welcome to al jazeera america. i'm del walters. these are the stories we are following for you, president obama discussing the situation in ukraine with u.s. allies, he is scheduled to speak at a news conference shortly. when he does we'll bring that to you live. >> the love and compassion that i shared and the priority of putting their family first will help us get through this together. >> families of the passengers on board flight 370, dealing with the fate of their loved ones. some asking for privacy others

staging a demonstration. and the death toll in that washington state mud slide continues to go up. ♪ the final day of that nuclear security summit just ending in the netherlands president obama is working to reassure and rally european allies to take a tough line against russia during his european trip. the president right now is on the stage getting ready to speak, we will bring you his address shortly, but first we want to go to randall pinkston in washington. and russia now suspend from the g-8 summit and the white house issuing a statement. what did it say? >> it came from the ukraine and us. it's a joint statement. it condemns russia, and vladimir putin. the joint statement says that the u.s. and ukraine emphasize they will not recognize russia's

illegal attempt to annex crimea. crimea it says is an integral part of ukraine. the united states will continue to help ukraine affirm his sovereignty and territorial integrity. russia inzipses that his actions were intended to protect ethnic russians. but the u.s. and her european allies say russia's actions are a blatant violation of international law. the u.s. also reaffirmed ukraine's commitment to impose controls on nuclear technology. we'll hear more about the statement and our president's address from mike viqueira who is inside the press conference at the hague as we speak. >> randall the g-8, now the g-7 was scheduled to take place in sochi, russia. the u.s. and its allies now planning another venue instead?

>> they are indeed. they will be holding the g-7 meeting in brussels in june at approximately the same time when the meeting had been scheduled to be held in sochi. yesterday they issued a statement condemning russian and promising stronger economic sanctions if they continue to invade ukraine. but left the door open to putin if he returns to diplomatic negotiations. the g-7 also complemented putin's decision to allow monitors in europe to be posted in ukraine. however, putin at this point is not opening the door for those monitors to go into crimea. del? >> randall thank you very much. and again, we are watching the events unfold right now at the hague in the netherlands.

that is dutch prime minister speaking right now. when the president speaks we'll bring you his address live. meanwhile the president also expected to call for legislation that would end part of the nsa surveillance program. the "new york times" reporting that the white house will proposal an overall reorganization of the program. the affordable care act facing yet another challenge. the issue at this hour? whether private businesses can cite religious objectives in providing contraceptives. >> this is the most closely watched challenge to the affordable care act this year. we're talking about a for-profit company, not a church or religious affiliated non-profit. hobby lobby is family-run business. it's owners say it is based on

biblical principals founded 38 years ago. >> our faith was very important in starting this company, because we had a real sense, barbara and i that god had this purpose in our life. >> reporter: said the arts and crafts chain con tends that offering contraception goes against the owner's pro-life belief. >> this is a right that is protected by both the constitution and federal law, and in order to honor god they feel they have to run their business consistent with biblical principles, and for them that's the ability to not to have to pay for drugs and devices that they feel terminate life. >> reporter: hobby lobby is a privately held corporation. they are asking the court to find that their company has the same religious freedom as a

church or individual. >> never before has the court accepted an argument that a corporate entity can press a religious free exercise claim. >> reporter: the administration will argue that it has provided exem exem exempti exem exemptions for nonprofits. >> this presents a question of whether corporations can use their owner's personal religious belief to avoid a law that applies generally to all for-profit businesses. >> reporter: national women's legal counsel fears this case is about limiting access to contraceptive health care. >> they are asking that they will involved in what decision a woman makes with her doctor.

and that's your boss's business. >> reporter: the court is expected to rule on the case later this summer. at this point the appeals court are split. two federal appeals courts have upheld this aspect. three have struck it down, however. that's what created this circuit split and caused the case to rise all the way to the supreme court. we want to take you life now to the netherlands. this is president obama attending the nuclear security summit. he is talking about the mud slide in oso, washington. >> my administration is in contact with them on an going basis, fema and the army corps of engineers are on-site as well. i would ask all americans to send their thoughts and prayers to washington state and the community also and the family and friends of those who continue to be missing.

