is on a parallel track. they are putting together legislation. they have put up a few details. one is to focus on workforce development and what to do with worker training pieces. i don't know exactly what the obama administration proposes in

terms of targeting west virginia. there is an effort to establish more jobs on both sides of the aisle. the issue is republicans would prefer home miners to remain co-minors and democrats would prefer them to become solar panel installers or some other green job like that. host: this is can't. caller: two questions for you. the strategic reserve in louisiana, is that topped off now? secondly, to me, this is all a game. our gasoline prices have been as low as $1.70 six weeks ago and now we are up to $2.40 yesterday. oil prices have not gone up. is there any legitimate explanation to justify the increase in gasoline prices? guest: there are a lot of

factors that go into gasoline prices and oil prices are less than half. there is local demand and various aspects like that. it is case-by-case. i don't know the particulars of your of the woods and why they would have gone up at sharply. oil prices have been trending upwards in the last few weeks. in terms of the strategic trolling reserve, that is mostly -- the troll he him reserve, that is mostly full. they wanted to make sure that if we ever needed to tap it, the infrastructure is available in terms of type lines to get the oil out of the sbr and get it where it is needed. it tends to make economic sense to refill it when prices are low and cap it when prices are high.

i don't know if there is anything ongoing to change the reserve as it stands. host: it is about $50 a barrel for oil currently. they expect the drop in the coming weeks. some analysts think by the end of the second order -- quarter it will be $41. guest: there are two major benchmarks. the domestic benchmark is west texas intermediate. that is cheaper than the international benchmark. the issue is referring to the call about gasoline prices, they tend to be set on the international market. that may also explain some of the discrepancy that people have seen. host: this is jewel. caller: i was calling in to find out why is it that we complain

and cry about big oil companies and big jobs losing their jobs and when a grocery store in our neighborhood closes or a chicken plant closes and we lose those jobs, nobody is crying. in the old days when switchboard operators lost their jobs because of progress, that's what it means. progress means you are going to lose jobs. i told them to go to mcdonald's like they told me. guest: she raises a good point. we live in a dynamic economy. people lose and get jobs all the time. i'm sure the workers at the chicken plant were upset and making some noise in the local community when they lost their jobs. there are macroeconomic a floor -- forces that affect all of this. host: the house national resources committee talked about

the proposal to open up some offshore areas. let's listen to what he had to say and put some perspective on it. >> the bottom line is the administration releases things that are unwanted by the industry. they are bound for litigation. in the atlantic ocean -- >> the brown area is the program area for the new leasing that could start as soon as 2017. >> it was already suggested in 2005. it is the least amount that you can propose. not necessarily going forward. that's ridiculous. this administration spends most of its time taking issues off

the table. if we want to move forward as a nation we've got to develop offshore and federal property and federal energy development. it can be done while reserving the environment at the same time. it's not an either or proposition. guest: he gets that long-standing dispute over what part of the federal state should be open to energy development and what should be preserved. it's a dance that both parties go through. in terms of the administration did, they open some areas off the east coast, there was some bipartisan support. at the same time, they took away some areas in alaska that raised some concerns from mr. bishop and the senator from alaska.

they had quite a bit to say about that. they always try to balance the interests of various stakeholders. environmentalists would prefer that the entire east coast be shut off. host: arnold is on the democrat line. you are on. arnold, go ahead. caller: about a year ago i think it was c-span had on the head of greenpeace. he made the following statement. he said if the world's temperature rises another 3.5 degrees, it's over. i think he said something like 95% of all surface drilling species will die, including us. we are on track to reach that increase within 60 years if we

continue burning fossil fuel the way we have been for the last 50 or 60 years. he said we still have time to stop it. the only way to stop it, there is just one way to stop the temperature from rising another 3.5 degrees. that is to leave two thirds of the oil that is in the ground in the ground. you can't bring it up or burn it. what would it do to the economy of the world if there was a way to within 10 years switch over from using fossil fuel to running vehicles electric, powered by a clean source? would that destroy the world's economy? before you answer, let me end this with a statement. what would it do to everyone's attitude about everything to see

evidence of god within the structure of the text of my book . guest: thanks. in terms of switching the economy away from oil and gas the figures you site come from bill mccibbon, he is a well-known activist. he is very active on climate change. he wrote an article in rolling stone crunching the numbers taking what fossil fuels tout and figured out the content from burning all of those and what you need to stay below 3.5 degrees. that is what he came up with.

