that. i do not have any negative feelings toward her. but the agreement she signed amounted to about 20 billion in losses. for the horrible krainian people. as for different points of view, they disagreed with my position nd the position of the courts. again, the ukrainian court esponded to that question.

mr. -- thank you for the opportunity. mr. yanukovich. you don't have your office now. you don't have law enforcement structures. you don't even have the opportunity to go back to ukraine. how can you confirm and prove now that you are the real and genuine and lilingt president of ukraine? >> i have facts to prove that. the laws that were passed through force and violence by the parliament will never be accepted by me. -- i did sign nem, and

not sign them, and this means that these laws were not passed into action. i, as the legitimate president, did not resign according to the constitution. if you do not deny that i am and sinceyou can see, i have not been impeached by the of iament, with the use force, cannot be called an impeachment. i cannot accept that.

will never accept that. >> what role can russia claim? i think all the russians in ukraine are content over this? what kind of role can russia play in this conflict in solving this? how do you see this as an action president? >> ukraine has always been the strategic partner. the agreements that we have with , within the frame work, since i know the

character of mr. putin i am surprised why he had been so restrained, why he has kept ilent. his is a big question. >> so here's my question -- >> introduce yourself, please. >> when you conducted peace protests. the

do you confirm this fact? and do you regret ever onducting these talks? >> we held official norks with . e opposition -- there allegations were a lot of them. and the goal of all of them is to end the bloodshed and violence and find a peaceful solution. there is nothing wrong about hat. unfortunately we were not able

to find a peaceful solution. acceptable for me to see any other alternatives to a peaceful solution. no power is worth a drop of blood. this has been due to the actions of those people. i never gave any orders to the police to open fire. you know, the police were without any weapons until the very last moments when they were under threat, when people started shooting at them.

and according to the law, the police have the right to self-defense, especially when ere has been massive attacks on the police. regrettably, the year 2004 when we had a similar situation, and my supporters, about 40,000 railway e to the .tation i went to the railway station myself. and stopped the people. i prevented bloodshed.

i talked to those who brought them there. you will never forgive us if there are any deaths, if lood is spilled. >> i have a question. if there is an investigation underway in the hague, what happens, if the case is to be tried in the hague, possibly. what if this happens, what will you do?

and my second question is do you think it's right that mr. putin denied you as an existing acting president of ukraine? as for the hague, here's my position to you. france will need to conduct an that dent investigation has to prove someone from the authorities from the opposition nd from the council. after this independent investigation, maybe we can talk about some courts. i am very often provoked. here's how i will approach this. time will ced that

come and the truth will prevail and everyone will know the truth. the truth will be out one day. his show is histrionics. with the bloodshed of that cenario. i was more interested in averted the bloodshed. there was not a single person more interested in avoiding bloodshed than myself. but that scenario was written omewhere outside of ukraine.

>> a lot of concessions like that. utin is -- we have always been -- we have an economic partnership. the free trade agreement that . s prepared and nirbled you -- initialed. t did not pass the procedures.

we did not discuss it with the manufacturers. when we saw what was going to be the real outcomes for signing instructed nt and i the governor to have a close look at it, the decision was simple. first we suspended those talks. we need to find a way to harmonize our trade relations between the e.u. and the economic side with russia. because russia was preparing a similar agreement with the

european union. you know, this work was being done over several years and was ot finished. and the chance -- without the chance of finding common ground on a wide range of peams items between russia, ukraine, and the european union. and we offered to have this trilateral cooperation. it was very critical because our economy improved a lot. our main trader, russia, exceeded $60 billion in the past 18 months. these losses could have

continued. it was hard to estimate what would be the projected numbers -- in ear term agricultural, for example, where europe has about 30% of subsidies. our manufacturers will suffer. hey will not be competitive. in bout 15 million people ukraine work in this sector. they do not match the e.u. spenders. let's take, for example, railway transportation. we have a different size of the track.