we hope for the best, but we recognize this is a tough situation. now as for our work here in the hague, i want to just repeat the extraordinary work that mark has done in helping to organize this. king alexander and the people of the netherlands, your hospitality has been remarkable, your organization has been flawless. to all of the people who were involved in putting this together, including those who were putting up with the traffic that i caused, i want to say thank you. i'm told there is a dutch word which captures the spirit, but my first visit to the netherlands has been truly hozelic. [ laughter ] >> so . . . i convened the first nuclear security summit in washington four years ago, because i believe we need a

serious and sustained global effort to deal with one of the greatest threats to international security, the specter of nuclear terrorism. we made progress in seoul, and built on that here. this was about taking tangible and concrete steps to secure more of the world's nuclear material so it never falls in the hands of terrorists. and that's what we have done. in particular i want to commend belgium and italy for completing their removal of highly enriched materials. in a major commitment japan announced it will work with the united states to eliminate hundreds of kilograms of one of their experimental reactors.

dozens of other nations have agreed to take specific stepings towards improving security in their country. we have set new goals for implementing our nuclear security measures, i have made it clear that the united states will continue to do our part as well. our nuclear regulator will develop new guidelines to strengthening cyber secure if i at our nuclear power plants, and we have pledged to pursue the production of a key medical isotope used to treat diseases like cancer, and work with our partners around the world to install more radiation detection equipment at ports and transit sites to combat nuclear smuggling. 12 countries and 2 dozen nuclear

facilities around the world have now rid themselves entirely of highly enretched materials, dozens have built their own counter smuggling teams or created more centers to improve nuclear security and training. the international atomic energy agency is now stronger and more countries have ratified the treaties and international partnerships at the heart of our efforts. so we have seen a fundamental shift in our approach, but we still have a lot more work to do to fully secure all nuclear and radiological material, civilian and military so it can no longer pose a risk to any of our citizens. i believe this is essential to the security of the entire world, and given the catastrophic consequences, we

can't not be complacent. one of our first goals was ukraine's decision to remove all of its highly enriched uranium from their sites. and had that not happened, the difficult situation in ukraine today would involve yet another concern. so the more of this material we can secure the safer all of our countries can be. we have made progress. we have more to do. we're going to continue our work, and i look forward to hosting the fourth nuclear summit in the united states in two years. so thank you again for this outstanding summit. >> thank you, mr. president. we'll go straight to the questions now. and the first question is julie [ inaudible ] associate press. >> reporter: thank you, mr. president. you have been criticized during this dispute with russia as not

understanding president putin's motivations. you and others in your administration you thought putin was reflecting or pausing his [ inaudible ] in crimea. did you misread putin's intentions? and what do you think his motivations are now? and when you spoke about the nsa review in january, you said you weren't sold on the option of having phone companies hold metadata. what has changed since that time, and do you think congress will pass the legislation you are seeking. and mr. prime minister there are leaders in europe who have concerns about the sector sanctions the president has proposed on the russian economy. do you think any of those leaders have had their concerns alleviated over the past few days. thank you. >> all right. let me see if i can remember all of this. with respect to president

putin's motivation, i think there has been a lot of speculation. i'm less interested in motivation, and more have theed in the facts and principles that not only the united states, but the entire international community are -- are looking to uphold. i don't think that any of us have been under any illusion that russia has been very interested in controlling what happens to ukraine. that's not new. that's been the case for years now. that's been the case dating back to the orange revolution. but what we have said consistently out there this process is that it is up to the ukrainian people to make their own decisions about how they organize themselves and who they interact with. and it has always been our

