U. S. Feels about this new peace proposal from france and germany, particularly in the context of merkel coming here next week and these discussions about whether to send lethal aid. Im also wondering if you have anything on that magical piece of paper to share with us, feel free to do so. Purely administrative issues. That better not be the case. Let me say a couple of things on this. The United States has been saying for some timing that it will that its a diplomatic negotiation thats required to bring this conflict in ukraine to an end. This is not something thats going to be solved or resolved militarily but rather through diplomatic negotiations. We certainly are encouraging and supportive of ongoing efforts to try to find a peaceful diplomatic resolution to the conflict in ukraine. One concern that we have is previous diplomatic efforts have resulted in agreements that the russians and the separatists that they back in Eastern Ukraine didnt live up to. There were commitments made in the context of the minstk agreement that was signed i believe back in september, it included things like withdrawing all troops and weapons from Eastern Ukraine and establishing Effective International monitoring of the International Border between ukraine and russia, returning control of ukraines side of the border to the Central Government in kiev. Freeing all of the hostages and working towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict. That is im just going to do the math here. I think that is five or six different specific provision minstk agreement. They havent lived up to a single one of them. That is an indication that we need serious engagement from the russians and the separatists, the likes of which we have not seen before. Were going to continue to be supportive of ongoing efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to this situation while at the same time were going to continue to urge the russians and the separatists that they represent to live up to the diplomats that they represent. That can and should be resolved. To that end, there is i think just sort of looking at the public schedule of members of the president S National Security team you can tell that there is deepened engagement on this issue right now. Secretary kerry is in kiev right now as we speak. He did a News Conference a little earlier this morning eastern time with i believe it was with the ukrainian president while he was over there. I know that hes meeting with a number of senior officials. Over the weekend, you know, the Vice President is currently on his way to europe. Hell be participating in the Munich Security Conference as hes done in years past. While hes there hell meet with ukrainian president poroshenko and other ukrainian leaders. On monday the president is planning to convene a meeting with german chancellor merkel while shes here in the United States so there is while not their entire meeting will not be devoted to the situation in ukraine but that will be a substantial part of their discussions. So focusing on that meeting then with chancellor miracle america merkel, youve talked about staying in lock step with our European Partners on this issue, especially when it comes to the pace with which we offer sanctions. They dont think its a good idea for us to be putting more weapons in this conflict. If chancellor merkel comes here next week and says to the president what shes said publicly, which is that germanys not going to be sending lethal assistance and they dont think its a good idea, will the president still have that option on the table and consider sending it regardless . Well, the president is going to make a decision that he believes is in the broader National Security interest of the United States, and part of that is understanding what sort of impact the decisions that we make have on our allies. So the president is, of course, going to reserve the right to make the decision about our broader strategy from the standpoint of the United States visavis ukraine. The president though has has indicated a desire to work closely with our allies, and certainly the success that we have enjoyed so far in instituting a an economic sanctions regime against russia has depended upon very close coordination with our allies in europe. Theres no doubt about that. The sanctions regime weve put in place working in lock step with our european allies has required close consultation cooperation with europe. The reason is because the economic ties between russia and europe are much deeper than the bilateral economic ties between the United States and russia. So being able to act in coordinated fashion has been the key to the success of that sanctions regime. But certainly the president takes very seriously the views of our allies and is going to consult very closely as we evaluate any needed strategic changes ahead okay . Julia. Welcome to the white house beat. Thank you. I understand youll be joining us more regularly. Yes. Thank you. A among the many departures we learned that fda director Margaret Hamburg is stepping down. What can you tell us about how you anticipate a confirmation of someone to take her place, especially considering republicans would have to confirm someone who has been critical of the fda . Julia i can tell you that the president certainly appreciates dr. Hamburgs Tireless Service over the last six years. There are a number of issues that she has grappled with over at the fda. The professionalism that shes brought to that job has made her very effective as the leader of that agency. Shes leaving a legacy of advancements that include biomedical