so some countries have a broad track, wide track, and in the e.u. they have a narrow track. and of course the defense industry, you know, it would be eft out. these losses would be the biggest for ukraine and we realize what we discussed with mr. putin. rugs take protective mezzshures. they need to protect their omestic suppliers. he addressed the ukrainian governors to put talks with the e.u. on halt to renegotiate and

when we find a mutually acceptable solution, or maybe europe can meet us halfway, or could provide us with economic compensation measures. unfortunately, we didn't have , and the e.u. did not .ffer any steps >> i would like to say, we have been -- we would like to call it a day. if you have questions that have nothing to do with issues that were already discussed, that would be good so we don't say the same things again and again.

> mr. yanukovich, do you think putin considers you a legitimate president? and were you surprised by russia's not acting. what actions are you expecting from russia? [indescernible] >> i remain the president of

ukraine. i have not had any meeting with the president in russia, vladamir putin. , maybe ve the meeting we will have some kind of iscussion about the situation. then i will be able to reply to your question. as for the steps that need to be taken by russia, it would not be correct on my part to say what russia needs to do. stay ain, russia cannot .ndifferent cannot be indifferent to the

destiny of their partner, ukraine and so on. russia needs to use all the leverage it has to prevent the chaos, the terror that is nfolding in ukraine. to give anyd for me kind -- i do not accept any attempts for an -- a new convention to break the sovereignty of the ukrainian territory. yound mr. yanukovich, thank for your questions.

we talked about political questions. >> in conclusion, i would like to beress those who claim the income bept power. , stop ncumbent power this violence. you will be held responsible for hat. e can see the end is near. we will never agree to live with you in that kind of country. that is why, here is what i'm going to tell you.

leave. we do not want more violence and more grief to fall upon the ukrainian nation. i would like to address the krainian people first. , i would like to offer my apology. i will do everything in my power to be with the ukrainian nation. i will always cherish the lives

of the people which were lost. if i were in ukraine today, i to every family, no matter which side of the bare cade. -- parricade. i am convinced that those who were in power today, the ukrainian people are nothing. they don't treat them as people. the truth will prevail. thank you. >> thank you all. thank you mr. yanukovich.

>> washington journal is live at 7:00 a.m. with your calls, tweets, and facebook comments on c-span. >> the third reap i'm here simply is to show people they are not alone. so few people share their personal stories. so few people have something to relate to. i know if me and my wife saw someone like me talking about

this, it would probably make us feel a little less alone. word ns whisper the alzheimer's because the government whispers the word alzheimer's. this needs to be held to the until it gets the attention it needs. i dream of the day when my charity is no longer necessary d i can go back to being the lazy, self-involved man-child i hope to be. >> this weekend seth rogen advocating increased awareness for alzheimer's treatment. , d live sunday on book tv peniel joseph will take your calls and comments.

>> on monday the supreme court heard oral argument on the, p.a. regulations on gas emissions. after concluding greenhouse gases pose a danger to the health and planet, the e.p.a. posed new emission standards for cars and trucks. the justice rs considering whether the e.p.a. misused that authority. the court is expected to decide this before the end of the term in june. is oral arguement is an hour and 40 minutes.

>> we will hear argument in case 12 1146. mr. keisler? >> made these the court -- may it please the court. the situation here is unprecedented in two respects. one, the epa agreed that -- according to their terms result in a program that would have been unrecognizable to the congress that enacted it. country to congress's and 10, the agency calls a absurd. epa to the conclusion -- took the conclusion as a basis for re-writing other parts of the statute. the agency wrongly believes it fixes the problem. this is not a one-time act of statutory rewriting. the agency has said it intends to adjust and readjust the thresholds based on its ongoing assessment of the costs and benefits. >> may i ask about your interpretation of the phrase -- there are a lot of different interpretations that have gone on. here is some choices. i want to ask you to pick what you are arguing for. your original position was that any pollutant meant -- that was your original position. judge kavanaugh's position is it means any max pollutant. -- any naaqs pollutant. there's another position that says it is really any regulated pollutant other than greenhouse gases. those are four different