in terms of transitioning to electric vehicles, there are thousands of entrepreneurs out there trying to figure out how to do that. elon musk is the most well-known one. tesla has several electric cars on the market. they are interested in energy storage, which will be incredibly important for deploying renewable resources. this transition is underway. it will continue in any number of venues. host: you are on next. caller: i want to let you know that every oil company is not exxon. a lot are owned by small families and they have maybe 100 employees. my family has worked in the oil industry for 20 years in different places. it's not just drilling a well

and then it's over with. there are well tenders. there are the people who do the paperwork and the lawyers. there are mechanics. there are surveyors. it takes five years to get a well drilled and several million dollars. you might get a dry well. host: how has your family been affected in the drop in oil prices? caller: the company my husband works for laid off people immediately. they are trying to sell more of their property to keep it going. you can't just walk away from an oil well. you have to have people to take care of it. even if you downsize as far as you possibly can, people have to keep the grounds up into the well. you have to pump the well or take care of it to make sure it doesn't leak. there is a lot that goes into it. they are not drilling.

host: thanks. guest: kathy raises an interesting point. there are a lot of independent people in west virginia. there are shale drillers in oklahoma and texas. they are small and dependent and it's a risky business. you can have a whole and have nothing come out of it at the end. you have money that you literally dug into the ground. those are the companies that are hurting the hardest, especially in the immediate aftermath of the price job. the bigger guys and have a cushion, they are more diversified and larger and have more cash flow and reserves. a lot of these smaller companies , they spend more than 100% of their cash flow. they are reinvesting into drilling new wells.

this can pack a punch. host: can we export crude to other countries? guest: not right now except for in very isolated instances. you can export a lightly refined type of oil. this is getting some attention on capitol hill. joe barton introduced a bill that would eliminate the ban on oil exports. he is on board. she advances the position that the administration can do this. she is not in a big hurry to introduce legislation. you may see some commerce decisions on a case-by-case basis. some companies are self certifying. if company x can export, then we

can too. it's the same process. there -- refined products, those are all export will. that's why there is a global market. that's why the gasoline price is set in amsterdam. host: this is a tweet from a viewer. why do we continue to import? guest: we export more than we import. we are still importing some crude oil. that will be the case for the foreseeable future. host: randy is up next. randy, good morning. caller: the price of gas was $3.85 a gallon. the price for a barrel was $107. now the price of a barrel is

down 53% at the price of gas is only down 30%. the barrel has come down 53%. why hasn't gas come down in proportion with the cost of a barrel of oil? guest: thanks for the question. that is a good point. i think i mentioned earlier that oil is not the only component to the rise of gasoline. there is transportation cost, taxes, other costs that go into what you see when you go to the gas pump. the other point is -- i don't have all the numbers in front of me -- the 53% drop in oil price that is a domestic benchmark. your gas price is set internationally. that may be the discrepancy.

it is a complicated market and you can't always explain everything. host: we moved to dave in north carolina. you are on with our guest nick juliano. caller: thanks. i appreciate it. i have a question about solar energy. are you against fracking? caller:guest: i don't have a position on fracking. i try to keep an open mind and stay objective about all of this. in terms of the solar plant in

california, i believe it was the first to be brought online. a few others have them -- since then. this is a massive project. it was still under construction a couple of years ago. they did get some taxpayer money. they got a loan guarantee. that is in the process of being paid back. they got an investment tax credit. that covered 30% of the cost. that is standard. there is a taxpayer cost. the obama administration waited clear from the time they were elected that more clean energy was a goal they had and that was one way they have been able to do it. solar was an infinitesimal amount when president obama came

into office. i think they installed six gigawatts last year. it's only a percent or two overall of the electricity market. it's much higher than it was when -- wind and solar together have tripled. they are on an upswing. host: how much of the situation we are in is relatable to fracking? guest: it's a lot relatable to fracking. the fracking revolution started around 2008 or 2009. i am struck by the fact that the presidential campaign did not mention fracking. nobody really knew what was and it revolutionized the energy sector altogether. fracking caused supply increases in the united states.

