you see ronald reagan was not part of the establishment, he was an outsider. like you and so many others throughout history, he had the and like you in so many others throughout history, he had the courage to stand up and be counted. and for this, also like you, reagan and his supporters were disparaged and dismissed by the same ruling class. i will give you a few examples. , 1974.will reagan is 63, and he looks it. his hair is still remarkably free of gray, but around the mouth and neck he looks like an old man. he has never demonstrated substantial national appeal. hard-core support today consists primarily of the, causing conservatives -- of the

kamikaze conservatives that got the 1960 campaign was a general fund. and there is reason to doubt that reagan is well-suited to appeal to an electorate that just produced a democratic landslide. george will. chuck percy, a former republican senator from illinois, a reagan nomination and a crushing defeat likely to follow could signal the end of our party as an effective force in american life. he said reagan is far out of the centrist mainstream. what the hell is the centrist mainstream anyway? [laughter] i used to think it was the constitution, the free market, private property rights. apparently now that is right wing. [applause] john rhodes, who would become the republican leader of the always in the minority republicans in the house at that

said, as soon as rating gets away from his clichés and campaign slogans, he's in trouble. rockefeller, who leads the current republican party, i think, he warned republican governors in terms of reagan's run that no party can win by directing it deal to a narrow minority. our nationshave parties polarized at ideological extremes. does this sound familiar to you? there are so many of these i could go on all day with this. [applause] i've got a radio show to do and a president to attack hamas i can't say -- stay all day.

attack, soesident to i can stay all day. [applause] in 1979 from the wall street journal editorial page, the wall street journal wrote, for political packaging we do not need to turn to a 68-year-old man. ,aybe they will write tomorrow for political packaging, we don't need to turn to a 68-year-old woman, who would be hillary clinton. [applause] but i digress. now, as you heard from my friend, jeff lord, gerald ford to a very weak democratic candidate named jimmy carter. to win in 1980 and in 1984 to my two of the

biggest landslides in modern history -- i would remind karl , the popular vote and the electoral college. [applause] having campaigned personally for reagan in 1976 and in 1980, i want you to listen to me. i feel certain he would be enormously proud of you. in fact, i bet he would have been thrilled to stand before you right here and thank you for all you are doing, and all you , and congratulate you on this fifth anniversary of the tea party. is appropriate to end my comments with a truism from president reagan, which is the last paragraph of my book, "liberty and tyranny," which most of you have heard by now, but i will repeat it anyway for those who have not. reagan wrote and said this many times.

freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. ourid not pass it to children in the bloodstream. it must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the united states when men were free. folks, you are an inspiration to people like me and millions and -- and and millions of others. it's a great honor to be here, and on behalf of all of those people, and fellow citizens and generations yet to come, i want to thank you. and god bless all of you. >> secretary of state john kerry will be speaking for the american israel public affairs committee. his speech is scheduled to get underway at about 6 p.m.

eastern. live coverage starts at 5:00 with her marked by senator chuck schumer of new york. and secretary kerry will leave tonight for ukraine. reuters is running a story about an increasing military threat that says, in part, russia's thek sea fleet has told forces in crimea to surrender. if they do not surrender by 5 a.m. tomorrow, a real assault will be started in the divisions of armed forces across crimea. that again, from reuters. earlier today at aipac, senator russiacain commented on and the ukraine. here's what he -- a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> i come to you with a heavy heart of what is happening in the ukraine.

it is directly related to what is happening in the middle east him and obviously we know that what happens in the you middle east -- in the middle east is vital to the existence of the state of his -- israel. i will not go through the history of the ukraine with you. but the fact is, crimea is a sovereign part of the sovereign nation of ukraine. and people in ukraine by the hundreds of thousands went to the square in subzero temperatures saying they did not want to be part of putin's russia. that is what it was all about. over,at the olympics are immediately afterwards we now see the occupation of crimea. and by the way, in case you missed it, one of the reasons why there is a majority population of russians in crimea is because stalin exported all of the tartars. over half of them were killed as he drove them from crimea. on the a blatant act part of vladimir putin, and one that must be unacceptable to the

world community. it cannot stand. [applause] and i have to be very honest with you. there is not a military option that can be exercised now. but the most powerful and biggest and strongest nation in the world should have plenty of options, and those options are many. theseg from identifying kleptocratic, these corrupt , and thank god for the magnets key act. we can expand it. we can enact economic sanctions. effect. a broad this is the result of a feckless policy where nobody believes in america's strength anymore.

>> you can see all of senator mccain's remarks from the aipac conference from this morning. go to our website www.c-span.org . much of the east coast is in the middle of a major snowstorm today. senate is in session today. they are postponing a vote on the nomination of the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the justice department. the senate gaveled in at 2:00 eastern for speeches. they just started. live coverage is on c-span2. on event we were planning covering have been canceled as well. >> the internet as we know it today bears no resemblance to monopoly telephone service back in the 1930's and 1940's and 1950's.

what the court has said and what the congress supports is if i walk into a grocery store and i buy a gallon of milk, i pay three dollars 50 cents per gallon. if i buy 10 gallons, i paid $35. wheeler's sec wants to say you can use as much milk as you want and you only have to pay $3.50. that is just wrong. netflix is the biggest user of the internet as people download their movies. sometimes they are as much as 30% of the total volume of the internet. obviously, netflix should pay more than somebody who uses the internet once a month. i'm being very simplistic, but that is the genesis. these companies have spent billions and billions of dollars to set up their systems and to provide the fiber optics and the mega-speed that we take for granted.

at some level, they should be allowed to charge based on volume. >> net neutrality and other telecom issues. tonight at 8 p.m. on the communicators on c-span2. last week, the supreme court argument on the environmental protection agency's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. in 2007, the court decided that the epa could regulate greenhouse gases, as air pollutants under the clean air act in motor vehicles. rightly in this case determined that they were allowed to produce permit regulations under the clean act stations.nary all sides agree that the epa has the power to regulate greenhouse gases, but they differ on how the agency should go about it. the court is expected to decide this case before the end of its term in june.

>> we will hear argument in case 12 1146. utility regulatory group versus the environmental protection agency and the consolidated cases. mr. keisler? >> may it please the court. the situation here is unprecedented in two respects. one, the epa agreed that -- if it's interpretation is adopted, then applying other issues to the same statutes would according to their terms , result in a program that would have been unrecognizable to the congress that enacted it. contrary to congress's and 10, intent 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. is problematic as that alone would be. 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 -- air pollutant. there are a lot of different interpretations that have gone on. here is some choices. -- here are 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. any pollution in the area. 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. and there is still another position that says it is any 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. it is that is where i would choose an option -- the pst program is focused on omissions that have specific impacts. and not globally undifferentiated phenomena.

>> when you say area specific 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 an -- >> if the epa could not make a regulatory finding -- >> 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 -- in 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. >> all it says as i understand it -- other than that you review

there are too many people it is regulating -- is that we cannot implement it immediately. because it would overburden us administratively. it hasn't said with streamlining and other adjustments, it cannot do this. it just as we can't do it right away. >> that is right, your honor. and that also reflects a deeper problem and then address why it is the only correct interpretation. >> before you do that, can you clarify whether you agree with the dissenting -- can we clarify whether you agree with the dissenting judges on the d c circuit? criteriaimit it to pollutants, and even so, that it must be installed with

greenhouse gases. 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 -- is not 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 can trigger its applicable of the and it would not be subject to the determine knowledge book -- available. >> 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?

the endangerment finding is not before us today. but the endangerment finding is that 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 defined air quality 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. as it did say, to get down to the level of statutory thresholds.

when epa says they want to get down to the apartment buildings and high schools, it is contravening congressional intent. >> i read them as saying they will try to do it, but make whatever it dungeons -- make whatever exemptions are necessary. that thoseproblem is exemptions violate the statute as well. the exemptions they are talking about, in order to seal with the exemptions, are to have general permits by category. it specifically says they are to be case-by-case. >> it clearly is not a matter of the epa saying, we cannot do it right away. but we are going to do it eventually. >> if they did say that, they would be violating a statute in the worst ways. they would be treating a command by congress not to regulate small entities into a command to

regular -- to regulate small entities. >> 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? isn't there also a big difference in that the quantity is greater and that is why there is a discrepancy between the thatcher tory threshold and the -- the statutory threshold and the threshold that epa has? >> that is right, your honor. there are two things in play. one is the one that your honor and justice sotomayor were referring to. design for -- whether you rewrite the threshold or regulate down to the infinitesimal level, you are rewriting the threshold.

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 is the -- 13a. that explains what psd refers to. says the program consists of 7471 emissions limitations as may be necessary to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in each region. air-quality in each resident -- region -- regionally defined effects on the air people breathe. >> there are many statutes and

particularly in the regulatory area where congress passes a statute -- in the regulatory area where congress passes a statute. it turns out there are so many that it just does not make sense to apply a, b, c, and d. often, i would think courts read in an exception. 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 says 250 tons or more and we apply that all over the place, except it doesn't make sense here, so we read in exception into it, unwritten.

for places where it does not make sense. >> i don't know that there actually a precedent that says the agency can do precisely what it did here. it did not delegate to the agency -- >> i am a little confused. there have to be pollutants where it doesn't and that just 250. -- e-mail to just 250. -- emit just 250. it in minutes -- emits one million. and the best available technology won't get it down to below 250. is in effectrogram .hen they get down below 250 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. it's our position that the statute sets that 250 level as the trigger. >> that's a minimum -- ghg something that is about that. it will never be brought below that. >> it is above that for millions of entities that congress intended 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 the statutory term. 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 emission that makes the terms of the statute irreconcilable. the agency has essentially picked one. pick anot just going to broad class of pollutants, but instead we are going to fudge the numbers. why isn't that the more reasonable of the two things to do? >> we don't agree that those two dilemmas are equally situated. certainly, 100 and 250 tons per

year is a clear command. the question of how to interpret air pollutant -- that is subject to interpretation. >> 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

massachusetts versus apa, -- versus epa, they would conclude it refers to pollutants that only have the area specific impact. it is not only referring to the deterioration of air quality in each region. it is also two other features of the statue which make it unambiguously clear. the first is section 7475 ee. that mandates the one an 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. >> 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] >> that is right, your honor. >> assume we are bound to by both the result and reasoning of that case. what regulatory force, significance, do those cases have under your approach and that by the chamber of commerce in the blue brief? that might be consistent with the subject we 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 -- cannot 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 -- >> that is because the section that it is in is a different definition directly. >> that is not correct. for example, in the psd title v provisions, -- the epa has interpreted that to mean any regulated pollutants. same thing with the provision on disability. the context would suggest otherwise. >> your answer is they can be treated differently under different parts of the act.

doesn't that contradict your earlier view that we cannot change the statute? >> i don't think so, your honor, because it was an act of interpretation in epa versus massachusetts. reading that decision as a whole, what did the court give to that interpretation? it would not have needed to go on and say, let's look specifically at the title ii decision here and ask if it produces extreme measures. if it weren't the case that that was an additional part of the inquiry that was necessary. >> what else? you said it excludes the psd. what else? >> 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 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 is wrong here. nsps does not have the thresholds. it does not require them to be rewritten in so many particulars to make sure that greenhouse gases it lets the epa decide fit. what categories of sources are most contributing. it doesn't require the analysis of subsection e, which the epa has told authorities not to conduct because it cannot be done for greenhouse. -- greenhouse gases. -- nsps 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 -- >> in your opinion, is it 7411? you are saying they could use 7411 to get to the same place they are today. there must be some reason they did not do that. >> 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. you agree with them that they could do it in the other one and we end up at the same place. >> it is not exactly the same thing. it is the difference tween having the epa -- between letting the epa have national and then thendards

land can have standards met with a can meet them versus this command-and-control psd system. where each authority thinks -- has to decide which mechanisms to use. it makes perfect sense to have 90 state and local permitting authorities address the specific air quality issues in their states. >> it says such standards with such modifications as he deems appropriate. that is the language. of 7411 be. 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 -- if they 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. 74 71, which says the significant -- prevention of significant deterioration is focused on each reason. -- the deterioration of air quality in each region. the fact that this was assigned to 90 state and local permitting authorities. >> you were going to discuss not -- i have been keeping a list of points you were not permitted to get to. in one, you were going to discuss not just the massachusetts case, but 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 greenhouse gases without having to what is it is trying to do

-- without having to rewrite thresholds by designating sources as it is trying to do here. it has to do it through national omissions standards. -- national emissions standards. connecticut did not approve the psd provisions here. not approve the rewriting of regulations. >> the other thing you are going to get -- you only got to 74 -- 7411 (e). >> there were three features of the statute that we got to. the first was prevention of significant deterioration. the second was the only required , study as of local conditions. and the third is this is 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're -- your reading would say that the agency was not permitted to make a criteria in naaqs. >> if they had tried to establish naaqs for greenhouse gases, that would be contrary to the stature's -- standards. -- to the statute. ambient air quality statutes are all about regional standards. if the gas goes up to the atmosphere and met since -- is mixed there, it doesn't work. either the whole country will be in attainment or out of attainment. my time has expired. >> take another five minutes in we can -- and we can begin by answering the question. the government -- 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 cash -- that position does not implicate 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 -- merely by applying best available controller technology. for substances like greenhouse gases. >> i understand, but they would only be applying that with respect to sources that are already required to operate under psd permits. >> that's right. but they would be assigning them to greenhouse gases, which the

program was not designed to address. 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. the regulation that they have adopted to implement what they , whatheir tailoring rule 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. they rewrote the permit -- provision that says who has to get a permit and they rewrote the best available control technology. they did both at once, even though their brief treated as separate. i'm not sure how much time i have. [laughter] if i could then turn briefly to the second argument.

an argument -- if not, we have a second narrow argument. which addresses 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. is anyht his position naaqs pollutant and all pollutant. >> we are focused on the language of 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 to the argument we are making, but we get that with a slightly different result. >> it comes from different statutory language. his arguments about the structure of the statue do not apply to your argument. i think notwithstanding that there is some overlap between the arguments, the legal rationales are entirely different. i am curious. >> this is the argument we made below. and it is the argument we have continued to make here. >> 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 hard enough to make two alternative arguments in the form. -- forum. [laughter] and to add a third to it would be more than i think i can handle. >> can we have -- the next criteria.

epa has added many others. for 30 years it has been adding things. what about all those? >> your honor, it is true that since 1980 -- although it propose our interpretation as its original interpretation, epa has said any pollutant would be sufficient to trigger permit requirements. that has had virtually no practical effect. all the other pollutants, we have only been able to find two or three exceptions over 30 years, invariably they are also committing one of the criteria -- the facility that is e-mailing them is also a meeting one of the criteria pollutants. this made no difference until greenhouse pollutants came on the scene.

>> thank you, counsel. general mitchell.

>> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, there of are at least two issues in this case in which epa and the petitioners agree. the first is that the term "air pollutant" cannot be given uniform construction after the clean air act even after this court's ruling in massachusetts that "air pollutant" includes all things airborne for purposes of title 2. the second point of agreement is that greenhouse gases cannot be treated the same as other air pollutants for purposes of the psd and title 5 programs, because the unambiguous statutory requirements of those programs are incompatible with sensible regulation of greenhouse gases. epa thinks it can fix this problem by imposing an atextual agency-created regime that applies only to greenhouse gases. the proper response, however, is for epa to conclude that congress never delegated regulatory authority over greenhouse gases in the psd and title 5 programs. congress does not establish round holes for square pegs, and brown & williamson holds in these situations agency cannot make a round hole square by rewriting unambiguous statutory language. >> general, i take it that the unambiguous statutory language that you are referring to is the references to 100 and to 250. and it seems to me that that's an odd kind of term to drive such an important statutory interpretation question, because what those numbers were all about is that they were supposed to separate major emitters from minor emitters. i mean, they were supposed to be 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. so you're essentially using those numbers to make distinctions as to the type of pollutant rather than, it seems to me and more sensible approach would be to say, look, the 100 and 250 numbers don't work for this new kind of pollutant, we're going to up the numbers, and that will be the rest of the statute and all the purposes of congress intact. >> justice kagan, the reason we don't think the approach that you describe is permissible is because there are statutory provisions in the clean air act that specifically forbid epa to do what your honor is prescribing. 7661(a)(a) says that epa cannot under any circumstance exempt any major source from the title 5 requirements. and because that provision is in the statute, epa cannot be claiming to seize discretion when congress has specifically withheld that type of discretion here. this is akin to a dispensing power, for epa to be coming in and rewriting the title 5 permitting thresholds in the way

that they are. and the question to ask is whether the term "air pollutant" is flexible enough to accommodate different meanings in different statutory contexts. and here even epa agrees with us that "air pollutant" can mean different things in different parts of the act, even after massachusetts. massachusetts held that "air pollutant" unambiguously includes all things airborne, all airborne compounds of whatever stripe for purposes of title 2. but epa has refused to carry over that definition throughout the clean air act when the term "air pollutant" appears in at least three different places. one of them is section 7411(a)(4), which is part of the nsps program. in that provision the term "air pollutant" appears as part of the definition of modification. epa does not interpret that to mean all things airborne. it doesn't even interpret it to mean all regulated air pollutants. it interprets that to mean air pollutants for which a standard of performance has been established. in the psd and title 5 permitting thresholds, epa interprets the phrase "any air pollutant" not to mean all things airborne, but to mean any

regulated air pollutant. and then finally, in section 7491 epa interprets the phrase "any pollutant" to mean any visibility-impairing pollutant. so if massachusetts's all things airborne view of the phase "air pollutant" is forced to be applied to every provision of the clean air act where the word "air pollutant" appears, all of these longstanding epa interpretations would have to be discarded. >> but, general, if you think about the question of what any pollutant means, and you put aside this whole absurdity question that the numbers get you to, you just say, what does any air pollutant mean? does it mean what epa has said it has meant for 30 years, which is any pollutant that's regulated under this act, or does it mean something more along the lines of what you're saying, which is anything other than greenhouse gases or anything other than pollutants that have particular localized effects. you would obviously choose epa's version of the thing.