interpretations. i guess i am asking you which one you are arguing for. >> i am here on behalf of the private party petitioners. we have two arguments. the principal one of is the one i would like to focus on. and that is because -- and that is where i would choose an option -- the pst program is focused on omissions that have specific impacts. and not globally undifferentiated phenomena. >> i take it that the sort of ozone pollutants are not area specific. would your interpretation at who does? trucks if the epa could not make n -- >> if the epa could not make a egulatory finding --

that they had an area-specific air quality inpact, yes. > can i ask a follow-up? that is a fifth interpretation by your side. that to me is the quintessential ambiguity and a statute where we give deference to the agency. if your side cannot even come to one interpretation, why shouldn't we defer to the agency? >> the deference is always subject to reasonable interpretations. we would start with the premise that an interpretation that requires the agency to rewrite other provisions of the act -- >> well, it hasn't rewritten them. all that was said, as i understand it, and i don't understand other than your comment that there are too many

people regulating, is that we can't influence it because it would over-burden us dministratively. it hasn't said with streamlining and other adjustments, it cannot do this. it just as we can't do it right away. >> that's right, your honor. and that actually looks like the deeper problem. i would like to address that and also explain why we think our interpretation is the only correct interpretation on the roader question. >> can you clarify whether you agree with the dissenting -- can we clarify whether you agree with the dissenting judges on the d c circuit? you've got a footnote saying there are a lot of differences. your reply beef -- brief turns 180 degrees from that. >> i understand that having six

opening briefs is that the most helpful way to present our position. there are two arguments. our principal argument, and the one i would like to focus on, is that greenhouse gases are not included within the pst program. - psd program. they would not be subject to the best available control technology. >> that is the clause that they are not local. >> yes. >> what you make of the endangerment finding that they have severe effects at the local level? they exacerbate ground-level ozone and smog. >> every effect that any environmental phenomena has will be felt in some local area. our point is that is not the kind of measurable regionally affect that the psd statute refers to.

>> it certainly not measurable. >> before you do that, we have an outstanding question. >> the problem is not that the agency rewrote the threshold and said we would eventually try. when they say they want to get down to the apartment buildings and high schools, it is contravening congressional ntent. the reason the congress wrote those thresholds, is they wanted to exempt small businesses from -- regulating he problems.

>> i read them as saying they will try to do it, but make whatever it dungeons -- make whatever exemptions are necessary. >> and the problem is, justice cali eafment, is those exemptions violate the statute as well. >> it clearly is not a matter of the epa saying, we cannot do it right away. we will do it eventually. >> if they did say that, they would be violating a statute in the worst ways. >> do you really mean to say the only difference between greenhouse gases in the air pollutants that congress had in mind when it enacted the clean air act is green hair -- house gases do not have a local effect? what about -- the quantity is

greater and that is why there is discrepancy between the -- the quantity of greenhouse gases is much greater than the quantity of these other pollutants. that's were there is a difference between the statchtri threshold. >> that's right. and i think, your honor, there are two parallel problems as to which is meaning for it to violate the statute. one is the one your honor and justice sotomayer were ddressing. another is the requirement that this particular program be focused on these area specific air-quality impacts. there are three central features of the psd statute that we think show that.