innovation, modernizing the food Safety System and reducing death and disease caused by tobacco. Shes got quite a legacy that shes leaving. As it relates to her successor, i dont have any announcements on that at this point. Certainly the president will be focusing on somebody that has the kind of impeccable medical and scientific credentials that they can bring to the job and when we have more to announce on this well let you know. I mean i guess well just say one other thing that when you know when the president does make an announcement, you know, were confident will that he will appoint the individual that will merit strong bipartisan support. And theres been a major hack into insurer anthem. There are about 80 million accounts that had their information stolen. How big of a deal is this . Has the president been briefed . Also since anthem has a large federal employer population i was wondering if anyone at the white house happened to be affected . Well, julia, i can tell you that were certainly aware of these reports. The fbi is leading an investigation to determine what exactly happened and to try to determine the scope of the impact so for specific questions about this incident id refer you to the fbi. I dont have any information to share in terms of the individual impact or the individuals who may have been affected by this incident. It does it does serve as a useful opportunity though for me to remind you of two things. The first is, we did spend some time a couple of weeks ago talking about specific legislative proposals that have been put forward by this administration to try to address Cyber Security and there are some important steps that are included in that legislation that would improve the federal governments response to situations like this and would improve coordination between Law Enforcement authorities, private industry and consumer advocates to ensure that all the necessary steps are taken to both harden the defenses of organizations that are directly affected, to communicate information about the intrusion to make sure that similar tactics that may prove damaging in one scenario cant be used against other companies and then we also want to make sure that we have a codified system for making sure that consumers are properly informed and educated about what steps they can take to safeguard their data. So theres a lot of important work that needs to be done around this in the United States congress. The good news is this is not an idea logical issue and that there are republicans who have indicated that they also understand how serious this is. We are hopeful that by working with congress we can make some important progress and take some steps that would actually safeguard the American People and their data. The last thing is that is just a reminder that there will be quite extensive discussion of these kinds of issues at the cyber summit that the administration is hosting out at Stanford University next week. And so were looking forward to the opportunity to convene meetings with leaders in private Industry Leaders in the tech sector who have some expertise around some of these issues, government officials not just at the federal level but the state and local who all have equities in dealing with this rather complicated policy issue but the consequences for us dealing with this policy issue are significant and certainly the president and his administration take it very seriously and are hopeful that well see others on the other side of the aisle also take it seriously as well. Margaret . The president met with a group of Muslim Leaders yesterday. The white house hasnt released a formal what happened. I was wondering if you can talk us through why. Was it considered a private meeting . Are there concerns of you know i dont know. I dont have a list of those who attended, but let me see if i can try to extract some more information from you from them for you. That would be great. Thanks. I just wanted to do cleanup on a couple of things. On aumf you were saying you could expect the language reasonably suited. Relatively suited i think is what i said. Would you rule out like the end of this week . You mean as in tomorrow . Right. I i wouldnt necessarily rule it out. I dont think its going to be tomorrow, but hes these kinds of plans often have a way of changing. I think relatively soon is the best guidance i can offer you at this point. Okay. And if i can do bebegate or speechgate, whatever you want to call t. Twoparter. Is nancy pelosi still talking about whether she may boycott that speech. I was wondering if you could give us some clarity about the white house and president s thinking on whether this is an appropriate individual decision for democrats, whether youre offering any guidance when people call to ask. Also, what does he think about the fact that this has caused so much controversy . Well, as i mentioned yesterday, the president does believe it is up to individual members of congress to make their own decision about whether or not to attend. You know, the concern that we have exhibited here is not just about the departure from protocol in terms of extending the invitation but also the president believes very firmly in continuing an important tradition, which is to ensure that the strong relationship between the United States and israel is protected from partisan politics, that we shouldnt allow the relationship between our two countries to be reduced to a relationship between two political parties. And that is something that the president is concerned about and, frankly, the seriousness with which the president