and the only reason that you're not choosing that is because of these numbers that are in the statute, which were designed only, only to distinguish between major and minor emitters. so if you can distinguish between major and minor emitters while keeping the completely sensible longstanding interpretation of any pollutant, why wouldn't you do that? >> because i don't think it can be said, justice kagan, that the phrase "any air pollutant" unambiguously means any regulated pollutant. that is a possible interpretation of air pollutant, but there are others, and epa has adopted other definitions depending on the surrounding statutory -->> let me ask you a question. assuming we agree with you, that neither massachusetts or alabama there's no statutory command to come to epa's conclusion, what do we do? do we just reverse them, or do we vacate and remand and tell them, no, you were wrong at step one.

there is ambiguity in the statute? >> it's more than just that there's ambiguity, justice sotomayor. we're asking the court to hold that a greenhouse gas inclusive interpretation of air pollutant simply does not fit with the unambiguous provisions of the psd and title v programs, just as a tobacco inclusive or nicotine inclusive interpretation of the word "drug" was not able to fit with the unambiguous requirement -- >> but that's a difficult i think where justice kagan is going and i will if she wasn't, but i think she was is put the definition from 7479 in your mind. that means something to you, right? you know what i'm talking about. >> the definition of? >> of the major emitting facility. >> right. >> ok. now, we look at 7475, and it says you have to have a permit and use best available control technology. for what? and then we go to the definition, and it says, among other things, "for any source with the potential to emit 250 tons per year or more of any

pollutant." now, that doesn't my god, that maybe means every 500 people, every school is applied here. so you say we've got to do something about this statute because they don't really mean to every football game they're going to have a permit, or it doesn't mean every 500 people, like all of my relatives are together, they have to have a permit. no, it can't mean that. so we have two choices. choice a, which is what you would like, is it means any air pollutant, any regulated air pollutant, but not greenhouse gases. ok. that's choice one. choice two is it means any air pollutant including greenhouse gases, but implicitly epa has the authority to exempt small emitters. you see? now, which does the less violence to the statute? >> choice one.

and the reason choice one -- >> i knew you would say that. >> the reason choice one does less violence is because the term "air pollutant" is flexible and has been acknowledged to be by epa for decades, and i think even by this court, notwithstanding its holding in massachusetts. it's permissible for an agency to construe ambiguous statutory language to avoid absurdity. in fact, it must construe the ambiguous language to avoid absurdity before taking choice two that your honor described, where it rewrites unambiguous statutory language to avoid absurdity. if the simple choice were between construing one unambiguous statutory provision to avoid the anomalous results and construing another unambiguous statutory provision to avoid that outcome, then epa would have a much stronger case for deference here. the problem for epa is they've insisted for decades that air pollutant can mean different things in different parts of -- >> all right. so let me modify my question. i get that answer on the language there. but if you had been sitting in congress and the senate, mr.

billings, i think, is the staff person, senator muskie, and suppose that you had this choice put to you with your language. we'd either like to have the authority implicit here to exempt the football team, the tiny emitters, or we'd like it not to cover it at all. which do you think the senate would have chosen in enacting this bill from the evidence in the language itself, in the evidence which i look at, the history of the bill? >> i think they did make a choice, and it's in the language of the bill, that epa does not have the authority to exempt any major source from title v. they say that right there in section 7061(a)(a) on page 44 of the statutory appendix in -- >> title v is not the psd requirement. title v is just the recordkeeping provision. >> that's true, but epa -- >> and so why shouldn't we

-- why should we exempt people from title v? that's not what's causing the burden that you're talking about. it's just a recordkeeping provision. >> but it's a it's a very burdensome recordkeeping provision as as epa acknowledges. that's why they're not willing to impose it on every entity that emits more than 100 tons per year of carbon dioxide. it costs, on average, $20,000 to get a title v permit and and hundreds of man hours. and it's plausible to impose those burdens, perhaps, on large industrial sources, but certainly not to impose that on the corner deli or or the chinese restaurant of a high school building. so, again, to return to justice breyer's question, which would congress have chosen, the choice was made in the statute to establish rigid numerical permitting thresholds that were defined not only by 100 tons and 250 tons per year, but also defined by a specific metric. and to withhold from the agency the discretion to depart from those unambiguous requirements, instead, they provided looseness to the extent they provided it in the definition of air pollutant, which even though this court held in massachusetts

unambiguously includes all things airborne, for purposes of title ii, epa has narrowed that construction in numerous other parts of the statute. >> all right. if you can narrow it, why not narrow that one? any air pollutant, including greenhouse gases, to the extent that they can be sensibly controlled under this statute. now i've worked with the words "air pollutant." you see, i can do it any way you want if i'm prepared to read in exceptions. and, of course, we do have exceptions when agencies enforce statutes. we do have exceptions from general language all the time. >> i don't yeah, i don't think it would be a permissible act of statutory construction to say that carbon dioxide could be an air pollutant and not an air pollutant at the same time. >> well, you you'd accept his definition, wouldn't you? you'd be happy with a definition that says air pollutant means any air pollutant to the extent it can be sensibly controlled under the statute. and you would say this one obviously can't. >> right, which means it can't be regulated under the title v -- >> so that would be a wonderful

definition. >> it can, though. it can in large quality quantities. i mean, you don't see anything wrong with large quantities. it's just the small quantities you have a problem with. >> well, we have a problem with -- >> i mean, are you saying it doesn't make sense to control major emitters of co2? >> we're saying it doesn't make sense to construe air pollutant in a greenhouse gas-inclusive manner for purposes of the psd program because the unambiguous requirements require the epa to reach the small emitters. and if epa wants to fix the problem, they can't resort to this form of agency selfhelp. they need to get -- >> general, one question is what would congress have wanted, given the obvious purposes of the act. and that's an important question. another question is, what did the agency decide here? i mean, obviously, this is the apex of chevron deference. there's nothing that gets more deference than this agency with respect to this complicated a statute. and given that this whole thing arises because there's this new kind of emission, which 6 which numbers don't work

for, so which essentially makes these two terms in the statute irreconcilable, why isn't that a classic case for deference to the agency, that the agency gets to choose how to make the thing work as best it can, when a changed circumstance makes it work not entirely the way congress had foretold? >> i think because the court rejected that very idea in brown & williamson, where tobacco was trying to be regulated by fda under a statute where the word "drug" clearly included nicotine, if you just looked at the definition of "drug" in isolation, but this court rejected fda's assertion of jurisdiction by saying that the unambiguous requirements of the food and drug act would be -- >> to accept your your argument, we have to reverse massachusetts. >> no, not at all, justice sotomayor. >> well, you're saying that the that congress didn't intend to control this pollutant. we said there that it did. >> no. the court only needs to revisit massachusetts if it believes that air pollutant must have a uniform, unambiguous construction everywhere it

appears in the clean air act. and and not even epa is making that assertion to this court. and we've shown throughout how epa has interpreted air pollutant differently. so there is no need to visit massachusetts at all to conclude that at least in the context of the psd and title v programs, it's not plausible for the agency to construe the phrase "air pollutant" to include greenhouse gases. if the court has no further questions, i yield my time back to the court. >> thank you, general mitchell. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, greenhouse gases pose the same threat to public health and welfare when they are emitted from a power plant as when they are emitted from the tailpipe of a car. and in american electric power this court said it was plain that epa has the authority to prescribe general rules limiting

greenhouse gas emissions by stationary sources like power plants. yet petitioners say epa lacks any authority to use the psd permitting program to regulate the same emissions, from the same sources, causing the same harms. that's not a reasonable reading of statutory text, and it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the psd program and the way it is supposed to operate in conjunction with the -- >> why? why would it be unreasonable to give give epa authority to regulate mobile sources and not authority to to regulate stationary sources, given that stationary sources have to be licensed in this fashion and it it produces all sorts of other problems? that doesn't seem to me irrational at all. >> well, the court said, i think, that it was plain that congress gave epa the authority to regulate stationary sources in the american electric power case under section 7411, and that i think gets to a fundamental premise where the petitioners are just wrong.

section 7411 and this relates to a question you asked, justice breyer section 7411 and the psd program are not aimed at different problems. they are aimed at the same problem, and you can see that from the statutory text. for example, if one looks at section 7475(a)(3), which you can find at page 21a of our appendix, you will see that in order to become eligible for a psd permit if you are a major emitting facility, you've got to if you are looking at subsection (3), under (3)(a) and (3)(b), you've got to show that you can meet all of the local air quality requirements of the naaqs, those standards.

naaqs, those standards. and then (c) says you've got to meet any other applicable emissions standard or standard of performance under this chapter. and that standard of performance language is not an accident. in 7411 the standards that are set, the nationwide standards that mr. keisler was discussing for greenhouse gases or other air pollutants, are called standards of performance. so it's specifically picking up the section 7411 standard. then if one turns to the definition of best available control technology under the psd program, which you can find at page 34a of the appendix to our brief, you will notice that congress specifically linked the operation of the section 7411 standards and the best available control technology under the psd program. and what this provision says, i won't belabor you by reading the lengthy provision, but what it says is that once congress has set a standard under section 7411, a nationwide standard, that becomes a floor for the evaluation of best available control technology. >> are you reading subsection (3), the (a), (b) and (c), and you focus on (c), any other

applicable are you reading those in the alternative? i read that they that all three have to be complied with. >> yes, they all three have have to be complied with, yes, justice -- >> but then that doesn't help you, because you are right back to where you started. you have the tonnage per year requirement. >> well, i would be happy to -- >> and with the absurd result that follows. >> well, i would be happy to get to that. but if i could just finish off this point about the connection between the operation of the two, because i do think it's of critical importance here. that what you are supposed to do under bact is use best available control technology to get above the floor, that the nsps program sets those standards on an every 8-year basis, and the point of bact is to force best practices to keep raising the bar during those 8-year intervals. and there is an additional point to be made about the relationship between the two. this goes back to senator muskie in 1977. the nsps program was enacted as part of the 1970 act. the psd program was added in 1977. and it was added in 1977 because

of dissatisfaction over both the pace and the comprehensiveness of the of air pollution regulations that were being enacted by epa under the 7411 standard. and it's because under 7411 epa has got to go one source category at a time. it has got to do power plants. then it's got to do refineries. then it's got to do the next thing and the next thing and the next thing. and so epa hadn't gotten standards in place for all the different sources, and the point of the psd program is to put in place an additional requirement. it's exactly what congress was after. so that when there is a standard under 7411 that becomes the floor, and you and bact says let's keep raising the bar. but when there isn't a standard under 7411 psd is supposed to fill the breach, and it makes sense because you want to get the psd program, remember, applies to -- excuse me -- it applies to new construction or major modification. the idea behind it is you want to get in there at the beginning when the source is first being constructed, so that they don't

lock in old pollutant-causing technology. they have got to meet best available control technology. >> about the best available control technology, i think i have an idea of what that looks like with respect to sources already regulated, because they're relating to the naaqs. you know, filters, scrubbers, and all that. i'm sure it's oversimplified. but what does best available control technology look like with respect to greenhouse gases? >> well, it's an evolving process, your honor, and there are now 140 or so permits that have been issued applying bact to greenhouse gas emissions. there is some very helpful discussion of this kind of specifics in two places, the state respondents' brief, pages 35 to 39, and the calpine amicus brief. calpine is a major utility, regulated -- >> all right. but am i right because the greenhouse gases do not affect ambient air quality in a way that the current or the naaqs provisions do? i mean, you're dealing with regulation of energy usage,

right, as opposed to emissions of lead, emissions of the other naaqs provisions? >> well it's one thing we're doing the main thing now is significant energy efficiency, for example, different kinds of turbines. different kinds of processes, that sort of thing. that's right. >> the same sort of thing as with, for domestic uses, the energy-efficient light bulbs? >> well, i really don't think this is about light bulbs, mr. chief justice. >> no, but my point is it relates to energy consumption as opposed to particulate emission. >> at the at the moment that's largely true, not entirely true. there are some other technologies described. but of course the epa is considering and scientists are trying to develop additional control technologies like carbon capture technologies. and that's the whole point of best available control technology, is as technology advances and better options come online, that allow for even greater control of the pollutants, the statute requires that they be incorporated. that's how it's supposed to work.

>> if you if you regulate -- i'm talking about your two distinct arguments in your in your brief. if you prevail on the first, in other words, greenhouse gases may be regulated with respect to sources that are already subject to permitting, my understanding, it gets you to 83% of the greenhouse gas emissions. >> that's correct. >> prevailing on the second argument gets you to 86%. >> that's correct. >> so this is a fight putting aside your first argument about an additional 3%, and yet according to the petitioners that brings in this huge regulatory problem, of, you know, regulating the high school football game and whatnot. >> right. just an aside on the high school football game. human beings are actually net neutral on carbon emissions, and you will need a chemist to explain that to you. but it doesn't matter how many families members you have. you won't get to the limit. but with respect to the question -- >> the lights at the game. >> the lights at the game i don't think would be a problem,

either. but anyway there obviously is and epa has acknowledged that there is a significant expansion of the permitting obligation under epa's present understanding of permitting. but let me try to take this in two pieces if i could. let me first talk about why it's not just about the 3%, and then let me try to get back to justice kennedy's question to talk about the expansion of the permitting obligation and what epa is actually thinking and doing about that. the problem here is that the options -- one of the problems, significant problem, is that the options that the the american chemistry council have advanced and even that judge kavanaugh has advanced would require an invalidation of or at least a significant, a significant revision of epa's 34-year understanding of the meaning of the phrase "any air "pollutant" in 7479(1), which they have always interpreted to mean any any air pollutant subject to regulation under the act.

you can't apply that 34-year-long agency interpretation here and get to one of those results. you've got to you've got to change it. >> yes, but the 34-year agency interpretation is not a statute. >> no, it's not, justice scalia, of course. >> and you are you know, you are saying, oh, rather than alter our 34-year interpretation, we're we're going to revise the provisions of the statute. i don't think that's a -- that's a good trade. >> well, i -- with all due respect, i don't think that's what the agency is doing and if i may, just, let me if i could just sort of finish off this. the problem is that if you take the -- if you draw the line either at naaqs pollutants versus all other previously regulated pollutants, or if you draw the line at local pollutants but not global pollutants, you are going to knock out some sources that have been subjected to the permitting requirement previously. >> can i ask you this question about epa's position?

because this is something i don't understand. on the one hand, epa says that applying the statutory thresholds to greenhouse gases would transform the psd program into something that would be unrecognizable to the congress that enacted the program. isn't that right? >> yes, they did say that. >> on the other hand, epa says, but that's what we're going to aim to achieve at some point down the road. >> no, that's a fundamental misconception, justice alito, and i would like to try to clear it up and it goes to -- i'll try to answer your honor's question as well, justice scalia. what epa's doing here is saying this is a transition, it's not a rewrite. and the goal of the transition is not to gradually expand the permitting requirement until they've got all the dunkin' donuts in america under it. that's not what's going on. in fact, it's the opposite. what they're saying is, they're taking a look at the standards they used to decide who's eligible for a permit. they're looking to change those, to the extent they can, consistent with their statutory authority and appropriate chevron deference, to

substantially narrow the numbers of people who will be deemed eligible. and that's in particular -- >> and then they're never going to get to the statutory thresholds. i thought epa said well, we're going to work toward that. >> no, this is this is to try to get to the statutory threshold. well, let me give you an example of the main one of the main ways -- of the main ways -- >> well, that's then i don't understand the position. if if applying the statutory thresholds makes the program unrecognizable, and yet that's what they're going to aim to do down the road, get to get to the statutory thresholds, will it become more recognizable at that point? >> under the point, the nuance there, that i think answers your honor's question, is that there the agency has discretion in deciding what constitutes the potential to emit 250 tons per year. what they have done historically is evaluate that on the basis of an assumption that its facilities operating 24 hours a day -- >> but then they'll then they'll be back down to to 41,000 people

fully within this. and when you get to number 5, title v, 6.1 million, that sort of changes what -- i mean, if that's the question, does, in fact, this provision give the epa the the obligation to impose permit requirements on 41,000 businesses of a size that really are -- constitute, at most, 10 or 15% of the problem, well, that's that's pretty hard to accept. >> well -- >> what i thought the question was, was whether epa had the authority to implement this in a way that epa itself thinks make sense, which might be, on their own reasoning, to not impose permitting requirements on tens of thousands, perhaps millions of small businesses. i thought that was what the question was. that did seem to be the way they put it. >> it is.