we are at historic highs. what caused the sharp price drop back in the fall was opec decided not to cut reduction to account for our increase in production. they wanted to maintain their market share and compete over long-term. fracking is more expensive than production in the middle east. they are starting a price war and trying to drive fractures out of business. we will see how successful they are. host: let's hear from mike in pennsylvania on the independent line. go ahead. caller: thanks. year after year, you hear about these loyal -- oil companies making these obscene profits anybody ever heard of in the history of capitalism.

can you explain to people by a company like exxon or bp couldn't be happy with a $5 billion profit for a year or two? why do they have to be so astoundingly high? guest: i think the easiest explanation is they are responding to their shareholders to whom they have a duty to maximize profits. their shareholders are tension funds and universities and 401(k)s and mom-and-pop investors and employees of the companies. i think it's basically just as simple as you mentioned maximizing profit is what you do as a large company. host: from louisiana, this is wayne. caller: you know how to bring me

out of my shell. i believe in oil, gas, and coal. this country cannot survive without that. all these environmentalists are a bunch of net cases. i don't believe in nothing they say. i am a denier from the word go. they use fossil fuels and then try to say it's destroying the earth. i don't think a solar plan will or a windmill will provide anything. that is a bunch of farce here in all it is is lies. we've got a man in the white house who lies all the time. he is pain obama not to pay the keystone pipeline.

we are living under tyranny in this country. guest: thanks. i think he mentioned tom syre who is a large donor to environmental groups. he is a counterpoint to the koch brothers. they are large donors to conservative causes. there is a lot of money out there in politics. that is the cost of doing business these days, whether that's a good thing or bad thing is up for them to decide. host: this is arnold in las vegas. caller: i wanted to make a comment about fuel-efficient cars. with the clean energy that the president is trying to get in, this is big oil losing their profits. look at fuel-efficient cars,

trucks, passenger planes hybrids, they want to pay their shareholders. guest: arnold is right. as cars have become more fuel-efficient, oil consumption has gone down overall. this is something we have seen in the last five or six years especially under president obama. for the first time in a while, he increased corporate standards and required fuel efficiency that automakers have to meet. cars are more efficient and more hybrids are on the road. natural gas is used in trucking. there are a lot of alternatives out there. that is having an effect. that is something we have seen in the last 12 months as oil prices have plummeted.

truck sales are on the rise. consumers are not looking for that mpg figure as much as they are looking for something big enough to get all the kids to soccer practice. host: where are we on an energy bill? guest: the wheels are turning. they are turning relatively slowly. so far the leader in the house and his deputy on the committee put out a framework a few weeks ago. they laid out four points. they want to deal with infrastructure, energy diplomacy, things like our relationships with canada and mexico, they want to deal with energy efficiency, and workforce development. one piece of that is a bill

introduced last year that would have given more opportunities in the industry for women and minorities. host: what is the likelihood they will get it, with a republican congress? guest: they are being very deliberate. they want to have some hearings for hand and hear from stakeholders from the issue. they want to keep things bipartisan. at this point, the energy bill is assembled separately from what republicans want to do in terms of rating in -- reining epa rules. there are some modest things that need to be done in the epa space. things like energy efficiency have struggled to gain traction for years. there is a pent-up demand. we have not had an energy bill

since 2007. if they try not to make this a partisan grab bag, they might have decent chances. host: has the white house responded to the approach republicans are taking? guest: they have been moving along with a lot of the epa rules. they are expected to be finalized this summer. that is the main focus from the administration. you have the keystone pipeline that was the first veto this year. that is waiting for a decision on the pipeline itself. host: nick