belief that ukraine is going to have a relationship to russia. there is a strong historic bond between the two countries, but that that does not justify russia encroaching on ukraine east east east easter -- ukraine's territorial sovereignty. and i have said early on should russia do so, there would be consequences. and we have put in place sanctions that have already had some impact on the russian economy. now moving forward, we have said -- and i want to be very clear about this -- we're not recognizing what has happened in crimea. the notion that a referendum, sloppily organized over the past

two weeks would justify the breaking off of crimea and annex in russia, that would be a process i think the overwhelming majority of the world rejects, but we are also concerned about further enroachment of russia into ukraine. so we were consulting and putting in place the framework, the architecture for additional sanctions, additional costs should russia take this next step. what we also said and will continue to say is that there is another path available to russia. the ukrainian government has said it is prepared to negotiate with russia; that it is prepared to recognize its negotiations, and the international community has been supportive of a

diplomatic process that would allow, a deescalation of tensions, moving back of russian troops from ukraine's borders, and rapidly organized elections that allow the ukrainian people to choose their leadership. and my expectation is that if the ukrainian people are allowed to make their own decisions, their decision will be that they want to have a relationship with europe and a relationship with russia, and that this is not a zero-sum game. and i think the current government has shown remarkable [ inaudible ] and are prepared to go down that diplomatic path. it is now up to russia to once again be willing to abide by international rules and norm. and if it chooses to do so, i

think there can be a better outcome. if it fails to do so, there will be additional costs, and those will have some disruptive effect to the global economy, but they will have the greatest impact on russia. so i think it would be a bad choice for president putin to make. but ultimately he is the president of russia and he is the one to make the decision. he just has to understand that there is a choice to be made here. with respect -- even though this was directed at mark, i just want to address this issue of sectoral sanctions. so far we have put in place sanctions that impact individuals. visas being issued to them. freezes their assets. we have identified one bank in particular in russia that was well-known to -- to be the bank of choice for many of the

persons who support and facilitate russian officials from some of these activities, but what we have held off on are more brood-based sanctions that would impact entire sectors of the russian economy. it has not just been my suggestion, but it has always been the european suggestion that should russia go further, such sectoral sanctions would be appropriate, and that would include potentially things like energy or finance, or arms sales. or trade that exists between europe and the united states and russia. and what we're doing now is at a very technical level examining the impacts of each of these sanctions. some particular sanctions would hurt some countries more than

oth others. some of us recognize that we have to stand up for a core principle that lies at the heart of -- and that facilitated european union, and the incredible prosperity and peace that europe has enjoyed now for decades. and so although it could cause some disruptions to each of our economies or certain industries, what i have been encouraged by is the -- the firmness and the willingness on the part of all countries to -- to look at ways in which they can participate in -- in this process. our preference throughout will be to resolve this diplomatically, but i think we're prepared, as we have already shown -- the situation gets worse -- i think it's very

important that we spend as much effort on bolstering the economy inside of ukraine and making sure that the elections proceed in an orderly fashion, so my hope is the imf is able to complete a package for ukraine rapidly to stabilize their finances and economy. the osce, and other international organizations are sending in observers and monitors and providing assistance to make sure the elections are free. and the sooner those elections take place, the sooner the economy is stabilized, the better positioned the ukrainian people will be. with respect to the nsa, and i'll be brief on this. i said several months ago that i was assigning our various

agencies, and the intelligence community to bring me new options with respect to the telephone database program. they have presented me now with an option that i think is workable and addresses the two core concerns the people had. number one the idea of government storing bulk data generally. this ensures that the government is not in possession of that bulk data. i want to emphasize once again that some of the dangers that people hypothesized when it came to bulk data, there were clear safeguards against, but i recognize that people were concerned about what might happen in the future with that bulk data. this proposal that has been presented to me would eliminate that concern. the second thing the people were concerned about is making sure that not only is a judge overseeing the overall program, but also that a judge is looking