but i think the two things converge, justice breyer. they're trying to get to the point of saying that you won't have to apply -- if you apply the standards epa uses now, you sweep in all these people, and epa says, well -- >> are they going to get some new standards? but are these -- but the words they used in their opinion were "streamlining." >> right. >> the words they used in their opinion implied to me when i read them that they're never going to want to put tiny boilers under this because it just doesn't do very much good and it's expensive to administer. that's how i read it. >> that's correct. >> all right. then my question is back, because you've been -- this has been very helpful. i learned i'm not a net emitter of carbon dioxide. believe me, because that means i'm a part of sustainable development. i thought -- [laughter] >> all right. so i learned quite a lot from this and i'd like to learn one more thing, which is, look, 7411, remember what the chief justice said about the 83% and

the 86%. and even if you lose, they still can regulate 83%, and if you win, you can regulate 86%. and, my goodness, if 7411 is over there letting them do precisely what they want, why do you need this, too? that's the part that i haven't got a clear answer to in my mind. >> so the it's the reason i tried to suggest earlier, justice breyer, that the psd program is supposed to work as a complement together with 7411. for example, if 7411 now is being used, at least epa's contemplating setting standards, greenhouse gas emission standards for power plants. that's a very significant contributor of greenhouse gases, but it's not the only one. there are refineries, there are other major sources -- >> well, put those all in. put those all in. write complicated standards. write standards that have certain enforcement capacities and abilities. write standards that require you to get a psd permit. i mean, what's wrong with all

that? >> they can do all of that, but the problem is that that's going to take a lot of time, and that was the very reason congress put the psd program into existence in 1977 was because of the dissatisfaction because of the time it took to go source by source, pollutant by pollutant under the epa's 7411 program. >> i'm sorry. i just want to make sure that i understood correctly. under 7411, you can require a psd -- >> no, you can set a national standard. >> right. >> but part of the reason, as i said, i think it's just wrong to think about the psd program as being addressing a different kind of problem from the 7411 problem is that you've got to meet the 7411 standard in your psd application. >> general, if i could actually get back to justice alito's question, because i had a similar issue with what epa did here. it seems to me it would be completely responsible and understandable if epa had said, look, the 100 and 250 don't work

with respect to this category of pollutant, congress didn't know that this kind of pollutant was out there when it wrote those numbers, what it was trying to do was to distinguish between major and minor emitters, the new numbers are x and y for that -- for this kind of pollutant. but, you know, and i understand that epa may have felt like, oh, gosh, can we really do that? but the solution that epa came up with actually seems to give it complete discretion to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to, and to not -- and to be much more problematic than if epa had just said, no, it's not 100 and 250. it's 10 times that. >> i take that point, your honor. i don't think actually think that's what epa was trying to do. i know it's been portrayed that way. i think that they were trying to do the opposite. they were trying to say, well, let's look at how we define what it means to emit 250 tons per year and see if we can make that a more realistic analysis by going from the 24/7, 365-day-a-year hypothesis to

figuring out how much this source is actually likely to emit, and you could drastically lower the number of sources who would be found to emit 250 tons per year, and that would bring -- it would try to bring the system into line with the expectations that major emitters would be regulating. that that's their objective here. >> are greenhouse gases the only air pollutant for which epa has the authority to change the statutory thresholds? >> well, i'd like to make a point, if i could, about that. the real problem here is co2. actually, of the six greenhouse gases, the other five you could use the statutory thresholds on without difficulty. it's the co2 alone really that causes a difficulty. >> but could it do this for another pollutant, something other than any of the greenhouse gases? >> well, i think, in fairness, what epa is saying here is that we've got an obligation under the statute to regulate. we've got an obligation to require a permit when there's

more than 250 tons per year, and we've got an obligation to get the permits out within a year. that's also a statutory requirement. and that -- just given the reality of the co2 emission, something's got to give. so i don't think it's that they're asserting authority to rewrite the statutory thresholds. they're dealing with a practical problem that's arisen under the immediate circumstances. >> one of the things that epa said in the explanation of this rule is that epa could say that psd or title v applies only to certain ghg sources. it's been suggested that that's also the carbon dioxide -- applies only to certain ghg sources and does not apply to the remaining ghg sources. but there didn't seem to be any followup of that idea.

well, the way to cure it is carbon dioxide doesn't work, take it out. >> but i think the reason, justice ginsburg, is because that is not going to make -- the carbon dioxide is also a huge part of the problem, and so you're really not going to be getting to the heart of the problem. and there really is an urgency here, you know, that's part of what's driving epa in this situation, of course, is understanding that this is an urgent environmental problem. it is the gravest environmental problem that we face now as far as epa and epa's judgment, and it is one that gets worse with the passage of time. the effects are cumulative and they're delayed, and so every year we wait, we make the hole deeper, and we create an even greater threat to future generations. and that really goes to -- >> i'm sorry. i didn't get an answer -- to hear an answer to justice alito's question and i think it's an important one. there are currently criteria pollutants under the act. let's assume you find out that there's a particular substance that does cause harm to ambient

air quality that is not already covered, and you publish a naaq for that, can you decide that 100 and 250, you want to regulate it at a different threshold, just like you have here. i mean, is this a particular assertion of authority only with respect to greenhouse gases or does it cover any pollutant under the act? to go undere going that -- q forn you publish a naa greenhouse gases? >> it is important to understand sd program applies to -- notick a pollutant that is

currently regulated. can you change the threshold for that new covered pollutant? samea found itself in the circumstances it found with respect to the house gases, where it feels like the definition compels it to regulate. it kicks in at 250. and they could make a judgment comparable to the one they made here. that would require that -- >> why would they have to do that? such all the time have explicit exceptions, and not every statute has exceptions written into words into it. classic example, one after another. the statute that requires animals to pay 50% on that change -- on the train does not apply. that is the most common thing in law. what is the big problem here,

when everybody seems to have -- what is the big problem with writing implicit exception so you do not regulate a tiny little thing, which no one normally wants to have regulated. >> that would justify the epa's judgment. >> and now, my problem is i will hear from many that what i would perhaps it isn't a question of what i'd like to do. the question is, what does the law permit? and therefore, it's helpful if you can or others think of similar examples. >> well, epa has committed itself in this -- in the regulations, in the rule-making proceedings, to try to bring the 250 tons per year into alignment with the expectation that only large sources will be regulated. that's what epa is committed to. it's -- >> general verrilli, really, i don't have as expansive a notion

of reading exceptions into a statute that are not there as justice breyer does. but assuming, just assuming that you can you can read exceptions, that isn't the issue here. the issue is whether you can read in exceptions unnecessarily when the absurdity in question doesn't flow inevitably from the statute, when the statute can be interpreted another way that would not produce the absurdity. aren't you compelled where there is ambiguity to adopt the interpretation of the statute that does not produce absurdity rather than adopting the interpretation that produces absurdity and then going around altering the provisions of the contract of the statute? i mean, to take justice breyer's bubble gum example, yes, i

suppose -- would you have to make an exception for bubble gum in the display window if the statute were subject to two interpretations, one of which would include display windows, and the other one of which wouldn't? it seems to me of course you would have to adopt the interpretation that didn't include display windows. and that's what is going on here. there's -- yes, there's absurdity, but the issue is how is that absurdity to be taken account of? by simply letting epa rewrite include display windows. and that's what is going on the very clear numbers in the statute, or else by adopting a permissible interpretation of the statute that does not lead to that absurdity. and i think that's quite a different question from from what we've been discussing. >> two points about that, if i could. first, that goes to the question of what triggers the permit application. it's only the expansion of the number of permit applicants that even raises this question of the

so-called absurdity. it doesn't go to the to the argument -- the petitioners are making a far more substantial argument, that epa lacks any authority to consider greenhouse gas emission under the bact provision and other provisions, even for sources that have a permit for their emissions of non-greenhouse gases. so it only goes to the question of the scope of the triggering provision, not to epa's authority to use psd to regulate great greenhouse gases for entities that are already subject to the permit for other reasons. now, with respect to the trigger, what i would say about that, justice scalia, is that the statutory language is "any air pollutant." reading massachusetts v. epa, the epa came to the conclusion that that language necessarily encompasses greenhouse gas emissions. that conclusion is most consistent with the epa's statutory obligations here, because if the choice and you can say the choice is between doing something sensible and

absurd results. but really, the choice is between throwing up your hands with respect to what epa considers to be the most serious air pollution problem we have or trying to deal with the implementation problem that exists with respect to the -- >> and -- >> about -- of the sources. that's really the choice here. >> general, wouldn't it be right to say that the rule that justice scalia is referring to only applies if there are alternative interpretations that are consistent with the legislative purpose. there have to be plausible alternative interpretations of the statute. and reading the phrase "any pollutant" to mean any pollutant except for greenhouse gases for reasons that have nothing to do with the purposes of the statute is not a plausible alternative interpretation. wouldn't that be the argument? >> yes, that's exactly the argument, and i think that's exactly what epa did when it

reads massachusetts v. epa and its understanding of air pollutant and thought about that in the context of the regulatory goals of this program. >> in the you know, the argument against that is, no, that the statute evidences concern with ambient air quality and requires that to be measured. and the agency acknowledges that you cannot possibly measure the effect on ambient air quality of greenhouse gases. so it is not clearly compatible with the statute to bring greenhouse gases into regulation. >> all right. and the other is i mean, this is quite i see i've got it focused now. it seems to me in my mind that we have two questions, and i think they were well stated by justice scalia actually. the first is, what is the alternative interpretation that doesn't apply it here? and that would be an interpretation that doesn't put

greenhouse gases within this psd provision at all. and that might be really unthinkable. no, not unthinkable, but have worse consequences than worrying about the interpretation of this trigger provision. so either we have to do the one or the other. either we have to interpret the trigger provision with flexibility so that there are written exceptions -- unwritten exceptions in it, one way or the other, or we have to say you can't do that, and therefore they don't apply to all. which is worse? is that -- have i got it right? >> i think that states it fairly. i think that states it fairly. >> i don't think so. i mean, it depends on what you mean by "unthinkable," general verrilli. is it -- >> i think that was justice breyer who said "unthinkable." [laughter] >> but what is supposed to be unthinkable, that greenhouse gases should not be regulated? maybe that is unthinkable. but the issue is, is it unthinkable that congress did not intend to regulate greenhouse gases when it enacted the current provisions of the statute? >> but isn't that the argument?

justice's scalia's alternative plausible interpretation of the statutes might have been an alternative plausible interpretation of the statute pre-massachusetts. but it no longer is. isn't that right? >> that's certainly true, but it wasn't -- but it also, even before massachusetts, it had there's significant problems with it. >> here we have a statutory provision that has very specific numbers, and the agency has said these numbers are absurd. we're going to multiple them by 400. now, in the entire history of federal regulation what is the best example you can give us of an agency's doing something like that, where it has taken a statute with numbers and has crossed them out and written in the numbers that it likes? >> obviously, i wouldn't characterize it quite that way. i don't have a case that's exactly on point. i think morton v. ruiz is a case that's like this in the sense that the agency had an obligation to provide something to a certain population, and it

didn't have the funds that made it available to provide it to the whole population that was statutorily entitled, and it made the judgments it made to try to get the program to work. and i mean, if i could give you a hypothetical -- >> what was that case? >> no, it's not, mr. chief justice. that's true. it was cited and relied upon by the epa in the rule-making proceedings and rule-making opinions. agency had an obligation to provide something to a certain population, and it didn't have the funds that made it available to provide it to the whole where we think that risk was most likely, that would be a reasonable interpretation of the statute. that he sees hensley what the epa has done.

>> you are not saying, or are you saying, if you are denied the authority you seek here, there can be no significant regulation of greenhouse gases. you're not saying that? i want to provide more specificity. which respect to the pst program, i want to emphasize there is a distinction between what triggers your obligation to get a permit and whether you're a mission of greenhouse gases counts as any air pollutant that triggers it versus a situation where you are already subject to a permit to cause you are regulating one of the regulated pollutants, under the regulation you have to meet the best

available control technology requirements which is phrased in terms of requirement for each pollutant under the act. question? the 8386 >> right, and that is what is different. there's 7411, there's triggering, and then there's if -- if you're already subject to the permit. and the questions about whether the psd program is limited entirely to pollutants that affect local ambient air quality, i just don't think that adds up at the end of the day. for one thing, epa has been regulating since 1998 under the pds program something called ozone-depleting substances. we talked about this a little bit in our brief. those are substances that have no local effects. they they are substances that are released. they go up into the stratosphere. and they eat up the ozone and that then creates additional ultraviolet rays which cause cancer and cataracts.

>> well, that has local effects. i mean, everybody knows there's smog in los angeles versus montana, right? >> well, if those local effects count, then certainly, greenhouse gases have those kinds of local effects, because they raise the sea levels, which cause flooding in certain places and they cause droughts in other places. and so, to the extent you're talking about local effects, the greenhouse gases really aren't local. >> where have the sea levels risen other than in massachusetts? [laughter] >> well, certainly massachusetts, but with respect but epa has been regulating ozone-depleting substances since 1988. >> isn't your argument congress has acquiesced in that? >> yes. in fact, we think in 1990, that they ratified it. because in 1990, congress undertook a very substantial amendment of the clean air act. one thing they did was specifically address ozone-depleting substances. they created a new title vi for ozone-depleting substances, so they were clearly focused on it. and they did not pull ozone-depleting substances out of the psd program at that time. they left them in. and that's significant because they did pull out hazardous air

pollution air pollutants, which was another new category they created in 1990 for the psd program. >> i thought there was a very short time lag between epa's assertion of the authority to regulate the ozone-depleting substances under the psd program and the enactment of -- >> 2 years. it was 2 years. >> so was it a full 2 years? >> i don't know if it was a full 2 years, but the congress focused specifically on exactly how ozone-depleting substances were going to be regulated under the clean air act, and they created a new -- they were it's not an accident. they were focused exactly on how they were going to be regulated. so i do think so i do think it's quite a strong ratification argument. >> i know litigants hate this question. >> ask me that question. [laughter] >> and what's the -- i know if you were going to i knew you were going to so i actually think, you know, as judge kavanaugh approaches the acc approach, you know, we obviously, we're not endorsing this, but -- >> there's a difference between them. >> there is a significant difference between them. but -- >> so which one?

either one. well, i've got another thought on that subject -- >> which is, as i said to justice alito earlier, the whole problem in terms of expanding the permitting requirement is co2. and so that if the court were to say that "any air pollutant" can't be interpreted in the way that epa has interpreted it at the trigger level, to mean what we think it says, and what massachusetts v. epa compelled, but if the court disagrees with that, it seems to me the the answer that is least problematic from epa's point of view does the -- is the least dissonant and the least -- causes the least risk of collateral consequences with respect to established regulatory programs, which go beyond naaqs pollutants under psd, would be to say that you can't read any air pollutant to include co2, because the inclusion of co2 generates a permitting obligation that is out of accord with what congress would have expected. i think i'm not enforcing that, but i think that's -- >> well, what about bact for co2, then? >> well, no. bact would be that's just at the

trigger, justice ginsburg. just at the trigger. we think that the -- i just don't see, given that bact says in unambiguous terms in section 7475(a)(4) that anybody who's subject to a permit has got to meet bact for each pollutant subject to regulation under the chapter, meaning the act. i just don't see how you can get out from under that -- >> you've got to follow you've got to follow the plain text of the statute there. >> well, if the command of the statute is that bact applies for each pollutant subject to regulation -- >> yeah, but the plan of the statute is 250 tons per year, too. and you've changed that to 100,000 tons per year. >> right, but i think -- >> and you were going to get to 7475(3),(a),(b),(c) on that point. >> well, 7475(3)(c) also does say that if if epa does set a greenhouse gas standard for a particular stationary source

like power plants, then that becomes a condition of the permit. that's what (c)(3) says. and so between (c)(3) and bact, greenhouse gas assuming that epa acts under 7411, those, it seems to me, have to be in. this is a question about the definition of the trigger. now, we don't agree with it. but in trying to faithfully answer your honor's question, that's what i think. that that's -- >> i just want to be clear. your reading or or your suggested out would mean that that only the major facilities as defined now essentially would -- >> if you took co2 out of the equation, i don't think this the expanded scope of the permitting obligation is going to happen, because it's the co2 emissions that expand the scope. and so that's why you know, i'm not endorsing this. i'm just saying -- >> well, justice breyer said the

difference between 83% and 86% percent, that 3% difference of who you're covering is thousands and thousands of people. >> that's correct. >> or entities, i should say, not people, of institutions. is that going to be the same under the reading that you are proposing? >> pretty close. but i think but i think the -- we are taking you now to the scary how tall. >> from the permanent representative of you train -- ukraine to the security council, 2014/136. it is adopted. accordance with 37 of the council's rules, i invite a representative of ukraine to participate in this meeting. it is so decided. 2039 ofdance with rule

the provisional rules of procedures, i invite the assistant secretary general for political affairs to participate in this meeting. it is so decided. the security council will now begin its consideration of item 2 of the agenda. i now give the floor. >> thank you, madam president. madam president, members of the security council, since the briefing by the decatur -- deputy secretary general on 1 march, the situation has evolved rapidly. we understand there is a continuing buildup of russian troops in crimea and that a number of ukrainian military bases have been surrounded by russian troops. in addition, the situation in

eastern ukraine remains fluid with reports of demonstrations in certain cities as well as attempts by local groups to seize control of some official buildings. parliament urge russia to fulfill immediately the agreement of the black sea fleet on ukraine territory and called for the fast withdrawal of russian troops to their bases. the russian position on event was articulated by the foreign minister in remarks made at today's human rights council. he stated that russia's actions were a question of defending our citizens and compatriots and assuring human rights. the secretary-general has remained closely engaged on the situation in ukraine. in the latest phone call conversation with president clinton over the weekend, the secretary-general told him that

he was closely following the serious and rapidly unfolding developments in ukraine. the secretary-general explained -- expressed concern about the situation that would compromise the unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of the country. he reiterated it was critical to restore calm and pristine to a deep -- and proceed to a de-escalation and ask for cool heads reveal. since secretary-general appealed to president putin to urgently engage in direct dialogue with the authorities in cap. he has repeatedly exercised that it is critical to exercise respect for ukraine's independence, unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. he has underscored the utmost importance of restoring calm to de-escalate tensions through dialogue. he stressed in the spirit of the

it herecharter we owe too peaceful summits of disputes. following the council's consultation on saturday, and given development on the ground in ukraine, the secretary-general asks that the -- debbie secretary-general traveled to ukraine on sunday. while there, the deputy secretary-general was personally appraised of the facts on the brief the will secretary-general on the next steps the united nations could take to support a de-escalation of the situation. the deputy secretary-general arrived in kiev today and has already begun his meetings. a person who briefed the secretary-general yesterday on his mission, joined the other in kiev today. last 48 hours, the secretary-general has spoken to a number of key people, including the prime minister of

ukraine, the president putin, the e.u. high representative, as well as the osc's secretary-general. he met with secretary lavrov today in geneva. thesecretary reiterated need for coordination in support of a stable and united ukraine. in conclusion him i wish to reiterate the secretary-general's call for dialogue to de-escalate tensions. as he has underscored in his leaders, he urges us to find a peaceful resolution and the collaborative effort. thank you, madam president. >> [indiscernible] give the floor to the members of the security council. i give the floor to the

representative of the russian federation. >> thank you, madam president. federation was the initiator of the holding of the day cost meeting of the security council. since what is happening with our neighbors and ukraine, and folks within us are very deeply concerned. the crisis provoked by the ofte in key of as a result the takeover of extremists is continuing to get worse and is reading risks for the country. in a detailed way, today in geneva our minister of foreign affairs spoke in detail about the situation in ukraine. we are convinced any internal crises must be overcome by a dialogue of forces. way and withtional

respect to international obligations. and obligations on international humanitarian law. defending human rights and national minorities. -- important to avoid extremists who are trying to take the situation under their control who are using violence and open terror. it is well known who created the crisis in ukraine. the legitimate actions of the legitimate authorities, some of our partners have taken a course to support antigovernment statements. they have encouraged their participants who have moved to inressive actions of force attacking the police, stealing from warehouses, and mocking officials in the region, a crude intervention. ukrainens in western

have been taken over by armed national radicals under extremist anti-russian and other slogans being used. february, almost three months after the unrest and the excesses, there was an agreement tween the president of ukraine and the opposition whereby they signed by the ministers of foreign affairs of germany, poland, and other countries where they refused to bring in an emergency situation. they took to the streets. the opposition did not do anything. the use of legitimate weapons was not surrendered. civic buildings were not free. radicals are continuing - instead of a promise of the national unity government based in the formation of the jurors-- made aliament of ukraine

decision limiting the rights of minorities, sent away the judges of the constitutional court, and insists on pursuing them criminally. their arguments to limit or make it punishable to ban political parties that do not suit them and to use them as examples, so the victors want to use assurances of their victory to trample the rights and basic freedoms of people. all of this has bothered eastern and southern authorities of ukraine where millions of russians live. they do not want a repetition of this type of thing in this area. this situation of ongoing threats by the altra who arelist, ho jeopardizing the rights of russian-speaking people. attemptsdy had to curb of a forcible takeover of the

links in crimea and bringing weapons to the dentist not. we got information of provocative acts through the russian black sea fleet in ukraine. the legitimately elected authorities of the republic have asked the president of russia to provide assistance to restore calm in crimea. in -- it is vent legitimate in russian law that the threats to our compatriots, citizens, and the black sea federationhe russian in ukraine, the president of russia went to the council of the confederation asking for the use of forces until there is a normalization of the situation. on the first of march, the federation supported this appeal which we hope will cut off the radicals. i repeat we are talking about

defending our citizens on defending the most important human rights, the right to life. am alsoesident, today i authorizes a the following -- received the has following from the president of ukraine. the statements of the president of ukraine as a legitimately says theepresentative events in my place and the events in kiev have resulted in the fact that ukraine is on the brink of a civil war. in the country there is chaos and anarchy. in thehts of people southeast part of crimea are being threatened. under the influence of western --ntries, there are accept there are accept terror and violence. this is why i would call on mr.