the first is section 7471. which is on page 1380. that explains what psd refers to. 470 one says the program consists of emissions limitations as may be necessary to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in each region. that bears certain designations. the clean air act language for that sub set of air pollution problems that has regionally defined affects on the air that eople breathe. >> there are many statch utes, i believe, particularly in the regulatory area, where congress d.ls the agency a, b, c, and

they it turns out there are so many regulatory -- regulations it doesn't make sense to apply hem all. for example, if there were a statute that said you have to throw out all bubblegum that has been around for more than a month, what about bubblegum used in a display case that nobody intends to eat? we can say, it doesn't mean to apply to that. why can't the epa do that as well? it doesn't make sense here, so we read in exception into it, unwritten. >> i don't know that there actually is a precedent that an the agency can take

express command and delegate to the agency -- >> i am a little confused. there have to be pollutants where it doesn't and that just 250. it emits a million. we will get it depoun to 250. yet the p.s.d. program is in effect when they get down below 250 on any pollutant of the six dritera. -- criteria. it can't be your view that the statute was written only to get to measurable pollutants that are at 250 or can be wrought below 250. >> it's not our position that the purpose of best available control technology is to bring facilities below 250. >> that's a minimum -- >> g hg something that is about

that. it will never be brought below that. >> it is above that for millions of entities that congress ntended to exempt. >> if i could follow-up on justice breyer's question. you keep saying, epa is violating the specific term. the conundrum this case raises is everybody is violating a statutory term. epa is saying we can't do the 250. with respect to greenhouse gases. but you are also violating a statchtri term. it says any pollutant. or it says each pollute yapt subject to regulation.

it says any pollutant. or each pollutant subject to regulation. nobody would think that the most natural or reasonable readings are any pollutant if they have localized effects but not otherwise. what has happened here is you have this new kind of the mission -- emission that makes ese terms of the statute ireconsilable. why isn't that the more reasonable of the two things to do? we don't agree that those two dilemmas are equally ituated. ertainly, 100 and 250 tons per year is a clear and unambiguous congressional command. the question of how to interpret

"air pollutant" is -- >> one is a number, but the other -- each pollutant subject to regulation -- the epa has treated those phrases as meaning a single thing, which if you put aside the absurdity problem in this case, everybody would agree is the most reasonable interpretation. you are saying the epa should jump that interpretation because there is a new kind of chemical that makes the numbers not work. >> it goes much beyond the numbers. i think if anybody was looking at the psd statute in isolation without the benefit of e.p.a., assumes. that the word "plulet pollutant" was an undefined term, and what does this term refer to?

they would conclude it refers to pollutants that only have the area specific impact. it is also two other features of the statue which make it unambiguously clear. there are also two other features that make that unambiguously clear. the first is section 7475 e. that man -- mandates the one analysis that has to be conducted in every permit in process and the one analysis congress is required be available for public hearing. that is the analysis of the conditions at the site of the facility and each area that is going to be affected. >> counsel, we began the discussion by saying putting massachusetts versus epa to one side. i was in the dissent, but we

still can't do that. [laughter] >> assume we are bound to by both the result and reasoning of that case. massachusetts vs. e.p.a. and american electric vs. connecticut case. in your view, what regulatory force, what regulatory significance do those cases have under a, your approach, and b, the approach by the chamber of commerce and the blue brief? i think that may be consistent with the subject that the chief justice just opened.

>> let me turn to connecticut after doing massachusetts. the same day that massachusetts came out, this court decided environmental defense versus duke which decided -- even when a defined term is construed a particular way, it doesn't mean the same term can be construed differently where context requires. that is why massachusetts, after indeed holding that the definition of pollutant included greenhouse gases, didn't go there -- stop there. it asked whether applying it to the title ii provisions on motor vehicles would yield extreme measures or counterintuitive results.

only then did they direct the epa to apply the definition. they understood that the literal definition of pollutant was sufficiently broad that it should not be applied without some additional analysis of the context of the provisions. >> what else does it cover other than the -- mobile vehicles? >> there are multiple places where it appears in the act. they have interpreted the words, any air pollutant to mean any subset of the pollutants that this definition -- >> with respect, your honor, that is not correct. this is because the section that it is in is a different definition directly. same thing with the provision on disability. >> your answer is they can be treated differently under different parts of the act. >> it was an act of interpretation in massachusetts vs. e.p.a.