>> >> her news conference was just after she spoke secretary clinton: i want to thank the united nations for hosting today's events and putting the challenge of gender equality front and center on the international agenda. i am especially pleased to have so many leaders hear from the

private sector standing shoulder to shoulder with advocates who have worked tirelessly for equality for decades. 20 years ago, this was a lonelier struggle. today, we mark the progress that has been made in the two decades since the international community gathered in beijing and declared with one voice that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights. we can say that there has never been a better time in history to be born female. you and yet as the comprehensive you new report published by the clinton foundation and the gates foundation this week makes clear, despite all this will progress, when it comes to the full participation of women and girls, we are just not there yet. as i said today, this remains the great unfinished business of the 21st century. you are you and my passion for this fight burns as brightly today as it did 20 years ago.

as i and your and -- i want to comment on a matter in the news today regarding iran. the president and his team are in the midst of intense negotiations. their goal is a diplomatic solution that would close off iran's pathway to a nuclear bomb and give us unprecedented access an insight into iran's nuclear program. reasonable people can disagree about what exactly it will take to accomplish this objective. and we all must judge any final agreement on its merits. but the recent letter from republican senators was out of step with the best traditions of american leadership. and one has to ask what was the

purpose of this letter. there appear to be two logical answers. either these senators were trying to be helpful to the iranians or harmful to the commander-in-chief in the midst of high-stakes international diplomacy. either answer does discredit to the letter's signatories. i would be pleased to talk more about this important matter but i know there have been questions about my e-mails so i want to address that directly and then i will take if you questions from you. there are four things i want the public to know. first, when i got to work as secretary of state, i opted for convenience to use my personal e-mail account, which was allowed by the state department, because i thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal e-mails instead of two.

looking back, it would have been better had i simply used a second e-mail account and carried a second phone. but at the time, this did not seem like an issue. second, the vast majority of my work e-mails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the state department. third, after i left office, the state department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work-related e-mails from our personal accounts. i responded right away and provided all my e-mails that could possibly be work-related which totaled roughly 55,000 printed pages, even though i knew that the state department already had the vast majority of them. we went through a thorough process to identify all of my

work-related e-mails and deliver them to the state department. at the end, i chose not to keep my private, personal e-mails e-mails about planning chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes. no one wants their personal e-mails made public and i think most people understand that and respect that privacy. fourth, i took the unprecedented step of asking that the state and i might get him him him --

department make all my work-related e-mails public for everyone to see. i am very proud of the work that i and my colleagues and our public servants at the department did during my four years as secretary of state. and i look forward to people being able to see that for themselves. again, looking back, it would have been better for me to use two separate phones and two e-mail accounts. i thought using one device would be simpler and obviously it hasn't worked out that way. now i am happy to take a few questions. nick is calling on people. >> madam secretary, on behalf of the un correspondents association, thank you very much for your remarks and it's wonderful to see you here again. madam secretary, why did you opt out using two devices at the time? if this hadn't come out, it probably would not have been an issue. if you are a man today, would all this fuss be made? secretary clinton: i will leave that to others to answer.

but as i said, i saw it as a matter of convenience and it was allowed. others had done it. according to the state department, which recently said secretary kerry was the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state.gov e-mail account. and when i got there, i just wanted to use one device for both personal and work e-mails instead of two. it was allowed. as i said, it was for convenience. and it was my practice to communicate with state department and other government officials on their .gov accounts so those e-mails would be automatically saved in the state department system to meet recordkeeping requirements. that indeed is what happened.

i heard just a little while ago the state department will begin to post some of my e-mails which i am very glad to hear because i want it all out there. andrea, thank you. >> can you explain how you decided which of the personal e-mails to get rid of, how you got rid of them and when? and how you will respond to questions about you being the arbiter of what you release? and can you answer the questions raised about foreign contributions from middle eastern countries, like saudi arabia, that abuse women or permit violence against women to the family foundation? you are rightly celebrating 20 years of leadership on this issue. secretary clinton: those are two very different questions. i will give you some background. in going through the e-mails

there were over 60,000 in total sent and received. about half were work-related and went to the state department and half for personal that were not in any way related to my work. i had no reason to save them but that was my decision because the federal guidelines are clear and the state department request was clear. for any government employee, it is that employee's responsibility to determine what is work-related. i am confident of the process we conducted and the e-mails that were produced. and i feel once the american public begins to see the e-mails, they will have an unprecedented insight into a high government official's daily communications, which i think will be quite interesting.