asking him to use the armed forces of the russian federation to establish legitimacy, peace, law, order, stability, and defend the people of ukraine. , 2014. i have an opportunity to show all of you a photocopy of the original of this statement of the president of ukraine. i show it to the president of russia. there it is. those who aret, trying to interpret this situation as aggression are threatening all with all kinds of sanctions and boycotts. these are indeed our partners who consistently have encouraged forces close to them to engage in alternate is and refrain from andgue, to ignore the --

to polarize ukrainian society. we call on them to show responsible approaches to set aside geopolitical calculations and to put above all the interests of ukrainian people. it is necessary to fulfill obligations in the agreements dated february 21. the full consideration of ukrainian federation for subsequent approval in a national referendum, and the establishment of the legitimate governments of national unity, considering the regions of the country. was andian position remains consistent and open. while for some western aliticians ukraine is only geopolitical playground, for us it is a fraternal country and we are bounded by many centuries of common history. russia is interested in a strong ukraine.

see the legitimate rights of ukraine, our compatriots, and of all citizens. in this extraordinary situation, not of our making, when the security of the residents of crimea and southeast region are subjected to a threat due to the provocative actions of gangs and other ultranationalist elements, we would like to emphasize that the actions of russia are fully appropriate and legitimate. thank you, madam president. i think the representative of the russian federation for his statement. i will give the floor to the representative to the united states of america. >> thank you, madam president. listening to the representative of russia, one might think that moscow had just become the rapid response arm of the office of the high commissioner for human rights. so many of the assertions made

this afternoon by the russian federation are without basis in reality. let's begin with a clear and candid assessment of the facts. it is a fact that russian literary forces have taken over ukrainian border posts. it is a fact that russia has taken over the ferry terminal. it is a fact that russian ships are moving in and around sebastopol. it is a fact that russian forces are blocking mobile telephone services in some areas. it is a fact that russia has surrendered or taken over practically all ukrainian military facilities in crimea . it is a fact that russian jet entered russian airspace, also that independent journalists continue to report that there's no evidence of violence against russian or pro-russian communities. is not ailitary action human rights protection mission. it is a violation of international law and a

violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the independent nation of ukraine and a breach of russia's lcd commitments and it's you and obligations. the central issue is whether the recent changes of government in ukraine constitutes a danger to russian legitimate interests of such a nature that russia is justified in intervening seizingly in ukraine, control of public facilities, and issuing oteri ultimatums to comments of the ukrainian military. the answer is no. russian military bases in ukraine are secure. the government in kiev has pledged to honor all its existing international agreements, including those covering russian bases. assian mobilization is response to an imaginary threat. a second issue is whether the population of the crimea or other parts of eastern ukraine are at risk because of the new government here it there's no evidence of this. military action cannot the justified on the basis of

threats that have not been made and are not being carried out. there is no evidence that churches in eastern ukraine are being or will be attacked. the allegation is without basis. there's no evidence that ethnic russians are in danger. on the contrary, the new ukrainian government has placed a priority on internal reconciliation. the president, the acting president, has made clear his opposition to any restriction of the use of the russian tonga. -- tongue. no one has to explain the need to have open to medications, not only with leaders of the country's russian ethnic minorities, but also with its neighbors. that is why when the current crisis began, the government sent its former chief of defense to the region to try to defuse the situation. a second emissary was prevented from entering crimea to engage in the slashes. it is why ukrainian authorities have repeatedly reached out to russia.

russia needs to reciprocate and begin to engage directly with government of ukraine. note russia has implied a right to take military action in the crimea if invited to do so by the president of crimea. as the government russia knows, this has no legal basis. the prohibition on the use of force would be rendered moot with subnational authorities able to invite military intervention by neighboring states. under the ukrainian constitution, only the ukrainian parliament can approve the ofsident's -- the presence foreign troops. if we are concerned about the rights of russian minorities, the united states is prepared to work with russia and this them.l to pretotect we hope to ensure that the people are protected from abuse and to elucidate for the world facts on the ground.

the solution to this crisis is not the gold to envision. there is a way out. that is to direct and immediate dialogue by russia with the government of ukraine, the immediate pullback of russia's the literary forces, the restoration of ukraine's , nottorial integrity ve through more threats and more distortions. deploy the osce will monitors to ukraine. they will provide assessments of the situation on the ground. their presence is necessary in crimea and in key cities in eastern ukraine. u.s. calls upon russia to ask short -- to assure their accesses not need. moscow may well be unhappy about the president's decision to flee. russia may be displeased by the wasgovernment, which

approved by the majority. russia hopes that things turned out differently, but does not have the right to express that unhappiness by using military force or trying to convince the world immunity that up is down and black is white. backa plus calls to turn time ring hollow. y was yannick povich who -- fleevich who decided to ukraine. ukrainian government is one that intends to shepherd the cover -- the country toward elections on may 25. the united states will stand strongly and probably with the people of ukraine as they chart out their own government, their own future.

the bottom line is that for all of the self serving rhetoric we have heard from russian officials in recent days, there was nothing that justifies russian conduct. russia's actions speak louder than its words. what is happening today is not a human rights reduction mission and not a consensual intervention. what is happening today is a dangerous military intervention in ukraine. it is an act of aggression. it must stop. this is a choice for russia. diplomacy can serve russia's interests. the world is speaking at out against the use of force. ukrainians must be allowed to different women -- to determine their destiny. thank you. >> i think the representative of the united states for making their statement. i give the floor to the -- saiddame president, i during consultations on saturday

that it is with a feeling of condemnation that we see what is happening in ukraine and when we hear what our russian colleagues have just said. they are hearing the voice of the past. [indiscernible] when soviet forces entered czechoslovakia. it was the same justification, the same documents, the same allegations we heard. expectedaited and we with the construction of europe and the collapse -- we hoped that the balance of power would be substituted respectingation, independence of everyone. we see again where force overcomes the law, where every crisis must see a victor and

vanquished, where propaganda the can deny reality. we recall the fight where --in the area of television and internet. crimea,ian army in against ukrainian government, and in violation of international law. [indiscernible] nobody is killing today in the streets of key avenue -- kiev. nobody is threatening populations in crimea. which we only excuses cannot believe. crimea, russia has parties tobring the make them comply, requiring --

invading tavis smiley -- czechoslovakia. france saysdent, this game does not serve the interest of the ukrainian or russian peoples. the minister of foreign affairs, german and polish colleagues, move to negotiate an agreement which was endorsed until now. makes this impossible for this agreement -- by creating a government of national unity and holding actions their international supervision. this is what he is proposing today.

is faced by the rejection of the party of the region to join the government. the government is after this. he wanted to reduce the role of the russian language. independenceork of and territorial integrity of to -- sixxplains wis points which should be accepted by all parties. return of the russian armed forces to the basis to be verified. immediatethe disarmament of the military groups holding illegal weapons. the ukrainian

language reestablished. the establishment of the protection of minorities. the implementation of constitutional reform. the organization a presidential reactions. these are simple principles which they should be able to negotiate with all parties concerned. this has a central role to play. this will to negotiate the solution, which is from international law and the rights of all ukrainians that make it possible, can only be -- cannot be a common data with the violations of law. russia to cooperate with

with whom we have a long and common history. not about principles and values. despising and rejecting international law and rejecting any discourse does not show optimism. russia seems to be going back, playing an old rule in the outdated setting. there is the mindset of new times to trust in the dialogue. they will draw the conversation. only russia will be responsible for the role. ukrainianask for the

sovereignty. russia brutally is violating. inc. you very much. will give this a representative of the united kingdom. >> thank you, madam president. can see that russian military forces have taken control of the crimean peninsula , part of the sovereign territory of ukraine. this is against the expressed wishes of the legitimate ukrainian government. it is in unambiguous violation of the territorial ukraine. a breachree grant -- of international law. we can see no justification for these actions. we have heard from russia that the forces are in ukraine to protect minorities from old radicals.

interference in the affairs of the orthodox church. we have claims of hundreds of thousands of refugees. russia has provided no evidence for any of this. it is clear that these claims have simply been fabricated to justify russian military action. in assuming control in a sovereign part of ukraine, the russian federation has contravened it obligations is a member of the international community. it has violated article two of the human charger which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. failed to honor its international commitments as a founding member and is a signature he to the 1975 helsinki final act. taken back its obligations of the treaty on and cooperation by

russia and ukraine. the russian representative claims that mr. ninkovich -- yanukovych has called for military intervention. we are talking about a former leader that abandoned his office , capital, and country. he built this to the brink of economic ruin. he protests against his government, leading to over 80 deaths. his own party has abandoned him. the idea that this now for trade any legitimacy is far-fetched. the government in kia is legitimate and has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the ukrainian parliament. in the 21st century, no country should be act to hang with such a blatant disregard for international law. aese actions will be met with strong and united response from

the international community. surpriseduld not be that the political and economic reputation have already suffered. the ruble has fallen and the russian stock market is now down more than 10%. madam president, just as we condemn the russian federation for his confrontational acts, we commend the government of ukraine for refusing to rise to provocation. this is a wise decision. we continued the ukrainian government to avoid actions or rhetoric that would inflame tensions or provide a further pretext for further military action. madam president, we call on the russian federation to immediately cease all action in crimea and to refrain from any interference elsewhere in ukraine. with her draw its forces to the bases and return to force levels previously agreed to the government of ukraine as part of the black sea fleet.

russia is genuinely concerned about protecting minority groups and upholding the human rights of the cranium citizens, then armed intervention is not the way to address these concerns. instead, russia should open up a to write dialogue with ukrainian ev and not pickia hav individuals with whom they wish to engage. they should respond to requests by other signatories of the 1994 budapest memorandum to hold consultations as specified by care -- paragraph six of that memorandum. they should engage constructively with debate taking place in the osce and other institutions concerning the deployment of a fact-finding mission to ukraine. such a mission could establish on the ground and

provide any necessary reassurances and guarantees through peaceful means. we welcome the un's secretary-general's decision. i hope that he would also go to the crimea and eastern ukraine. we call on the secretary-general to use his good offices to their fullest dustin -- extend to de-escalate the current situation. this is not 1968 or 1956. the error in which one country can suppress democratization in a neighboring state or military intervention on the basis of transparently trumped up pretext is over. to -- ready to work with ukraine, russia and all our international partners -- stable a stay will and prosperous ukraine. we urge them to hold this.

to act in a way that promotes stability rather than to destabilize the region through the promotion of new frozen conflicts. processes,democratic not to some words -- not use of subvert orto to repress them. >> thank you. lithuania strongly condemns the clear violation iv russian federation of the territorial ukraine. the military actions we are witnessing on the crimean soil defy the fundamental principles of international law, the helsinki final act, it he budapest memorandum, the cooperation between russia and the ukraine in 1997 in the framework regulating the presence of the russian black fleet in crimea.

has no placereach in a 21st century. for too many and are part of the world it evokes the memories of the darkest pages of the 20th century. qualified clearly as such. the violation of international law must also entail international responsibility. events in ukraine warrant a military invasion that we are witnessing. the will of the ukrainian people and build the rule of law must be respect it. we call on the russian federation to put them back to the permanent bases and to refrain from any further intervention or interference in ukraine. stress that the international community has a wide array of instruments that can and must use to resolve existing differences and de-escalate the situation through political dialogue and consultations.

especially as all the international organizations and others are offering the good offices to this of fact. the presence of deputy secretary-general and osce representatives on the ground testify clearly to that. we welcome the proposal to send a monitory mission to crimea and other decisions. in light of international efforts, russia cannot continue. it has repeatedly offer consultations for russian counterparts. must he used to escalate the -- you de-escalate the situation. all these avenues should be utilized with a sense of great urgency.

we call on the internation committee to stand united. these are highly dangerous and we commend a restraint shown by the new government and their determinations. not to give into provocations. defuse the crisis and welcome proposals to send a monitory missions and we would welcome any other noise and missions which would help to ease the situation. we urge the russian federation to respond to these efforts and to seize the opportunity before it is too late. >> i now give the floor to the representative of rwanda. >> thank you.

in situation in ukraine crimea may post a threat to the international situation. strongly urge all parties and holders and ukrainian crisis to exercise extremely strained not to -- restraint not to de-escalate it. diversityunching the and the faith including the russian community. situation, weent believe more than ever that the united nations has a critical role to play.

we hope to find a solution to the ukrainian crisis. as well as efforts are the president of the confederation in its capacity. however, given the complexity and fragility of the situation on the ground, we believe it is important to harmonize all efforts. we therefore introduced our this by to establish the secretary-general and

composed of the united nations, european union, the osce and the russian federation. only efforts by the main stakeholders in the respect while unity and ukraine considering interest of the russian federation. it would provide a lasting solution to this crisis. all international actors have learned lessons from this and its consequences. this is geographic. it carries tension. he could ring the entire planet that. militaryhe increased

abilities of the world powers. i thank you. >> i think the representative for his statements. i give it to the representative of jordan. >> thank you, madam president. jordan wishes to ask rest it deep concern vis-a-vis the current developments in ukraine and in the crimean region. we call on all parties to exercise self-restraint not to escalate i taking military measures four by threatening the use of force. jordan reaffirms the need to re-expect -- to respect the authority and independence. we reaffirm the prohibition of the use of force in it territory or any part of the territory or

indeed the occupation of the crimean region. they call on all states concerned to respect the terms of their agreements and treaties with ukraine. it is for the memorandum of 1994 as well as the treaty of friendship operation and between the ukraine and russian federation of 1997. ukraine must starts effective dialogue to resolve the crisis between them. a dialogue that would lead to the return of the crimean region to the control as soon as possible. we call on ukraine to take

immediate steps to resolve this respectpaternity and to and particularly the minority rights in to revoke any measures that were taken which may undermine such rights. at the same time, we stress the need to not interfere in the internal affairs so that the country may decide its own political future. the united nations security council must assume its responsibilities regarding the situation in ukraine. the mediationts efforts by the united nations supports-general and the contact with the various parties in this regard.

we wish to receive more clarifications from the parties concerned regarding the situation on the ground and particularly in the region. .his will be helpful we note the need for the security council to investigate the crimean region and to look mechanismsion and that may be in light of the information provided. determine the security council's assessment of whether an act of aggression is being committed on ukrainian territory. we would refer to the united considerssembly which the use of armed force a by a

state on the territory of another state to be outside the scope of agreement between the two countries. applies. we welcome the steps that were arty taken and to be taken with in the framework of the in order to of your do with the current crisis and the establishment by the osce's contact group and a fact-finding mission. we call on them to coordinate their efforts in order to remove and find aon peaceful solution, one that .reserves the integrity

i thank you for the statement. now the representative of china. >> thank you. china is deeply concerned about the current situation in ukraine. violentmn the recent acts in ukraine. tohave been urging all sides peacefully resolve their internal differences within a legal framework and conscientiously correct the rights and interests of all people in ukraine so as to restore normalcy in the country as soon as possible. china consistently stands for the principles of interference in the internal affairs of a country and of respect for ukraine's independence, sovereignty, and territory.

there are reasons why infants in ukraine have progressed to where they are today. china will follow closely the developments on the ground and all on all sides to find political solution on the basis of respecting international law and principles of international andtions and maintain peace stability. thank you, madam president. >> i think the representative for his statements. i give it to the representative of australia. >> thank you for this briefing.

since they last met on saturday, russian military activity in crimea area has seriously intensified and there are reports of more russian influence on you cranes eastern and southern borders, violations of heirs is by fighter planes and reports of russian naval blocking in vessels crimea. we are seriously concerned about escalation of russian military activity. these actions along with decision by the government to authorize the use of force are unacceptable. russia's actions are undermining the rights of ukrainian people to choose their own future. it is also contrary to international law. charger andene the agreements to which russia itself is a party.

the 1975 helsinki final act, the 1997 bilateral treaty of friendship and cooperation tween the russian federation and ukraine. under these agreement, there is a specific commitment to respect the territorial integrity of ukraine and a commitment to non-intervention. and to refrain from the use of force or the threat to use force. yesterday in government together with the broader international community, which is speaking loudly and with one force has urged russia to stand down and withdraw its own forces, abide by international legal commitment and immediately take steps to reduce tensions. russia must engage in direct dialogue with ukraine in accordance with article seven of its own treaty on partnership with ukraine. in this counsel, australia has arty call for russia to respect you cranes in unity, sovereignty, and territorial unity,ty -- ukraine's

sovereignty, territorial integrity. we make a call not just to avoid provocation but for proactive to de-escalate the crisis. we continued restraint. we support the efforts of the to do with this crisis and stabilize the situation and its country. the international political engagement we have seen today on this issue has been essential and must continue and increase. it is indicative of the level of concern regarding russia's actions. they must support all efforts toward de-escalation. this means promoting all opportunities for mediation and dialogue.

this will support the deployment of a full mission to ukraine. we are thankful for the security and cooperation in europe for working on this. this would be the best way to address russia's stated concerns about minority rights. we urge russia to consider this. we welcome the news that the osce will begin deploying some initial monitors tonight. we welcome dean gage went by the human secretary-general and the visit by the deputy secretary. we urge parties to cooperate. andeeks to promote dialogue see for himself the facts on the ground. beis imperative that he given access to all parts of the ukraine.

unprovoked aggression should have no place in our world. russia should stand down and withdraw its forces from ukraine in accordance with its obligations and the people of ukraine ought to be able to determine the future themselves. thank you. thank you for your statements. thank you. concern ofour deep the escalation of the crisis in ukraine. this must be urgently -- urgently reverse. we call for the greatest restraint and moderation. as has been expressed previously, we read feet -- we repeat once again there is obligation to keep the integral integrity of the ukraine.

this must refrain from taking actions in contravention of the charger of the united nations organization and international law, especially the use of force or threat. in the memorandum of budapest, they clearly commit themselves to respect the independence of sovereignty and the present borders of ukraine and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political dependence of ukraine. the international community must continue providing support to reach a peaceful sluice into this crisis. in this context, we support the efforts of the international mediation including good offices of regional organization in order to help solve this crisis.

we think the osce for sending a service to parts of the ukraine. this supports the good offices of the secretary-general of the united nations and we particularly support the mission by the deputy secretary-general at this very moment. thewise, we call for russian federation to consider undertaking consultations in the framework of the treaty and cooperation to find a solution to the present crisis. pressing conclude by the fact that it is up to the people of ukraine to define their own destiny in an inclusive process guaranteeing the rule of law, human rights, fundamental freedoms, and respect for minority rights. inc. you very much.