the question is, reading that decision as a whole, what did the court give that interpretation? it would have need today go on and say let's look at the title 2 provisions here and ask if these are extreme or counter-intuitive measures if that was the case that was an additional part of the inquiry that was necessary. >> what else? aside from psd. >> it excludes the new source performance standards program of section 111. this case is not about whether the epa can regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources. this case is not about whether e.p.a. can regulate greenhouse gases. this program held that it could. this is about whether state and local permitting authorities, the 90 plus authorities, are supposed to regulate plant by plant under this particular psd program. i mentioned the nsp is program -- the nsps program.

the features of that program highlight what's wrong here. the nsps program does not contain the elements of the p.s.d. program that required the p.s.d. program to be written to make greenhouse gases fit. nsps does not have the thresholds. it lets the epa decide what categories of sources are most contributing. to the problem and must require regulation. it doesn't require the area impact analysis which is required of sub section e, which the e.p.a. has told authorities not to conduct because it can't be done for greenhouse gases. it permits the epa to do this, a national uniform emission standard. rather than asking 90 state and local permitting authorities to decide plant by plant what they think each plant in their jurisdiction should do about hat.

>> i'm not sure what the statchtri side is that you are talking about. is it 7411? >> yes. so you are saying that they could use 7411 to get the same place they are today. >> they are doing it, your honor. >> that i don't know what this case is about. can they do the same thing under one provision or the other. >> it is not exactly the same thing. it is the difference tween -- difference between having the .p.a. establish a national emissions standard and then they can deal with that system in the best way they can. first is this p.s.d. program where 90-plus state and local

permitting authorities are each having to decide on their own what controls they think each plant should have in their area to deal with greenhouse gases. it makes perfect sense for them to address the air in their area. >> it says such standards with such modifications as he deems appropriate. that is the language. if this is the right program, why couldn't they copy it word for word into the rules and just put a different section number at the bottom? i know you'd have a preferred way to do it, but if a disagree with you and they think this is the perfect program, why can't they do it? >> the statutory language and structure of the psd program does not encompass these kinds of pollutants that have globally dispersed results and not area specific impacts.

for the reasons i have indicated. 7411 -- no, 7471 which says that the deterioration is focused on each region. the study by 7475 e, which is local conditions, and the fact that this is assigned to 90 state and local permitting authorities. >> to your second point, i have been making a list of what you were not permitted to get to. [laughter] one is the massachusetts case and the other is the follow-on case, connecticut. >> the only point to make about that is that is the case that held that the epa has authority under section 111 to a dress to address greenhouse gases without having to do what it is trying to do here. it has to do it through national omissions standards.

connecticut did not approve the .s.d. provisions here. >> the other thing you are going you were going to get to, 411 e. >> there were three steps. 747, prevention of significant deterioration. this is a sign -- assigned to 90 state and local agencies. for global problem like global warming, we think state and local authority should make the decisions rather than epa. >> just to be clear, you are

reading would say that the agency was not permitted to -- with an opportunity to be heard, naaqs. a criteria in >> if the agency had tried to establish naaqs for greenhouse gases, that would be contrary to the stature's -- standards. those are all about regional standards. if the gas goes up to the atmosphere and met since -- is mixed there, it doesn't work. >> take another five minutes in we can -- and we can begin by answering the question. the government disaggregates the discussion. the first point in their brief is that

greenhouse gases can be regulated with respect to sources that are already covered by psd. that position does not advocate your concern about the broad reach of epa regulation, does it? >> i think it does your honor. while that might deal with the specific issue of rewriting the thresholds, the fact that the psd provisions for the reasons i have indicated is limited to air quality impacts would be violated merely i applying vest available -- best available controller technology. >> and i understand, but they would only be applying that with respect to sources that are already required to operate under p.s.d. permits. >> that's right. i would see your honor, that while they have tried to separate those issues out, there's one issue about who has to get up permits any other issue is about the best available control technology.

what they've done is say the words subject to regulation shall only apply to greenhouse gases if you're committing them at levels of hundred thousand tons per more. when they did that, they both rewrote the provigs that says who has to get a permit and they rewrote the provisions that said which technology applies. they rewrote it at once, even though their brief treats it as separate. i don't know how much time i have, chief justice. [laughter] > you have 2:30. >> including rebuttal? >> and five minutes of rebuttal.