with respect to the foundation i am very proud of the work the foundation does. i am very proud of the hundreds of thousands of people who support the work of the foundation and the results that have been achieved for people here at home and around the world. i think that we are very clear about where we stand, certainly where i stand, on all of these issues. there can't be any mistake about my passion concerning women's rights here at home and around the world. so i think that people who want to support the foundation know full well what it is we stand for and what we are working on. >> i was wondering if you think you made a mistake in exclusively using your private e-mail or the response to the controversy.

if so, what have you learned from that? secretary clinton: looking back, it would have been probably smarter to have used two devices. but i have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the state department. and i have to add, even if i had two devices, which is obviously permitted -- many people do that -- you would still have to put the responsibility where it belongs, which is on the official. i did it for convenience and now, looking back, think that it might have been better to have two devices from the very beginning. >> did you or any of your aides delete any government-related e-mails from your personal account?

what lengths are you willing to go to to prove that you didn't? some, including supporters of you, have suggested an independent arbiter. secretary clinton: we did not . my direction to conduct the thorough investigation was to err on the side of providing anything that might be work-related. that does not mean they will be by the state department once they go through them but, out of an abundance of caution and care, we wanted to send that message unequivocally. that is the responsibility of the individual and i have fulfilled that responsibility and i have no doubt that we have done exactly what we should have done. when the search was conducted, we were asking that any e-mail

be identified and preserved that could potentially be federal record. and that is exactly what we did. and we went beyond that and the process produced over 30,000 work e-mails. and i think that we have more than met the request from the state department. the server contains personal communications from my husband and me. i believe i have met all of my responsibilities. and the server will remain private. i think the state department will be able over time to release all of the records that were provided. >> madam secretary, two quick follow-ups. you mentioned the server. that is one of the distinctions here. this was not gmail or yahoo!. that is a server that you own

. is that appropriate? was there any precedent for it? did you cleared with any state department security officials? did they have full access to it when you were secretary? and separately, will any of this have any bearing or affect on your timing or decision about whether or not you run for president? secretary clinton: the system we used was set up for president clinton's office. it had numerous safeguards. it was on property, guarded by the secret service, and there were no security breaches. so i think that the use of that server, which started with my husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure. now with respect to any sort of future issues, look, i trust the

american people to make their decisions about political and public matters. i feel that i have taken unprecedented steps to provide these work-related e-mails. they will be in the public domain. and i think that americans will find that interesting and i look forward to having a discussion about that. >> madam secretary, how can the public be assured that, when you deleted e-mails that were personal in nature, you did not also delete e-mails that were professional and possibly unflattering? what do you think about this republican idea of having an independent third-party come in and examine your e-mails? secretary clinton: first of all, you would have to ask that question to every single federal employee. the way the system works, the federal employee, the individual, whether they have

one device, two devices, three devices, how many addresses, they make the decision. so even if you have a work-related device, with a work-related .gov account, you choose what goes on that. that is the way our system works. we trust and count on the judgment of thousands, maybe millions of people to make those decisions. i feel that i did that and even more, that i went above and beyond what i was requested to do. and again, those will be out in the public domain and people will be able to judge for themselves. >> madam secretary, madam secretary -- excuse me -- madam secretary, state department rules when you are secretary at the time were perfectly clear that that the employee needed to

turn over those e-mails to be preserved on government computers. why did you not do that? why did you not go along with state department rules until nearly two years after he left -- you left office? also, the president of the united states said he was unaware that you had this unusual e-mail arrangement. the white house counsel office said you never approved this through them. why have you apparently caught the white house by surprise? [laughter] does all of this affect your decision in any way on whether or not to run for president? secretary clinton: let me try to unpack your multiple questions. first, the laws and regulations in effect when i was secretary of state allowed me to use my e-mail for work. that is undisputed. secondly, under the federal records act, records are defined as reported information