-- thank you very much. i now go forward to the representative of argentina. >> thank you very much, madam president. i am so grateful for the briefing. we would like to express our acknowledgment to the secretary-general for his good offices as well as other officials of our organization in order to negotiate a solution to the situation. aboutina has deep concern the latest developments in ukraine, especially india taunus republic of lamia. argentina has the responsibility of the council to ensure that international peace and security are maintained within the framework of the principles.

recall the obligations that all states had settle their international disputes in a fashion in order not to engage international peace and security in accordance with the provisions of 430 three of chapter six of the united nations charter. -- 430 three of chapter six of the united nations charter. 433 of chapter six of the united nations charter. we call on all of those involved to refrain from statements which may escape intentions and find a peaceful way out of this crisis. partnersnational

showed solutions to an inclusive dialogue including all social and political sectors of the various regions. we believe it is indispensable for authorities who are responsible for leading in the purchase patient of the fort -- andicipation of the forces the primary obligation to protect its minorities. they can contribute to polarization, the rhetoric of confrontation, and heightening of tensions. of thena is convinced need to work for a united ukraine. following the principles of and withonal law unconditional full respect for human rights.

it is a funny way in which the ukrainian people could find a democratic way out of the crisis affecting their country. they must focus their efforts on supporting such a process in order to cooperate and achieve political agreement which will present to the current crisis which ukraine is facing. thank you very much. i think the representative argentina and look forward to the representative of nigeria. madame president, what began three months ago as a political process has taken on a dimension which today which would be best described as precarious. we call it our concerns to i -- abide by the provisions of the

human charger, particularly two which calls on all member states to settle their disputes by peaceful means and to refrain from the use of force. the current situation in ukraine, especially in crimea represents an important threat to international peace and security. to see theke de-escalation of tensions and hostile rhetoric. concerned parties must embrace dialogue as a means of resolving the crisis and facilitate the next the dishes return in ukraine. the opposite for this is mediation. others before me have pointed out we therefore call on the international community, it

particularly those who can exert instructive influence over the concerned parties to intensify in the crisis. the usey believe that of preventive diplomacy tools let such a time represent the most expedient and effective option to bring about a peaceful resolution. ourant to reiterate concerns to abide by the provisions of the 1994 defense memorandum. sovereignty and integrity of ukraine. we note that the provision calls taking sps toitical

governance of the country. we believe this is a prudent way of addressing one of the underlying causes of the disputes and an early return to peace and stability. to refrains relevant under thed from provocative action that will precipitate now and in the future. >> i think the representative of nigeria for the statement.

i look forward to the representative of the republic of korea. >> thank you, madam president. the republic of korea remained deeply concerned over the situation in ukraine, particularly the escalation of tensions in the crimean region. given the situation, we call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint for the crisis through dialogue. independence and sovereignty of ukraine be fully respect to it in accordance with the human charger. situation does this in a peaceful matter. we support and mediation efforts. we hope the visit to ukraine will have to ask laura all

possible responses to the situation. explore, we'll have to all possible responses to the situation. thank you. >> thank you, madam president. china is deeply concerned by the serious turn of the situation in ukraine. despite the many appeals the part of the international community for action and for dialogue. persuaded anys conflict between you and member states should be dealt with in a peaceful way as part of the human charger. peaceful waypect -- as part of the charger and with respect. and peaceful settlement of disputes.

given the deteriorating situation in ukraine, chad reiterate this appeal for restraint, calm, and calls upon the international community to undertake a mediation so that the world died -- so that there will be dialogue between the parties. in this respect, chad supports all efforts of mediation by the international community, seeking to bring the parties concerns to settle their disputes in ways that fall under the charger and harterespect for -- c and with respect for different agreements. the representative of chad. i will now like to make a statement in my national capacity. luxembourg is deeply concerned by recent developments in ukraine, in particular crimea. in theion is reflect his

conclusions of the council of foreign affairs to the eu has just adopted today. we vigorously condemned the violations of sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine. this was taken by the council of the federation of russia to authorize the use of russian armed forces on the territory of ukraine. these actions are in flagrant violation of the human charter and the helsinki acts. i would like to echo the appeal to withdraw without delay in its a way it would meet commitments under the agreement of the 28th of may 1997 on the status and conditions for the presence of the black sea float in ukraine.

-- fleet in ukraine. this must be resolved by peaceful means. an essential first up would be for russia to accept the offer of ukraine to hold without delay consultation. guaranteesecurity -- you train -- four ukraine the ukraine,ne by ek, russia, and u.s. it is called for in the treaty of friendship and partnership signed on the 31st of may 1997 between russia and ukraine. we would like to believe it is still possible to avoid the worst. luxembourg has unfortunately been ill placed to understand the risks of military escalation. we must start a de-escalation

through concrete actions. read resolutely support the efforts that are ongoing within the u.n., and particularly the role of good offices of the secretary who took the decision to dispatch. u.n., theples of the whole reason for being of the u.n. are at stake. theall upon all international community to support the efforts made by you in -- by the u.n. we asked to bring about a political resolution of the crisis. we welcome the idea that has been mentioned of establishing an observers mission to make impartial investigation. to the crisis also requires an inclusive lyrical dialogue, keeping in mind the

diversity of ukrainian society, and the need to respect the rights of all ukrainians. newmbourg supports governments in the parliaments of ukraine which have taken steps to promote this inclusive political dialogue. we would encourage the ukrainian authorities to bring in the expertise of the council with respect to the protection of minority rights. conclusion, we welcome the restraints exhibited by ukrainian authorities, particularly in crimea. it is vital for all parties to respect unity, territorial integrity, independence and the sovereignty of ukraine. thank you very much. i resume my functions as

president of the council and give the floor to ukraine. madame president, distinguished members of the council, dear colleagues, i wish to begin by inking -- thinking -- th ananking all members for having given me the floor and for your important remark. heard lots for my country. the ukraine counts on the security council to exert all possible efforts on the international level in order to guarantee the protection of the ukrainian people in the sovereignty of my country and the territorial area.

we had the meeting of the russian federation with great potential. unfortunately, we still have not received any answer to the simple question why are the crimeay forces occupying and brutally violating international law and bilateral agreements. thatld like to remind you according to the budapest memorandum on security andrances, between ukraine other states, my country has gotten rid of its nuclear this into russia in view of a dutch in using metaphors. regard, it is underlying. it is undermining the regime

general. was in the ukraine. rocks and wary, mentally 60,000 russian troops have been deployed in crimea by the helicopter tours, cargo airplanes in the neighboring territory from the russian federation yuri u russian heat taking the extent to block and control crucial governmental and military objects in crimea. communications, military bases, headquarters of this in crimea. all roads are blocked. this clearly indicates russia's

cooperation with a possible military intervention in the ukraine. ukrainian armed forces have exercised restraint and are freed from resistance. although they are in full operational areas. this is performing the operations in the outermost part well as other divisions. they are aimed at discrediting legitimate authorities of ukraine and republican opinion by calling this into peacekeeping operations. the administer -- the minister ,f interior of the ukraine tonight they are planning to

attack the possibly kill russian soldiers. this is going to be used as an excuse for the ongoing intervention by russia against ukraine. they are concerned of human rights and freedoms of the ethnic russia. i would like to inform you that this is the obligations of other government, of other people to care about that. we do need the external help. onagreed with our minister the minorities. provide mission in crimea. are calling upon council members to authorize international mediation to

crimea as well as to monitor the situation of human rights of and russiancs speaking persons. i am also a russian speaking person but i do not need any support. respectivell a member. witht underline authority confidence in the universal body. know we have some russian companies. russian.ontinue in >> i would like to congratulate with thisn christians

and call on all of the leaders of the church to pray and to consult and to listen to us. explain,attempt to it the reason for the presence of russian troops as peacekeepers, unfortunately, and we have heard this from many who spoke today these are seen as aggression. large-scaleof conflicts in the ukraine. it is one of the guarantors of our sovereignty and the territorial integrity under the budapest agreement. moreover, a permanent member of

the security council which fishers with other member states a very important function to support peace and stability throughout the year. these can be condoned from the support of the u.n. charger. all the arguments made on protecting the russian supposedlyat which condoned military intervention. this is totally the internal purview of the citizens of ukraine, its government and should be done under a constitution of citizens regardless of their ethnicity. it is the only ukrainian parliaments. assistant tolitary handle such humanitarian questions?

i have arty so we do not need that type of assistance. thecontinue to reference 21st of february for a settlement at the crisis in ukraine. deeply surprised by this type of reasoning. together with our partners with european countries, it refrain from the principle of signing evenagreement and not recognizing it in this way. moreover, in your opinion, how could this plea -- how could this be implemented if one of themajor players left capital and refused to implement his constitutional functions. to call what happened in ukraine as a coup

d'etat. world, thereatic is a more exact revolution of dignity. we have a different understandings about human rights. in november 2013, people of all nationalities went to protest in the streets without any officials telling of any political party on what to do. without any pressure from the west. november are out to defend the rights in a right to a dignified life against a has bought the

poverty in the areas in the center in the south and upper unemployment in the west. in so doing, the former his relatives lived in luxury. the whole world solid in ute. you reiterated what was said already. the formerct that meansment used legitimate in using this. on the night of the 30th of november, overnight that protesting students who were beaten by the police

violated the right. now they are being accused of violating rights. one law which limits their constitutional right for freedom of speech, freedom of limitation, laws which the right of the mass media and in public opinion spoken. it eliminated that. think you are saying that something is wrong in your country. toldsorry that you something untrue about the church.

been partnations have of this including the ukrainian orthodox church. the moscowed to patriarch. once again, there has been an up peel to christian russia to stop in to pray for ukraine. we make that appeal. we stop killing citizens. russians recently made a decision on the military intervention. he was appointed contrary to the constitution. he is not a legitimate leader of the administrative territory. unitary state in ukraine.

this is a number of the federations without the central government saying the troops can come in from russia. aggression and unauthorized. even in crimea is not supported by other people. and following the secretary-general, bring the people from the east into the government's ministers who were born in russia in the current membership. some governors in the region are people and leaders of the eastern regions that are also russian speaking. in spite of the existing economic difficulties in the country, the government of to giveis continuing assistance to crimea.

they gave support to the crimean bank. grievances were given. unfortunately, i have to know of an unfair game of russia and the information space that is helping destabilize the country. many examples the last few days have been giving that i do not wish to reiterate. take thelike to opportunity of this meeting to once again call on our russian partners to stop spinning country information. myould like to express sincere gratitude to all members of the security council, and particularly to those who expressed support of ukraine,

who support the necessity to resolve all the problems by the diplomatic and political measures and to stop a >> i think the representative of ukraine for his station -- a statement. sir.ave the floor, >> thank you, madam president. first of all, i would like to welcome my ukrainian colleagues. we have been working quite a while at the u.n. and i congratulate him with the fact that today he spoke not only in english and french and russian, his first speech in russian as i recall. he wanted to say better late we willer, and i hope

hear other speeches for my ukrainian colleague in russian. although as we heard he is very confident in english and french. , i heard astatement number of strange and surprising statements. i would just make some comments. first of all the ukrainian colleague and the french and english colleagues if i've are member well, they presented things like russia is trying to put pressure on ukraine. we are saying that we have to have a normal constitution process. when that takes into the count -- account the interests of all regions. democracy we are calling for? we are calling for democracy. you are trying to make it look like -- what you're saying is not the definition of democracy, what we are saying. he came back to the tragic events that sincerely -- we

andess our condolences these are dramatic and tragic events of three months. there is no doubt. do not think that russia has any doubts of the fact that the -- that we are happy with what the resident did. some when -- somewhere along the way maybe after this break up of adopted andt were you criticized these a lot and you repeated it. they exist in many other countries. some point we could not cross the road during a demonstration. it was not possible to wear masks on the street during

peaceful demonstrations. there are some other things .oing on there are many elements that are coming on. the thing is the principal. why have you decided that now in democraticre is a government. the ambassador talked about this. rememberistory, we what happened. what happens in 1970 when there was a democratic revolution and dictatorship. so were -- we remember and we have the feeling now that ofocence and the -- the key government -- the government are more in evil who presentable for the west.

what motivates the people behind them, their actions came to power. let's not be deceived than any change of the government especially if it is violence leads to democracy as some of our western colleagues seem to think that is the case. we would like for the process of -- is continuing in ukraine. leading to a real democratic victory with genuine democracy in the country. referenced theue need to respect the constitution of ukraine. we believe that that is important. where ifg to imagine president obama went to [indiscernible] allhe congress allowed

procedures to impeach him when he was not in the white house, with that be a manifestation of democracy? that is what happened in ukraine. why did he leave? he had scared. -- he was scared. intimidated him after signing , if here was a threat were not so -- that is not democracy. that is not a respectable constitution and crimea, a very difficult situation. -- about actions in kiev. there was a concern it could lead to something similar and of theould be a capture administration there. someone came to power in crimea and took some vigorous actions. he subordinated himself to the

defense agencies and now people are making it look like all the russian forces are there. there you have as well. those are cash ukrainian armed newes that are part of the -- the commander of the ukrainian fleet is based there in the east. you have a number of people for self defense and there was a concerned it might be some kind of violent action. people went over there from kiev and they were armed and they were promising to look for friends but with militants to restore the appropriate government. see people. black the interesting figures. 16,000 military are there. see fleet are there. that could be up to 25,000 from

russia. so as part of our presence there. they are acting that they need to be there, they are saying that they're protecting their sites and preventing [inaudible] oft might damage the health civilians. this is too much, excessive. with thei agree authorities of crimea. hearlso i was surprised to verbally something from my colleague ambassador. all these concerns are fabricated, made up. so these concerns, that really surprises me. that this impression power is using information from u.s. tv. if all the information she takes only from u.s. tv then of course everything in ukraine is

beautiful, a wave of democracy. and the bad guy, viktor yanukovych made it all better when he came to power. -- the ambassador of ukraine tried to put things in a good way. reports of the american ambassador. i am sure as far as many other countries, what other violence winter ukraine? what about that when the buildings were hit and a major -- [indiscernible] was put to that building. is that democracy? in chicago, it would you see that for example -- would you see that for example? i do not think so. i do not think any -- in any

democratic country with that be allowable. what happened in kiev, what was that, was that an attempt to come over -- take over the building? eastern part, it is not made up. that was a group of people who invaded and tried to remove the government and set up their own illegitimate authority in the eastern part of the country. i would like to get to one of the central key points. that i would like to highlight. this concern, it is not just ours, it is not just important that we have this concern but it -- being logically used by people who are living in southeast ukraine. and i go back to it. you know the ambassador and i already use the term but the forces erased

wrong. they cannot take, they cannot stand russians, russian citizens. foughtharbor how they under the hitler banner under -- against the soviet union. against the red army and the anti-alf an hitler -- hitler coalition. they supported on the shoulders of others. -- millions of people have these feelings. the main and key issue here is do you really think that russia could allow a repeat of what happened in central and eastern ukraine, allow it there were -- where aliens of russians live.