considers this principle is whats driving the decision to not meet with the Prime Minister when hes here. As you know when the Prime Minister is in the United States during the first week in march, hell be up for an election thats scheduled for just two weeks later back in israel and the president is conscious of ensuring that we dont leave anybody with the appearance or even with the appearance of somehow interfering in that election by weighing in on one side or the other. The president takes these issues very seriously, but ultimately those kinds of decisions about whether or not to attend and what sort of impact that might have on an ongoing election in another country or what kind of signal that might send is a decision that every individual member of Congress Needs to make for themselves. Has he gone as far as to say that he doesnt really think that the Prime Minister should go through with the speech or have you drawn a line . No. Are you saying that . Im not saying that. You could say that. Im not saying that. To clean up on joshs question. He knows the pope is coming so hes probably not shocked that the pope is addressing congress and hes probably fine with it, but was there any coordination this time around . Was there any effort by the Speakers Office to make a goodfaith gesture to say, look, no hard feelings lets coordinate stuff . I cant speak to all of the conversations that may or may not have occurred in advance of that specific invitation, but certainly the president and the team here was aware of the popes intent to travel to the United States and an attempt to spend some time in washington d. C. I know that there are still some details of that schedule that are getting locked down. I dont want to get ahead of any plans announced by the vatican. Justin, i understand you announced a new job. Moving up a couple of rows. Congratulations. Nancy pelosi today backed the Senate Armed Services committee, they sent a letter to the white house asking for aid for jordan. You were asked and you said it would depend on a specific request from jordan. I was wondering if you had anymore details and if so the if the administration was working to fulfill it. Well what i know justin is that the that the United States has a very deep security relationship with jordan and that involves providing hundreds of millions of dollars a year in Security Assistance to the jordanians. Much of that security equipment is used to contribute against the broader International Campaign against isil. I know there had been some interest in the expressed by the jordanians and others to express what was in the pipeline. This is not unlike other countries we have a security relationship with. Thats something were always working on. I can tell you were always looking for ways to deepen our relationship with jordan. I can tell you while the king was here on tuesday there was the signing of a memorandum memorandum of understanding between the United States and jordan that would extend our security situation our security relationship into 2017 and would guarantee the provision of Security Assistance on the order of about 400 billion a year. So its a substantial commitment of military assistance and its one that is not just a shortterm relationship but one that is a long running one and one that we acted to extend while the king was visiting earlier this week. I just wanted to ask about the status of dhs funding. Obviously the senate has been voting and blocking the house bill. Mitch mcconnell says that he expects to work out a deal in the next couple of weeks. Im wondering, has it gotten to the point where you have had conversations with possible bl sweeteners to get it through the house andersen mate . Im not aware of any conversations like that. They have a responsibility to pass funding for the department of Homeland Security. As youve heard me say that before its difficult to imagine a scenario in which theres a good time for us to muck around with funding for the department of Homeland Security, but now seems like a particularly bad time to do so. And so were hopeful that republicans will embrace their responsibility that they have now that theyre in control of the United States congress to use the power of the purse that our founders gave to them to make sure that our department of Homeland Security is fully and properly funded. We certainly dont want to have a scenario where we have men and women in uniform, our federal Law Enforcement officers, people responsible for protecting our ports, people responsible for protecting our Transportation System and particularly our air Transportation System. Those individuals shouldnt have to go without a paycheck and i cant imagine why anybody would think that would be anything but bad for our National Security. So were hopeful. You know republicans have a couple of weeks to figure this out. Were hopeful they will. I dont like to stand up here and say i told you so, but we did spend some time last fall where i noted that i felt it was going to put republicans in a really difficult situation to threaten funding for the department of Homeland Security merely over a political disagreement, but unfortunately that seems to be the situation in which republicans find themselves. I think theyre finding that certainly the vast majority of americans dont find this to be a particularly persuasive argument theyre making. Were hoping theyre going to put politics aside, focus on their correspondsbility to actually fund the United States government, particularly critically important functions like Homeland Security. John. First off quick question on