regardless of its form or characteristic. and in meeting the record-keeping obligation, it was my practice to e-mail government officials on their state or other .gov accounts so the e-mails were immediately captured and preserved. now there are different rules governing the white house than there are governing the rest of the executive branch. in order to address the requirements i was under, i did exactly what i have said. i e-mailed to people and i not only knew but expected them to be captured in the state department or any other government agency that i was e-mailing to at a .gov account. what happened in, i guess, late summer, early fall was that the state department sent a letter to former secretaries of state

not just to me, asking for some assistance in providing any work-related e-mails that might be on the personal e-mail. and what i did was to direct my counsel to conduct a thorough investigation and to err on the side of providing anything that could be connected to work. they did that. that was my obligation. i fully fulfilled it and then i took the unprecedented step of saying, go ahead and release them and let people see them. >> why did you wait two months? why did you wait two months to turn those e-mails over? secretary clinton: i would be happy to have somebody talk to you about the rules. i fully complied. >> were you ever fully briefed on using your personal address

e-mail with the president? secretary clinton: i did not e-mail any classified materials to anyone on my e-mail. there is no classified material. i am certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material. >> [indiscernible] secretary clinton: because they were personal and private about matters that i believed were within the scope of my personal privacy. and that particularly of other people. they had nothing to do with work. i didn't see any reason to keep them. at the end of the process. >> [indiscernible]

forced to resign two years ago because of his use of personal e-mail. secretary clinton: i think you should go online and read the entire ig report. that is not an accurate representation of what happened. thank you. >> thank you. thank you all. hillary clinton this afternoon at the united nations addressing questions from various reporters and we are going to open up our phones and hear your comments on her news conference, on the story of her using her personal e-mail during her tenure as secretary of state. or those of you with democratic views, the number to call -- republicans-- and independents -- you can also join the conversation on facebook.

a couple of tweets up already. this is one view of a dealer -- viewer -- and darrell issa tweeting -- we will look for your comments also but first we go to naomi in union, new jersey on the democrat line. caller: i think this is another ploy to make sure another democrat is not elected for presidency and she stated that the server was private. it was confidential. if at all of the earmarks of making sure nothing was leaked out to the public that should not have been leaked. i think that they should find another scapegoat with something else other than the e-mails. host: on the independent line,

mark. good evening. caller: good evening. i cannot believe what the previous color said. couple of things. i was in new york state and it happens to have an open committee on government. we have one of the best lawyers in the country, and international expert on openness and this is an appalling situation. it is secretive, it is an added to of i am hillary clinton, i am above the law, and it scares me because, what other -- what is best for government is to shine a bright light on the situation and to have not only a server but do have a secret server that is controlled by the clintons it raises questions. why was the president using his

own server? is that a violation of some sort? i think that maybe the headline from this press conference. the other thing is, we want to be transparent. you hold a press conference and you answer the questions until they have been answered. you don't cut people off after 10 or 15 minutes. i think more questions got raised been answered during this press conference. host: that conference is coming up again this evening on c-span. you can get it online at www.c-span.org. the issue of cabinet secretaries with their e-mails as affecting a couple of other departments. here is a story. chuck hagel using personal a mill on the job. apparently, a gmail account. michael on the republican line. caller: i think it is evident that the clinton machine has kicked in considerably. watching msnbc this morning

howard dean was on and of course he is one of the barking dogs for the clintons. i think their parents, to me, comes off -- the appearance you may comes off as someone not telling the truth, has never told the truth and in the future, that will be persistent. the government says this is the most transparent administration in history. my feelings are that if we go this far again with this type of person you see what we have now. if we don't that her -- vet her thoroughly, i think we'll have a problem. caller: scott. caller: hillary clinton should

not have her own personal server. one cannot take her word for what she is offering up as private or business. she also needs to be subpoenaed and dragged into ca she has other servers in other places. she has broken the law. i don't care if other people -- what other people say. host: it looks like she will be asked to testify before the select committee. benghazi releasing a statement that read -- two hot springs -- to hot springs --in arkansas? hot springs, georgia?

caller: arkansas. i think the republicans are using this. they are afraid she is going to run for president and win. for what i see, tom cotton, he is, more or less -- it went over our heads. host: he is your new senator. caller: he is not qualified to be a senator. he got in because of his service and i served also. i think it ought -- he ought to