took overor example grenada. president reagan said we are defending american citizens who reside there. 1000 people and there is no threat from grenada to those citizens. we have millions living there and their concerns. of their community. people say how can international institutions -- ok. these institutions might be used, i do not deny that but if the line were working, this is an international institution in kosovo. thee was no institution but nato forces went in. what did they do? what did they do in 2004 to stop attack tookon, the place where thousands of serbs had to leave the area. [indiscernible]

osce mission [indiscernible] -- prepared to take months to observe. who knows what happened there in the meantime? i am -- have an important point that i want to touch on. perceive today's meeting, we called it. do not think we did it to give a full picture from our standpoint of what is happening really. were atings before little bit spontaneous. i wanted to repeat that the decision of the president that gave the mandate of the council of federation [indiscernible] that decision has not been taken. it does not mean that it will be taken just because we called for

this meeting but in order for something to not take place that we do not want to take place, it importantnt that an conclusion be drawn by those. -- someone who might put influence on them. first of all we have to let them understand unless they explained to them because they must be any continuation of the policy of fact-finding of the forcible use of violence. we talked about defensive language rights, yes. that would be, have a lot of work done there. possibly the participation of international agencies. let's understand one thing now. we must refuse from the intent or any plans or any habit violently to establish authority, to establish philosophy, culture emma their own worldview and other people.

since it is not democratic and it could lead to a very difficult consequences in ukraine. and in a practical sense. one of the colleagues said that it is not possible to talk about the agreement of the 21st of february. what.so do we not understand that he is not coming back to my he left, he will not be running the government. we continue to believe for the reasons that i was explaining that right now, he is a legitimate president of ukraine. his fate like the fate of any ukrainian politician must be resolved by the people of ukraine. the question is not whether it or not.r yanukovych you have to democratic parameters to get out of this crisis in ukraine. a parameter must be set. it is -- there has to be a

constitutional way out. not just cobbling together different laws. to a significant extent, there has to be a political process, regional process, political forces. and weions got afraid think they do not exist. they exist. they have a lot of support. eastern part is the central ukraine. that is what it's -- what is at stake and what needs to be done. and finally handling the problem. i guess i could stop there. thank you, madam president. >> the representative of the united states of america will make a further statement. she now has the for. >> thank you, madam president. in response to my russian colleagues comments i would like

to make a couple of points. first i would like to address his point about the ludicrous -- legitimacy of president viktor yanukovych and his point about the february 21 agreements which he has made several times. to be clear, we commend the work done by france, germany, and poland to mediate and to negotiate that agreement with russia very much in observance and we would have been prepared to support the completion of that agreement. under its terms, president viktor yanukovych had the option to sign -- pursuant to the february 21 agreement. not only did president viktor he leftch not sign it, the city. he fled the city. he packed of himself and his family and he left the seat of the presidency vacant for two days while his country was in crisis. he also left vast evidence of

corruption, best evidence of the amounts he had stolen from the ukrainian people, and in that context with 371 votes, the democratically elected radha voted him out of office with his own party turning against him. that is the history. we haveresent, what heard today is with the exception of one member of the security council, the russian federation, we have heard overwhelming support for the territorial integrity of ukraine and for peaceful dialogue. there are so many options available to russia to safeguard the rights of ethnic russians and to address the concerns that have been raised. so many options short of simpley action. the very questions for russia today are, why not support international mediation, why is that not part of your remarks today? i not support an observer mission? why not engage strictly with ukrainian authorities who want to resolve this crisis easily?

why not pull back your forces instead of sending more? why not? in thelitary invention face of a crisis like this is the first resort it is hard to avoid concluding that russia does not want peace and does not a diplomatic solution. why choose military action when consequences could be devastating. only someone who fears the truth would be fearful of monitors were deployed for the specific purpose of identifying and reporting the truth. that is all, madam president. we said nothing could be deployed? >> i have are -- a request from france. i will give the floor to france.

he wanted to make another statement. thank you, madam president. foreign half years ago, i joined this council and i have had the honor of working with the russian federation for foreign half years. i have had -- i have heard the representative [indiscernible] years.r and a half the representative would jump up and say that there should be no interference in the domestic affairs of the country and i have just heard the discourse which is interference with the internal affairs of ukraine. -- everything that russia has just said is interference in the internal affairs of ukraine.

second, the decision for armed forces to enter ukraine has not been cemented. everybody knows that the russian army is controlling crimea. this is a fact. this is a fact. --ernational television russian soldiers are not hiding. the fact that they are occupying ukraine. certainly there is a habit, a long-standing habit of dealing with his opponent before getting rid of him. this is something that soviets would do. but now all the demonstrators in kiev [indiscernible] immensee am -- in their majority, they are not members of the far right or nationalist radicals. the issue on the evidence of this is quite simple. on mayns may take place

25 under international supervision. under supervision of the sosci. vote.rainians they will decide on what future they want. [indiscernible] an agreement which they had rejected at the time. they rejected it, they refused to endorse it. i would call on them to attend. thank you. >> not giving the floor to the representative of the russian federation -- now giving the for to the representative of the russian federation. colleague sounds like wen smal are against something. nono, it is not clear what we ae against. we are not including the role of

some international agencies and i explained why it is that it might not be enough to do so. important one, i would like to ask the french colleague not to engage in hyperbole. we do not need hyperbole. secondly i did not say that the majority of those who protested -- protested on the streets of kiev or national radicals. i did not say that. they were the ones that set the tone but they play the instruments for the orchestra. they took -- they have taken government authority in kiev. with this provocation, they are sending it now to the east and to the territory of crime area. maybe that is -- crimea. navy that is enough. thank you. of therepresentative

united kingdom has asked for the floor to make a statement. you now have the floor, sir. >> i must take issue with some of the things that the russian ambassador has said. let's be clear about the facts of what has happened in crimea. the russian forces are forcibly taken over military and chilean airports, infrastructure, they have set up roadblocks, they have pressurized ukrainian military leaders to defect, they have given other ukrainians ultimatums to surrender. they have locked ports and they have vastly increased military forces along the russian-ukrainian border. there is no justification for this military action in international law or in the agreement between ukraine and the russian federation. [indiscernible] as article six of that says very clearly. military formations shall

respect the sovereignty of ukraine emma shall abide by ukrainian laws, and shall not interfere in the internal affairs of ukraine. what part of that agreement justifies the military action that we have seen russia taking in the crimea? my russian colleague has said just now that the russian federation is not against the a monitoring mission. can he confirm that the russian federation accepts the deployment in the next few days of such a mission? >> i think the representative of the united kingdom for his statement. do i hear any further requests? the russian federation has the floor. ami cannot talk about osc, i not talking about osce.

their functions. we support his mission. the osce, that one has to be discussed. support what he said. there is too much disinformation going on, too much, too many statements. statements that are not realistic. f -- much of what the english colleague said about what is going on in crimea is not in line with reality. thank you. >> i think they're representative of the russian federation for his statement. the representative ukraine has asked for the floor to make a further statement. >> thank you, madam president. i will speak russian again in order to be properly understood. i support what the ambassador

said. that we have to be extremely and i and speak honestly, want to clarify a few things, that were stated in his statement. i will be clear. firstly occupation or threat of occupation of the monastery in in canonicals relationship with the patriarch [indiscernible] we received information that there might be some kind of provocation against the monastery. the monastery at a statement that same day and repeated it the next day to the effect that the monastery outside of it was being guarded by people from my town. simple people so there will not

be any provocation. that is the answer. people who were demonstrating, the defendant this monastery from possible provocations. the black sea fleet. i have an amendment. in the treaty it says our agreement, the number of the , the strength is 11,000 people. 2000 marines. and other -- 11,000. year, ourr last ministry was notified by the russian side in december that

the black sea fleet will be maintained at the numerical strength of 11,000. now i would like to go back to what the jordanian ambassador said. of the g8, document a resolution where they defined what is aggression. thethere it says any of situations described there would be aggression. says if inparagraph the territory of a country, ukraine, you have by agreement armed units of another country, , anda, the black sea fleet it says how many in the place where they go and there is a violation of where they go and

how many, without the agreement of the receiving country, that is aggression. i'm not even saying that the in francearmed forces the airspace in ukraine at that time. about 14 military helicopters came that should not be part of the black sea fleet. aircraft that entrenched our space. number ands a larger an increase in the number of initary, russian military violation of all our agreements and that is aggression. on language and much speculation. i explained to the president, explained ine 1990, that was the first law on independence and we had

something in there about national minorities, guaranteeing equal rights and equal protection of national interests of any ethnic group including linguistic minorities in that first law. took12, the law that we which was not procedural, it was adopted by pressure. it was adopted by the former government in 2012. that law did not take into amendment and00 the opposition did not vote. we did not leave -- need that legislation because it was the 1992 law in the constitution and i would remind you that when ukraine went to the eu we took an obligation to sign and ratify the charter on minority languages. .ear in mind

the minority language. >> we did this charter. apply not tod languages like crimean and ta rtar but should apply to all languages of national minorities that are protected by law. so getting rid of that law, the government said that the parliament will look once again at ratification of the charter which we undertook to ratify. we signed and ratified. and the russian federation, by the way, did not ratify, has not ratified the charter till up to now. we are ratifying it. for languages that do not have a tour -- a territory and have no

official definition. we will defend those languages that would disappear because there are not many speakers of them. the party of regions. unfortunately, an untruth was said. the party of reasons, the former a large government was caucus of the current parliament. moreover, one of the leaders of this caucus said that he would run for president. nobody heard that. called himl party what he is. a coward and a traitor. it was not a comment about the parliament. it has all the power to appoint a government.

it has a full range of powers to conduct elections. today it was said that on may 25 there will be presidential elections. that's give an opportunity for that to work for us to learn how to live together on how to govern. i agree we have -- need assistance. this crisist past that has been going on for years. that people will not be a shame live there. we will form a civil society and ashnvite -- invite all and to come and look. but not to bother us if we do not ask for it. >> there are no further speakers . the security council has

concluded its consideration of this issue on its agenda, the meeting is adjourned. >> secretary of state john kerry is leaving the ukraine. he will speak at the outlook affairs committee this evening that his hearing -- happening at 615 p.m. eastern. >> there are no more claims to the land of the jewish state of israel. so here is the view of too many palestinians. they feel the europeans treated the jewish people very ugly, far were that many jews treated,, dating and the horror of the holocaust. they believed -- european gave land" as penance

for what they had done to the jewish people. we would say that israel has been the spiritual homeland of the jewish people for 3000 years. read the torah, read the bible. the palestinian skinner believe in our torah and when palestinians insist on a so-called right of return where anyone can claim land in israel, they are saying they want two palestinian states and no jewish states in the middle east. [applause] because under the terms of the right of return, the number of palestinians allowed to return to israel would overwhelm the number of jewish israelis. as prime minister netanyahu has said, without palestinian recognition of israel, as the nation-state of the jewish people, the conflict cannot and it has palestinians will be

continuing to make claims on the land of the jewish nationstate of israel even after a palestinian state is created. as president obama clearly stated in his state of the union speech, there needs to be palestinian recognition of the jewish state of israel if there is going to be an end to the israeli-palestinian conflict. [applause] say, oh, it is the settlements that are the issue. i would point out to them what happened in gaza. israel voluntarily ended settlements in gaza. you may revert the pictures of israeli soldiers dragging the settlors unwillingly out of the settlements. israel withdrew on its own. what was the palestinian response after israel withdrew? rockets. in pre-1967laces

israel. it cannot be the settlements or the reason -- the reason we do not have peace in the middle east. whatever your view is on the settlements. those who say the obstacle to peace is defining the borders of the two states, if only israel would go back to the 1967 borders, we can have peace. i would point to them the negotiations in 2000 where ehud barak was willing to agree to the 1967 borders and it cost him his election as prime minister. it was yasser arafat and the palestinians who rejected the settlement. borderis not where the should be that stands in the way of peace. peace negotiations will be difficult. they will be arduous. we almost make sure that israel is not pressured to give up its

security and exchange for an illusory peace. secretary kerry who you will hear from soon has been dogged in pursuit of an agreement between the parties and as negotiate -- conducted negotiations up to now the way they should be conducted, quietly, behind the scenes, working closely with israel and the palestinians and stressing the importance of israel's security requirements. i say to the palestinian leadership, negotiations are the only way you will realize your own state. just as war and terrorism have not given you a state, the u.n. cannot give you a state, boycotting israel can i give you a state, getting companies to do best from israel cannot and will not give you a state. [applause]

the palestinian leadership needs to citalopram minister of israel who said he will meet with you anywhere, anytime. and engage seriously in the give-and-take of negotiations and you must educate your people not to hate israelis and honor terrorists, but to understand that coexistence with israel is the best way to bring peace, prosperity, and well-being that the palestinian people want and deserve. mytonight, in conclusion, friends from all around the country, 17,000 strong, and because of the snow all of your here. [laughter] you have my pledge, i will do everything, everything in my power to ensure that we honor our commitments to our strong ally israel and every action we take is designed to make israel

safer, more secure, and more prosperous. pac, thank you for everything you do. let us work to do every thing we can do to make sure that next year, the threats of -- to israel have decreased and the stories of israel's success continue to increase. thank you and have a great rest of your convention. [applause] ♪

>> secretary of state john kerry is scheduled to speak to the aipac conference in an hour from now which we will have live here on c-span. secretary kerry making his appearance before leaving for ukraine later tonight. the state department saying the obama administration is likely to impose sanctions on russia because it's -- of its actions in ukraine. president obama made some brief marks this afternoon saying that russia is on the wrong side of history in ukraine and that their actions violate international law. he made his comments during a meeting with israeli prime mr. netanyahu today. president obama talked about the closeness of the israel-u.s. relationship. to welcomepleasure prime minister netanyahu to the office. there is no one i have that war -- met more with.

it is a testimony to the bond between our nations. i have said before and i will repeat. we do not have a closer friend than israat israel -- twond the bond between our countries is unbreakable. that is the reason why bond, the whole spectrum of issues, we consult closely, we have the kind of military and intelligence and security cooperation that is unprecedented, and there is a commitment insan this country to make sure that israel's security is preserved in any contingency. have a wide range of issues to discuss given what is happening on the world stage and in the middle east in particular.

we will spend time discussing the situation in syria and the need for us to not only find a political solution to the tragic situation there, but also to extremisme growing inside of syria. the spillover effect on lebanon and jordan in particular. we will have an opportunity to work wehe work -- the do in counterterrorism and the are continuing to do to try to stabilize an environment that has become dangerous in many respects. we will have a chance talk about , a country that is of critical importance, where we have the opportunity, i think i might to move beyond recent over several west years and there is a path to

transition within egypt. to security asnt well as u.s. security. we will talk about iraqi and my absolutely -- my absolute to makee -- commitment sure that it ran does not have a nuclear weapon. can potentially lead to a solution that ensures that iran is not developing a nuclear weapon. we will spend time talking about the prospect of peace between israelis and palestinians. i want to commend publicly the efforts that prime minister netanyahu have made and very link the and painstaking negotiations with my secretary of state, john kerry. are tough negotiations. the issues are profound. the reason that they would have

been resolved years ago but prime minister netanyahu has approached these negotiations with a level of seriousness and commitment that reflect his leadership and the desire for the israeli people for peace. it is my believe that ultimately it is still possible to create states, the state of israel and the state of palestine in which people are living side-by-side in peace and security. but it is difficult and requires coppermine's on all sides. i want to commend the prime minister for the seriousness with which he has taken these discussions. to bring in the timeframe to be set up for completing these negotiations is coming near. some tough positions will have to be made. i know that regardless of the

outcome, the prime minister will make those decisions based on his absolute commission -- commitment to israel's security and his recognition that alternately, israel's security will be enhanced by peace with its neighbors. so i want to welcome you again and then queue again for your -- thank you again for your leadership and friendship with the american people. thank you. >> mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today. especially since i know you have a few other pressing matters on your plate. years of youre presidency, you and i, israel and the united states have anded very closely critically on important issues, security, intelligence, missile defense, and we are deeply

grateful for that. i look forward to working closely with you in the years address the main challenges that confront us. of these, the greatest challenge undoubtedly is to prevent iran from acquiring the capacity to make nuclear weapons. i think that goal can be achieved if it ran is prevented from reaching uranium and this [indiscernible] if that goal can be achieved nocefully entered, say, country has a greater stake in this then israel. because as you know, i am sure you will appreciate, karen -- iran calls openly for israel's

destruction. you will appreciate that israel cannot add -- permit such a state to have the ability to make atomic arms to achieve that goal. we just cannot be [indiscernible] going to the brink of the structure and. i is the prime minister of israel will do whatever i must state.efend the jewish we are also going to discuss the peace process as you said. thery, allretary tireless effort his putting in. it is an opportunity to congratulate secretary kerry on the birth of his new granddaughter. and [inaudible] the peacescussing process. we had very many productive

meetings. you oyer efforts and your team. -- for your efforts and for your team. [indiscernible] have been marked that -- by unprecedented steps. only frozen settlements, we have uprooted entire sentiments and released hundreds of terrorist prisoners. and what we look at what we got suiciden, it has been bombers, thousands of rocket on cities, and just incessant palestinian [indiscernible] against israel. israel has been doing its part and i regret to say that the not.tinians have

this flies in the face of conventional wisdom but it is the truth. the people of israel know that it is the truth because they have admitted it. what they want is peace. what we all want fervently is peace. not a piece of paper although that, to. peace that is anchored in recognition of to nationstates that respect one another and solid security arrangements on the ground. you rightly said that israel, is theish state realization of the jewish people's self-determination and ancestral homeland. the palestinians expect us to recognize the palestinian state for the palestinian people. a nation state for the palestinian people. it is about time to recognize a nation state for the jewish people. we have only been there for 4000

years. bbas does this. that he will take seriously israel's genuine security needs. which isddle east, definitely the most turbulent and violent heart of the earth, the only piece that will endure is a piece that we can defend -- peace that will endure is a peace we can defend. the best way to guarantee peace is to be strong and that is what the people of israel expect me to do. to stand strong against racism and pressure, to secure the future of the jewish state. there is a partnership year between israel and america that i think is important for this and. i want to thank you again for your friendship and hospitality.