at each individual inquiry that is made into a database, and this new plan that's been presented to me does that. so overall, i am confident that it allows us to do what is necessary in order to deal with the dangers of a terrorist attack, but does so in a way that addresses some of the concerns that people had raised, and i'm looking forward to working with congress to make sure that we go ahead and -- and pass the enabling legislation quickly, so that we can get on with the business of effective law enforcement. >> on ukraine let me make it absolutely clear that the europe union and u.s., and yesterday we saw alignment within the g-7, we are working very closely together. and i can fully support all of the answers which you just gave -- just given on the

question that you asked. one thing, which is the highly -- fact that the russian economy is very much gas and oil dependent, and that means that economic sanctions if they will be necessary, and we are not there yet, if economic sanctions will be necessary because this conflict would escalate to the next stage, that if this were to happen, these sanctions would hit russia very badly, and obviously you can never guarantee that the people in europe, in canada, in the u.s. would not be hurt, but obviously we'll make sure that we will design these sanctions in such a way that they will have maximum impact on the russian economy, and not the europe, canadian, japanese, or american economy. that is our aim. but we work very closely together and seek total alignment on this issue.

>> next question [ inaudible ]. >> reporter: this is for president obama on ukraine. reportedly there are about 30,000 russian troops on the border with ukraine. what guarantees can you give to the people of eastern ukraine, to the people in the baltic states, all of the other countries, that they will not be next when it comes to the russian politics of annexation? and with regard to that also, is this a done deal? is there any doubt in your mind that putin will return crimea to where it belongs according to the west? or is this diplomatic show of force basically just to prevent another land grab somewhere else? >> on the second question first, on the issue of crimea. it's not a done deal in the sense that the international community by and large is not recognizing the annexation of crimea.

obviously the facts on the ground are that the russian military controls crimea. there are a number of individuals inside of crimea that are supportive of that process. there's no expectation that they will be dislodged by force, and so what we can bring to bear are the legal arguments, the political arguments, the sanctions already in place to make sure there is a cost to that process, but, you know, i think it would be dishonest to suggest that there is a simple solution to rel solving what has already taken place in crimea. although, you know, history has a funny way of moving in twists and turns and not just in a

straight line. so, you know, how the situation evolves in part depends on making sure the international community stays unified in indicating that this was an illegal action on the part of russia. with respect to the russian troops that are along the border of ukraine at the moment. right now they are on russian soil, and if they stay on russian soil, we -- we oppose what appears to be an effort at intimidation, but russia has a right, legally to have its troops on its own soil. i don't think it's a done deal. and i think that russia is still making a series of calculations. and again, those calculations will be impacted in part by how

unified the united states and europe are, and the international community is in saying to russia that this is not now in the 21st century we resolve disputes. i think it's particularly important for all of us to dismiss this notion that somehow russian speakers or russian nationals inside of ukraine are threatened, and that somehow that would justify russian action. there has been no evidence that russian speakers have been in any way threatened. if anything, what we have seen are provocateurs who have created, you know, scuffles inside of ukraine, but, you know, when i hear analogies for example to kosovo, where you had thousands of people being slaughtered by their government, you know, it's a comparison that

makes absolutely no sense. and i think it's important for everybody to be clear, and strip away some of the possible excuses for potential russian action. with respect to the broader issue of states that are bordering russia and what assurances do they have about future land grabs, as you put it. obviously, some of those countries are nato countries, and as nato allies, we believe that the cornerstone of our security is making sure that all of us, including the united states are abiding by article 5, and the notion of check tiff defense, and, you know, what we are now doing is organizing even more intensively to make sure that we have contingency plans, and that every one of our nato allies has

assurances that we will act in their defense against any threats. that's what nato is all about. and that's the been the cornerstone of peace in the transatlantic region now for several generations, so we will uphold that, and there will be a series of nato consultations in which we further develop and deepen those plans, but i have not seen any nato members who have not expressed a firm determination with respect to nato members. now those border countries that are outside of nato, you know, what we can do is what we're doing with ukraine which is trying to make sure there is sufficient international pressure and a spot line shined on the situation in some of these countries, and that we are doing everything we can to bolster their economies, make sure