>> if i could then turn briefly to the second argument. an argument -- if not, we have a second narrow argument. which it dresses the requirements for triggering the psd statute. our opinion is very much like judge kavanaugh. it is only triggered by major amounts of a pollutant. >> that is not judge kavanaugh's position. his position is naaqs. >> that's right, your honor. our position is similar, but different. >> it is focused on a different area of the statute. >> that's right. we are focused on the language to any area to which this part applies. it is because parts see applies not -- part c place to some areas and not others. >> can i ask why judge kavanaugh's argument has been left by the wayside. >> it is very similar, your honor, to the argument we are making, but we get at it in a

different way with slightly different result. >> it comes from different statchtri language. the structure does not apply to your argument. so i think notwithstanding that there is some argument, the legal rationales are entirely live. nd i guess i'm just curious. >> this is the argument we made below. the point -- >> i don't think that answers the question. i know that is the argument. are you saying you cannot defend his argument? >> it is just that it has been ard enough to make two alternative arguments in this forum. [laughter] >> can we have the next criteria? he e.p.a. has standards.

for 30 years it has been adding things. hat about all those? >> your honor, it is true that since 1919 0 -- ever since 1980 the e.p.a. has said any polluteantant would be sufficient to trigger p.s.d. permit requirements. but that has virtually no practical effect. all those other pollutants, if they are emitted in threshold quantities, invariably, we have found two or three exceptions over 30 years, invariably the facility emitting them is also emitting 250 tons per year of one of those criteria pollutants. so this was a difference that made no difference until greenhouse gases came onto the scene. and with the court's permission, i will reserve the remainder of my time. >> thank you, counsel.

>> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, there are at least two issues on which the parishioners and the e.p.a. agree. there are two issues in this case. the first is that the term air pollutant cannot be given -- even after the ruling in massachusetts that it includes all things airborne for purposes of title 2. the unambiguous statutory requirements of those programs are incompatible with regulation of greenhouse gases. the epa thinks it can fix this problem by imposing in age and

she created regime -- and agency reated regime. the problem is, congress never delegated authority in the p.s.d. congress does not establish round holes for square pegs. and agency cannot make a whole quare by rewriting unambiguous stratchtri language. >> i think the unambiguous statchtri language you are referring to is the reference to 100 to 250. it seems to me that is an odd time to -- term to drive such an mportant interpretation. they were supposed to differentiate major from minor. those were about the size of the facility. they were not supposed to have -- they were not supposed to make any distinctions as to the type of pollutant.

you're essentially using those numbers to make distinctions as to the type of pollutant rather than -- it seems to me a more sensible approach would be to say the numbers don't work for this new kind of pollutant. we will up the numbers. that will leave the rest of the statute and all the purposes of congress intact. >> the reason we think you'd -- we don't think this approach is permissible is because there are provisions in the clean air act that specifically prohibit e.p.a. to do. section 7661 a says e.p.a. cannot exempt any source from the title 1 requirement. because that is in the statute, e.p.a. cannot be claiming to see seek discretion when congress has held that kind of discretion ere. the question to ask is whether the term "air pollutant" is flexible enough to accommodate

different meanings. even after massachusetts, it is held it can mean things. eta -- epa agrees it can mean different things. massachusetts said that air polluted includes anything airborne. but epa has refused to carry over that definition. one of them is part of the sps program. --nsps program. epa does not interpret that to mean all things airborne. it doesn't even interpret it to mean all regulated ollutants. it interprets that to mean, air pollutants for which a standard of performance has been established.