on this snow a washing today. thank you. washington today. thank you. >> [inaudible] u.s. concerned about getting russian forces out of crimea or are you concerned about russian forces moving into eastern ukraine? >> all of the above. i spent the weekend talking to leaders across europe, and i think the world is largely united in recognizing that the steps russia has taken are a violation of ukraine's sovereignty. and ukraine's territorial integrity. that they are a violation of

international law and a violation of previous agreements that russia has made with respect to how it treats and respect its neighbors. got strong statements from nato, from the g7 condemning the actions that russia has taken. we are going to continue these diplomatic efforts during the course of this week. interest is seeing the ukrainian people to determine their own destiny. russia has strong historic ties to the ukraine. russiane a lot of nationals inside of ukraine as well as native russians. there are a lot of ukrainians inside russia. there are strong commercial ties between those two countries. so all of those interests i think can be recognized. but what cannot be done is for russia with impunity to put it

soldiers on the ground and violate basic principles that are recognized around the world. the strong condemnation that it has received from countries around the world indicates that russia is on the wrong side of history. where a strong supporter of the interim ukrainian government. john kerry will be traveling to kiev to indicate our support for the ukrainian people, to after specific and concrete packages of economic aid because one of the things we're concerned about is stabilizing the economy even in the midst of this crisis. indicating are also to the russians is that if in fact the continue on the current

trajectory that we are examining a series of steps. economic by diplomatic, that will isolate russia. and will have a negative impact on russia's economy and its status in the world. we have suspended preparations g-8 summit. we have taken a look at a whole range of issues that john kerry mentioned yesterday. for mr. putin,n who i spoke to directly and that russian for the russian government generally is if in that thee concern is rights of all ukrainians are is -- respected, the if in fact their primary concern is the stated is that russian speakers and russian nationals are not in

any way harmed or abused or discriminated against, then we should be able to set up international monitors and international effort that mediates and is able to broker a the that is satisfactory to ukrainian people, not to the united states or to russia but ukrainians. we should be able to de-escalate the situation. and so we have been specific about how that might be done under the auspices of the united nations or some other international organization. john kerry will pursue that were there when he arrives. there are two paths that russia can't take it this point. obviously, the facts on the ground in crimea are deeply troubling. thata has a large army

borders ukraine. that overso true is time, this will be a costly proposition for russia. and now is the time for them to consider whether they can serve their interest in a way that resorts to diplomacy as opposed to force. one last point i would take on this. i have heard a lot of talk from congress about what should be done, what they want to do. do right away can is to work with the administration to help provide assistance to the ukrainians, to the people and their government. and when they get back in assuming the weather clears, i would hope that would be the first order of business. because at this stage, there should be unanimity between democrat and republicans that

when it comes to preserving the principle that no country has the right to send in troops to another country unprovoked, we should be able to come up with a unified position that stands outside of partisan politics. that iexpectation is, is will be able to get congress to work with us in order to achieve that goal. >> president obama calling on congress to work on an aid package for ukraine and make that the first-order business. secretary of state john kerry is headed for kiev in support of the new ukrainian government. before he leaves washington, he is scheduled to speak to the annual meeting of the american israel public affairs committee. that is happening in about 15 minutes from now which will have -- we will have live here at

c-span. republican senator john mccain spoke to the conference this morning. we will watch what he said as we wait for secretary kerry. ♪ >> thank you very much. thank you for that warm welcome. thank you for not mentioning that i lost running for president of the united states. i thank you. after i lost i slept like a baby. sleep two hours and wake up and cry, sleep two hours. [applause] i am very happy to be with you. and did i mention i asked your

sympathy for the families of the state of arizona as barry goldwater ran for president of the united states, morris udall from arizona ran for the president of the united states. babbitt, i ran for president. arizona may be the only state in america where mothers don't tell their children that someday they can grow up and be president of the united states. i ask your sympathy. i noticed that the conference was introduced by my dear and beloved friend, joe lieberman, the finest man i have ever known in my life. [applause] and joe and i traveled together extensively for many, many years, literally every corner of the world. just prior to joe's leaving the senate, there was a wonderful dinner at the israeli embassy for joe, and all of the important people in washington were there. and there was speaker after speaker after speaker extolling

virtues and records and the wonderment and beauty of joe lieberman, and all of it was true. when i was the last speaker. i said, look, i'm not going to tell you about joe lieberman. you've already heard it. but i have an announcement to make. i have spent all of these years with joe lieberman, eating salmon, riding the shabbat elevator, not being able to ride in a car on saturday. i've had to go through all of this all of these years, and i've gotten none of the benefits, so i'm announcing my conversion to judaism. [applause] and joe said, that was great. only i had to have a brisk. so i've changed my mind. [laughter] i thank all of you for being here trying to do the lord's work in the city of satan. [laughter]

and the snow may have shut down the government, but obviously, it can't shut down aipac. [applause] by the way, in case you missed it, only 12% of americans approve of congress. we are down to paid staff and blood relatives. [laughter] my mother is 102 years old -- [applause] she called me the other day. we are now down to paid staff. [laughter] i really do come to you this morning with a heavy heart, with a heavy heart and great sadness because of events taking place in ukraine. and what happens in ukraine is directly related to what happens in the middle east, and

obviously we know that what happens in the middle east is vital to the existence of the state of israel. i'm not going to go through the history of ukraine with you. but the fact is crimea is a sovereign part of the sovereign nation of ukraine. and the people of ukraine, by the hundreds of thousands, went to a square in subfreezing weather saying they did not want to be part of putin's russia. and that is what it was all about. and now that the olympics are over, immediately afterwards, we now see the occupation of crimea. and by the way, in case you missed it, one of the reasons why there is a majority population of russians in crimea is because stalin exported all of the tartars. over half of them were killed as he drove them from crimea. the fact is this is a blatant act of aggression on the part of vladimir putin and one that must be unacceptable to the world community. it cannot stand.

[applause] and i have to be very honest with you. there is not a military option that could be exercised now. but the most powerful and biggest and strongest nation in the world should have plenty of options, and those options are many, ranging from identifying these kleptocrats, these corruption people, and the people who ordered the magnets -- magnitzky act. it could be their last trip to las vegas. there is a -- there are -- there is a broad array of options. why do we care? because this is the result of a feckless foreign policy where nobody believes in america's

strength anymore. [applause] in 2009, many of you may remember as we saw on youtube, young woman bleed to death in the streets of tehran. the people in iran rose up and said, obama, are you with us or are you with them? the president of the united states did not say a word. the president of the united states believes the cold war is over. that is fine. it is over. but putin does not believe it is over. he does not believe this is a zero-sum game.

look at moldova, the occupation of georgia, the pressure on the baltic, the occupation of georgia, the pressure on the baltic nations. look at what is happening in cities and towns and the countryside all over syria. it is an outrage. and vladimir putin, while he is cooperating with us in the removal of chemical weapons, plain after playing of artillery and tanks are landing at the airport in damascus, slaughtering innocent people. i will tell you, it's hard for a mother to differentiate whether their child has been killed by a chemical weapon or one of these horrible barrel bombs that are basically cluster bombs that are being dropped on innocent civilians all over syria. and we have sat by and watched it happen. and if bashar assad prevails, it will directly endanger the security of the state of israel. it has now turned into a regional conflict. lebanon is destabilized. what do you think 5000 hezbollah fighters will be like when they return from the fighting in syria to southern lebanon?

what do you think is going to happen if bashar assad used to -- continues to prevail, as far as the other nations in the region are concerned? jordan, probably our best friend, is destabilized. the whole situation cries out for american leadership, and i'm sorry to tell you it is mia. let me also -- [applause] by the way, a couple of my favorites. tell vladimir that i'll be more flexible when i'm re-elected. tell vladimir i will be more flexible when i'm reelected? there is difference of opinion even amongst our dear friends as to whether sanctions should be passed by the congress of the

united states if the talks fail. my argument to you is do you believe in light of recent events of last five years that the iranian mullahs think we are serious? i don't think so. i don't think so. i believe the iranian people can have access to peaceful civilian nuclear energy, but that does not require an industrial uranium enrichment program. it does not require a heavy water reactor. it doesn't require advanced centrifuges, and it certainly does not require nuclear facilities dug deep into mountains. [applause] i hope as you do that we can find a peaceful resolution to this crisis, and the only reason there may be a modest chance for that now is because of your

tireless efforts and support. thank you and god bless you for your tireless effort and support. [applause] i believe we have to keep the pressure on. iran's rulers must know the only alternative to compromising on our terms is even more crippling sanctions or worse. that is why i believe the senate should pass a new bipartisan sanctions legislation that would take effect if the current negotiations do not succeed. [applause] we must stop iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability, and we must do so because the nature of the threat posed by this iranian regime. it is not an arms control challenge. the iranian revolutionary guard

is in syria slaughtering people today. they are training these extremists and they will not quit. this regime in iran is the world's leading sponsor of terror. it has murdered americans, israelis, and jews across the globe. it is categorically devoted to the destruction of the state of israel. it is training and arming militant groups across the middle east. it is destabilizing its neighbors and meddling in their affairs. it is developing sophisticated ballistic weapons missiles, including icbm's that could target america, and more than any actor, the blood of syria is on is on iranian hands. i know aipac was criticized after they supported the chemical weapons attack of last year. that was a seminal moment.

when the president of the united states says that president is going to take military action and does not, that sends a message all the way around the globe as far away as china. [applause] if we are not willing to take action when an anti-american, anti-semitic tyrant gases 1400 innocent people to death, what does it say about us? you did the right thing, and i commend you for it. [applause] you know, a lot of my fellow countrymen say we are weary of war. we want to get out. i hear this phrase over and over again. there will never be another land war which the united states in. post up to you know how many times in history that has been said? do you know how many times prior to world war ii that when hitler marched into sudentenland and leaders said, we will not march

into a place where people do not speak our language and that we do not know. we have to be ready. and as ronald reagan used to say, peace through strength, not through weakness and not through cutting our defense budgets back to the smallest army we have had since prior to world war ii. [applause] so with you, my friends, i see americans who want our country to being engaged in events beyond our borders. i see americans who want an internationalist foreign policy. i see americans who want our country to stand with israel and our other partners. i see americans who are willing to spend their hard-earned tax dollars on foreign assistance and strengthen the greatest military the world has ever known. i see americans who want america to lead. [applause] my friends, i've been around a long time. and in fact, since the coolidge

administration. [laughter] but i would say to you i've never seen this world in need of strong american leadership than it is today. and i believe these events, these negotiations with iran, which i hope to succeed, but i doubt, when i see the slaughter in syria, when i see the chinese asserting themselves in asia, when i see significant cuts in foreign aid and also in our defense budget, i'm worried. my final word to you, my dear and beloved friends, america and israel needs you more today than ever before. thank you and god bless. right now we are going to the

conference with a discussion with an israeli journalist. on the internet, which i did not have a great knowledge about. gender wise, i am a jewish mother. after four months, they showed me what became the first internet-wide instant -- later, a company came in and bought us. overnight we were told -- [indiscernible] very smart, and i am invited to talk to aipac. [laughter] if i may --

>> you may. 2010 theawarded in israel,h a newspaper in the title of the worst-dressed nobody would give any attention to me. >> i think we appreciate you have made an effort this evening. [laughter] >> don't be carried away. $30,000 investment in what became -- >> a little more. [indiscernible] >> that must be the truth. quite an achievement. >> thank you. earlierd a chance today, there was a session, and they were showing israeli

innovation camera that can see through walls. groundbreaking innovation in israel. what is the source? cultureit about israeli that makes it such a high-tech -- >> some people say it is because of the military, because of the great universities, some say it is because of government involvement. according to my opinion, the explanation -- and we should keep it only between the real secret is --e jewish mother, which asking you to bring -- which is you have touch, and

go and try and prove yourself. >> [indiscernible] mother hasjewish their own way to cherish the kids, by [indiscernible] we are moving between [indiscernible] mother alwaysmy told me why all my sisters and brothers have smart kids you are the only idiot in the country. i am numb mother of the -- i am the mother of the idiot. , she eight years of study had a very good feeling about genetics, and she said that is -- youand you all to be ought not to be contaminated

with the genes of your father. [laughter] if i may -- >> you may. innovation,about she was one of the first pioneers of biotechnology in israel, because of the time sheusterity in the 1960's, had a restaurant, and there was no product. she was able to turn every organic substance into chopped liver. [laughter] in the real source for innovation is the kitchen, because the jewish kitchen makes nothing. it is mainly bread.

she used to do reconstructive cooking. she used the leftovers of yesterday to cook, and yesterday she used a left rovers of the -- the leftovers of the day before. i hesitate to say this, but seriously -- --everything i told you >> is the truth, i understand. might there be other factors in the success of israel other than high-tech innovation, along with -- nothing against the influence of the mother. there are some others. what we should realize, science and technology and education you have in germany come in japan, in many countries

, and entrepreneurship is the phenomenon of the spirit, of the culture, and the israeli young generation is very entrepreneurial. they try to reach out, try to conquer the world, and it is being manifested in this generation in high tech. the whole thing is one great long startup. [indiscernible] , which youantastic see today. [applause] be so way, do not enthusiastic, because only people who do not [indiscernible] do not knowple who how that is being made are [indiscernible]

the industry, and absorbing, the illegal 1948, 19on, before years old, 20, 25, and this kind inculture is being invented israeli society, in the israeli genesis. what we see today is a manifestation of this tradition. [applause] add thist you would refusal to be deterred -- to not be deterred by the prospect of failure, wishing the envelope interesting, the characteristic that grew up with the generation. >> the education system is great. you see mayor bloomberg, when he wanted to introduce entrepreneurship into new york, he tried to implement --

[indiscernible] wonderful things. and military, creates a lot of civilian spinoffs. you have heard about the imaging from the people who redefined the phrase "the light at the end of the tunnel." this is the honor system of israel. we are creating the best business school in the world. room,p it in the everybody. again, seriously, you spent 12 years in government from a very young age. --e lighting the claim belying the claim not to be talented. collaborating with

the neighbors in high tech, and do you believe the industry holds the key to peace with the palestinians? >> israel holds the key to that the palestinians, the palestinians hold the key to with israel. not seize this opportunity. when we have peace, we can have a little bit more close to the one who carries that -- [applause] reach an agreement, i am sure the area will be like singapore. either the playlist -- the palestinians are a good people. most of them are like a small minority, which can ruin the whole thing. if you have three flies in the

soup, the whole soup is ruined, but if we reach an agreement, i am sure the area will be prosperous. i agree with netanyahu that security is important because if you do not have security the peace will not be sustained. the efforttching that the u.s. government is doing in order to try to bring peace, and i am telling you this is a great opportunity which we us shouldall of embrace. [applause] i have to tell you something. i did not think about saying, i came from a very difficult -- this morning, i came from a very issue in the family, but decided to go to here to speak

to the people, and this wonderful applause made the whole trip worthwhile. thank you. [applause] >> wonderful. good. good thing here already. that is wonderful. tell me it's specifics, is there already cooperation in high-tech between israel and the policy means? -- palestinians? >> i cannot go into detail. like every society, it is not monolithic. talented, civilized, not everyeople, palestinian or every egyptian or george iranian coming -- or most of theoming -- people want peace. and we have to find wait to torace them, and they have

find a way to embrace us. i do not know how many of you met the former jordanian ambassador to the u.s. he is into ecology and his interests are like every -- like the best of us. >> ok. now, the world that you are active in changes all the time. the next innovation is overtaken by the next innovation and so on. what do you think are the next frontiers that are going to be tackled, and is israel leading the way? >> somehow we are -- we are a small country, 8.2 million people. somehow we have like 6000 startups in every conceivable area of technology. i am thinking about internet, cyber, telecom area,

and you see that the best companies in this country are coming to israel to look for technology. gm, general motors, israel was not the last [indiscernible] was made out of fiberglass, and they stopped making this -- [applause] that is a true story. these are the histories of the israeli -- we are not so good on the body. the electronics and software, they developed a development central. saideneral counsel of ge check theder to

resilience of ge machinery in an israeli company, hired them to check the system. so the israelis are very good. financial technologies. citibank -- you heard about citibank. citibank opened a research and , also aent center development center. which was threested by google -- weeks ago for $3 billion. by the way, google has development centers in israel. the only center of the united in turnn israel,

employees in israel 9500 people, outside of facility the united states, and 40% of every product of internet, manufactured or designed in israel. >> unbelievable. the list goes on and on. ibm employees 2200 people. aol is buying companies in israel, like facebook. all not want to talk about this. it is crazy. not good in all these things? that is a very good question. >> i am glad i asked it. [laughter] >> what is not good that so far

population2% of the is conjuring directly the benefits. enjoying directly the benefits. it is not going to the -- [applause] we have in our society we have too many groups, too big, which are not enjoying it. everybody speaks about the groups arabs, but also enjoying this.ot nextaps are created in the generation, and we in society have to embrace each other and resolve this issue. the most significant internal issue. >> something that is very relevant to all of us here. how did the american and the

israeli people, the relationship between those peoples, contribute to the creation of the israeli -- >> that is a good question. i would like to answer. honestly think that without the collaboration of the american people and the israeli we would not have the kind of psychic industry that we have, and i would like to illustrate. if you look into the high education, i am a graduate of the technical. i have to tell you a story. i got my doctor in science. my mother was not impressed that i got a doctor because my kaiser and -- my cousin was the president of -- i am sorry for you.

--my brother told my mother she looked at me and she said he is a doctor because he does not do development. nevertheless -- >> we are doing a good psychological work this evening. that is good. >> good. they decided to give me an honorary degree. i got the honorary degree. it was given me 10 years after my mother died. i told my mother, on the acceptance speech, it was very exciting, and in my receiving speech i said, mother, you see, i got the doctorate. i was very pleased.

when i went to sleep that night, i heard a voice, honorary doctorate is not -- [laughter] [indiscernible] master.one my scholarship -- a few years ago i met his grand nephew. [indiscernible] hebrew university. , then you gohem and look to wall street. the second largest number of the israeli companies. [indiscernible] people who areat committed to this little country

-- look on the company. 300 centers of .xcellence in israel y most of them are american companies. unbelievable. we have a parade of -- big companies, all the governments, all the international agencies which feel about -- deal about innovation. it will continue like this. i again to believe my own propaganda. >> tell me about cyber tech.

we are at the forefront of cyber tech. how is the israeli innovation helping israel and helping the united states remain safe and able to defend themselves? >> if i knew, i would not tell you, and if i would tell you, they would kill me. [laughter] that is not a very good question. [applause] i do not know anything. the rumor is there is some collaboration. becoming -- not only is becomingr -- strategic -- >> live coverage will continue shortly. john kerry will speak shortly. the house is out and the senate only came in briefly today. both chambers are back in tomorrow. here is more.

seniord hawking's is the editor of cq roll call. some of the key items we expect to find in the president's budget? >> the biggest item is the president is going to propose a remaking of the military that is going to make the republicans, defense hawks quite anxious. already has made them quite anxious. he is proposing reducing the army to a smaller size, not seen since world war ii. he has proposed killing the so-called a-10 warthog. several other things that are going to make the defense community, that industrial

lobbying complex upset. a big increase in transportation spending, surface transportation spending, mass transit, to be paid for with an overhaul of the corporate tax code. that is unlikely to go anywhere either. those are the two most interesting things he is going to be proposing in the year in which his budget i think is going to be relatively quiet. >> you write in your most recent column that the president's budget is a month late. when is it usually released and what impact does that have on the deadlines? >> the law requires the president to put out his budget by the first monday in february. that is why it is a month late. there is no panoply were missing this deadline -- there is no

penalty for missing the deadline. last year it was even later. this year the fact that it is late is not going to have much of an effect, because of the resolution of last winter's budget debate, which was -- and there are a lot of budget debates and there have been so many fiscal cliffs that it is understandably difficult for those to pay attention to the all to keep them all straight -- but the budget debate that ended in december, the so-called ryan-murray budget, paul ryan, chairman of the house budget committee, patty murray, the democrat who is the chairwoman of the senate budget committee came up with a budget agreement to ease the impact of the across the board cuts known as the sequester for this year and next the, which really has taken steam out of the big budget fight.

murray so that senator announced just a couple days ago that she sees no reason to even do what is a normal process, which is to take the president's budget and modify it and turn it into a congressional budget resolution. she says no need to go through that. a politically dicey exercise because the big topic of the year, which is how much money is there to spend on discretionary programs, or grams over which congress has the power, that has already been decided. the amount of money was set last winter for both the current fiscal year, which ends october 1 him and that current fiscal year which starts then, which is what this budget is about. >> house republicans are planning to put their own budget plan together. what is likely to be in their proposal? ryan, the chairman of the house budget committee, issued an extensive -- i think it was 200 some odd detail pages

of a report, his assessment of the sorry state in his view of the war on poverty, 50 years later. that itin a broad brush has indoctrinated in washington the belief that fighting the war on poverty is based on how much money you spend per poor person, not on the efficacy of the programs involved. thatd not say specifically his observations about failings in some of the big social programs, food stamps, medicaid, would be the basis for his budget, but it is expected that they will influence his budget plan. talking about remaking the federal welfare system to spend less money on it, but in his view, improve it. that will be that big theme of

the house republicans. the challenge for the house republicans is that there are -- if he come on mr. ryan, talks about this revamping of social programs, but also sticks with the amount of money that he and ms. murray settled on last fall and that congress approved, it is going to be difficult for some of the most conservative republicans to vote for that amount of spending, even with a remaking of the social safety net that they might approve of. it is going to be one of the big challenges of the year will be how the republicans find that sweet spot that attracts virtually all of them, the super conservative members as well as the very conservative members, because note democrats are going to join that effort. hawkings authors a blog and column. thank you for being with us on

this snowy day. >> thank you. john kerry is expected live at the american israel public affairs committee meeting shortly. hisetary kerry making report before he heads to ukraine tonight. resident obama talked about -- president obama talked about russia and ukraine today. he talked about the closeness of israel and the u.s.. -- u.s. it is a pleasure to welcome prime minister netanyahu to the oval office. there's nobody who i have met bibi, a testimony to the true bond between our two nations. we do not have a closer friend or ally than israel, and the bond between our two countries, our two peoples, is unbreakable. that is the reason why the whole we consult issues,

closely, we have the kind of military and intelligence and security cooperation that is unprecedented, and there is a strong bipartisan commitment in this country to make sure that preservedecurity is in any contingency. widee going to have a range of issues to discuss, given what is happening on the world stage, in the middle east in particular. so we will spend time discussing the situation in syria and the need for us to not only find a political solution to the tragic situation there, but also to extremismat growing inside syria, the spillover effects on lebanon and jordan in particular. we will have the opportunity to discuss the work that we do in

, that we areism going to be continuing to do to try to stabilize an environment that has become very dangerous in many respects. we will have a chance to talk about egypt, a country that is a critical -- is of critical importance, where we have the opportunity to move beyond recent events over the last several years to a point in which once again there is a legitimate path towards political transition inside of egypt. that is important to israel's security as well as to the u.s.'s security. we will talk about a ron, and my commitment to make sure that a nuclearnot achieve weapon, and we will discuss how the joint plan of action

currently in place and potentially lead to a solution is notsures iran developing a nuclear weapon. we will spend time talking about the prospect of peace between israelis and palestinians. i want to commend publicly the efforts that prime minister painstakingde, in andtiations with john kerry others. they are tough negotiations. issues abound. i think prime minister netanyahu's approach to these negotiations with a level of seriousness and commitment that and the his leadership desire for the israeli people for peace. it is my belief that ultimately it is still possible to create two states, a jewish state of

palestine, ine of which people are living side-by-side in peace and security. but it is difficult, and it requires compromise on all sides. i want to publicly command the mende minister -- come the prime minister for the seriousness which he undertakes these discussions. the timeframe for undertaking these today she nations is coming near, and tough negotiations will have to be made. i know regardless of the outcome, the prime minister will make those decisions based on his commitment to israel's security and his recognition israel'smately security will be an enhanced i peace with its neighbors. so, mr. prime minister, i want to welcome you again, and thank you again for your leadership

and your friendship with the american people. thank you. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today, especially since i know you have a few other pressing matters on your plate. during the five years of your presidency, you and i, israel and the united states, have worked very closely on critically important issues -- security, intelligence sharing, missile-defense -- and we are deeply grateful for that. i look forward to working closely with you in the years the mainaddress challenges that confront both of our countries. and of these, the greatest challenge undoubtedly is to prevent iran from acquiring the capacity to make nuclear

weapons. i think that goal can be achieved if iran is prevented from enriching uranium and militarys fully its and nuclear installations. mr. president, that goal can be achieved peacefully through diplomacy. no country has a greater stake in this than israel, because as you know and you appreciate, israel'sed openly for section. you appreciate that israel state tommit such a have the ability to make atomic bombs to achieve that goal. you just cannot be brought to the brink of distraction, and i as the prime minister of israel will do whatever i must do to defend the jewish state.

we will also discuss the peace process, as you said. to. secretary kerry, i want -- i want to thank you and secretary kerry for the tireless efforts you are putting into this. it is an opportunity to create -- to congratulate secretary kerry for his new granddaughter. we had many productive meetings, but this is truly productive. --hank you both for have passed that since israel entered the peace process have been marked by unprecedented steps that israel has taken to advance peace.

we left the house a -- we left gaza entirely. we released hundreds of includingprisoners, dozens in recent months, and looking at what we got in return, it has been suicide bombers, thousands of rockets on our cities fired from the areas -- and just incessant -- stinian israel has been doing its part, and i regret to say that the palestinians have not. facew this is not in the of conventional wisdom, but it is true, and israel knows it is true because what they want is peace. what we all want is peace. paper, although that, too, but a peace that

is anchored in mutual recognitions of two states that recognize and respect each other. mr. president, you rightly said state,rael, the jewish is the realization of the jewish people's self-determination and our homeland. palestinians expect us to recognize a palestinian state for the palestinian people, a nationstate state for the palestinian people. i think it is about time they recognize a nation state for the jewish people. we have only been there for 4000 years. i hope you will take seriously israel's genuine security needs, because as you know and i think everybody does, in the middle east, which is definitely the most turbulent and violent part of the earth, the only piece

that will and/or is a piece that peace thathe only can and your is a peace -- the best way to guarantee peace is to be strong, and that is what the people of israel expect, to stand strong against criticism against pressure, stand strong to secure the future of the one and only jewish state. i think there is a partnership between israel and america that i think is important to this end. i want to thank you for your ,riendship and your hospitality on this snowy washington day. thank you again. i appreciate it. >> [indiscernible] threatening against russia in the ukraine does not have much of an effect. whatefforts do you --

leverage do you believe you have over printed at this point? are you concerned about russian forces moving into eastern ukraine? >> all of the above. i spent the weekend talking to , and i across europe think the world is largely united in recognizing that the steps russia has taken are a violation of ukraine's sovereignty, ukraine's territorial integrity, a violation of international law, they are in violation of previous agreements that russia has made with respect to how it treats its neighbors, and as a consequence we have strong statements from nato, from the g7, condemning the actions russia has taken. we are going to continue to be a -- we are going to continue

these diplomatic efforts. my interest is seeing the ukrainian people determine their own destiny. russia has strong historic ties to ukraine. there are a lot of russian nationals inside ukraine, as well as native russians, as there are there a lot of ukrainians inside russia. there are commercial ties between the countries. what cannot be done is for to put its impunity soldiers on the ground and thatte basic principles are recognized around the world. i think the strong condemnation that it has received from countries around the world indicates the degree to which

russia is on the wrong side of history on this. we are strongly supportive of the ukrainian government. john kerry will be traveling to kiev to indicate our support for the ukrainian people, to offer very specific and concrete packages of economic aid, because one of the things we are concerned about is stabilizing the economy, even in the midst and what we are also indicating to the russians is that if in fact they continue on the current trajectory that they are on that we are examining a whole series of --ps -- economic, diplomatic that will isolate russia and will have a negative impact on russia's economy and its status in the world. we have already suspended

preparations for the g-8 summit. you can't expect there will be further follow-up on that. we are looking at a whole range of issues that john kerry mentioned yesterday. and the question for mr. putin, who i spoke to directly, and the question for the russian government generally is if in fact their concern is -- >> you can see all all of what obama said tonight at 8:00. going live to aipac now, to hear from secretary of state john kerry. ♪ >>norm, thank you. thank you very much. thank you all, 14,000 strong or more. friedman and executive

director, incoming president bob chairman,coming outgoing chairman lee rosenberg, and ambassador dan schapiro. i know where our ambassadors are. [applause] tell you, it is really an enormous pleasure for me to be it is abe here, privilege. it is good to see so many friends, 14,000 of you. it is frightening to see me on such large greens appear. last time i spoke to aipac i join your national summit in napa valley, by way of satellite, and you were in the vineyards, i was overseas, a

different kind of figured. today i am getting the better end of the deal because i'm here youryou in person, and selection is limited this time. i had the pleasure of speaking to aipac back in the 1990's, a great honor, and every time i come here, when i get a chance to talk to a smaller session, this is a remarkably inspiring gathering. people from every corner of the country coming together to demonstrate our deep support as americans for a strong u.s.-israel relationship. [applause] and it is no exaggeration, not just words, to say every single one of you brings here such a special passion to a cause that you so fiercely believe in, and

let me tell you something, unequivocally, after almost 30 years in the senate, i can tell you that is precisely why aipac's work is in the best traditions of american democracy, and i thank you for practicing it. [applause] i want you to know in my judgment these democratic values are stamped in the dna of both the united states and israel, but we also share something much deeper than that. like no other two countries on the planet, against the deepest odds, both america and a israel confidently, purposely set out to be examples to the world. think about it. from its earliest days, israel has always said it is not enough just to be one of many in a community of nations. israel has strived since

isaiah's and that -- that responsibility sounds absolutely unbelievably similar to something that we as americans know is part of who we are, too. my grandfather, 10 times over, and other terms, he was a man by the name of john winter. he came to what was then the new world. search ofe in freedom. freedom to worship as he wished. he was a minister. he and his congregants were outcasts. persecuted. no guarantee even of survival. and on his way here, he delivered a now fairly famous sermon at sea in which he called

his community to great a city upon the hills in their new home of america. whether you call it a city upon a hill or a light unto the nations, it actually means the same. ,ill being a model to the world having a home a that sets a standard. a standard of dignity and freedom so the foundation of the friendship between the american people and the people of israel was actually laid centuries before. set under the u.s. capital. and looking around this room tonight, it is clear that our friendship has never been stronger. [applause] i will tell you why. today, as israel faces serious challenges to the future, it is america that will

stand firmly by her side. i will tell you -- [applause] with the leadership of president obama and you can look it up, you can measure it. it is not exaggeration but a matter of fact. there's been a complete unmatched commitment to israel's security. the record of this administration in providing aid and assistance and consultation and weapons and help, standing up in various international forum, i am proud to tell you is otherwise willed. the bottom line has been making sure that israel has the means to defend itself by itself and defending israel's right to do so. [applause] that is what we have done. security.

security is fundamentally what president obama is committed to. and so too is he committed to using the full force of our diplomacy to resolve the two great questions that matter when it comes to assuring the security of israel. dividing a nuclear iran and ending them israel/palestinian conflict. let me start with iran. i know there are many questions. many people, there has been a healthy debate about the approach. we welcome that. let me sum up president obama's policy -- 10 simple, clear words. unequivocal, we will not permit iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. period. [applause]

i -- [applause] i added an 11th word for punctuation. understand is there are no if's and's or but's. this is real policy and we mean the word. the word of the president and the united states that iran will not get a nuclear weapon. as we said at the outset and i say it again, our diplomacy is lighted by a bottom line. no deal is better than a bad deal. we absolutely will not accept a bad deal. we are committed to a deal that gets the job done. why?

because we get it. we understand it. as president obama said, no one looks ation why israel the iranian program and sees an existential threat. we get it. we understand in our gut. else,o know something this is not some favor that we do for israel. is something that is also in the interest of the united states of america. it is in the interest of countries surrounding israel. wouldear bomb for iran threaten the stability of the region and will produce an arms race among the surrounding countries. there is no way the world is safer and he where in the world with a nuclear weapons in iran and we are not going to let it happen, and of story. [applause]

now -- [applause] that, to achieve this all-important goal, and portable america's security and israel's, it is crucial that we seize what might be the last best chance to be able to have the policy work and may be the last chance for quite some time. the reality is only strong diplomacy can fully and permanently achieve the goal. the strike and hit need to look at exactly what happens after you do that. whether that properly eliminates the program or opens up all leaving other like iran the nuclear treaty. not allow inspectors in or living under the international regimen. only strong diplomacy guarantees a nuclear program goes away for

good instead of going underground and becoming more dangerous. justify diplomacy can options if you have to take them in the end. , president obama and myself and others, let's sees the diplomatic moment and that is what we are trying to do. the truth is, it is strong diplomacy that has made this moment possible. we needed to give it the space to work. we need to make sure this opportunity were to resume, it is not because we are the ones that close the window. now i understand the skepticism, 29 plus years as a senator, became chairman of foreign relations committee, worked with most of the members of the board and aipac

and proud to tell you during that time i had a 100% voting record for israel. [applause] i am not coming here to stand up in front of you and tell you is goingow that iran to reach an agreement because i do not know. i do not know what they will do. i didn't know if they are able to make some the tough decisions they will have to make. i know the united states is going to be able to look the world in the eye and say we have to do something, we have exhausted the possibilities available to us for that diplomatic, peaceful resolution. let me make it clear -- our approach is not ronald reagan and the soviets, we are not looking at it and saying trust bob -- but verify our approach. ours is a much more complex and dangerous world, it is verify and verify.

that is what we intend to do. [applause] reason forry good the sanctions to exist in the first place. good reason we have cap the architecture of these sanctions in place. and we continue to enforce it even as we negotiate a comprehensive agreement. in the last weeks will announce additional sanctions with respect to individuals who have attempted to go around it. changed one piece of the sanctions architecture. and yet, we are able to negotiate. our eyes are wide open. this is not a process that is open ended. this is not a process that is about trusting tehran, this is about testing tehran. you can be sure if iran fails

this test, america will not fail israel. that i promise. [applause] we have taken no options off of the table, but so far, there is no question but to tough sanctions and a strong diplomacy are already making israel and america safer. , not ant step agreement interim agreement, a first step agreement, the agreement in force today did not just called the advanced -- halt the advance of the iran nuclear program, it has rolled it back. we all remember how prime minister netanyahu highlighted the 20% uranium enrichment at the united nations. iran is reducing its stockpile

of 20% and without the agreement in force today, the stockpile would have grown even more dangerous and the amount of breakout time that they had would have grown smaller. because of the agreement, iran will soon have to take its entire stock of 20% enraged -- enriched uranium to 0. 0. you do not have to be a math major to know israel is safer. that is what we have achieved. the same independent inspectors who also tell us that iran had halted advances on heavy water reactor. with out agreement in force today, we cannot have stopped them for making progress on the heavy water reactor. iran has stopped enriching all

you redeem above 5%. it has given inspectors daily access to the facilities. you have heard about it. that underground facility that is a secret for so long. we never had people in it. because of this agreement, we have people inside every single day telling us what is happening. [applause] none of these things would have happened without forceful diplomacy by the united states and our international partners. now, we have to finish the job. my staff, there are not any exit polls in foreign policy. it is results that count. final results. we have to let forceful diplomacy people working in order to put this test through iran.

right now, we are carefully and i mean carefully, negotiating an agreement. we are consulting with our friends in israel. constantly. the minute under-secretary sherman finishes her last set of meetings the other day, she went immediately to israel. briefed a really on the talks and then went to saudi arabia our europeaniefed partners. you may be asking if no deal is better than a bad deal, what does the united states consider a good deal? you have my word and the president's that in the united states will only sign an agreement that answers three critical questions. first, will it make certain that iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon? can it continuously ashore the

world that iran's program remains entirely peaceful as it claims? willie the agreement increase our visibility on the nuclear program and expand the breakout time so that if they were to go for a bomb tom a we know will have time to act? oure are the tests, standards for any comprehensive of agreement. it is that simple. those objectives if not met, there will not be an agreement. make no mistake. [applause] make no mistake. cannot resolve the questions, it is up iran to prove to the world its program is peaceful. in the world will hold iran accountable. if it turns out that iran cannot address the world's concerns, i

guarantee it will face more pressure. iran will face more pressure. more isolation. a mores will introduce tough sanctions. let me assure you. i am sure you -- it will take about two hours to get it through the house and senate and it will not be delayed and the congress will have to do nothing more than schedule the vote. icause president obama and fully support the sanctions under those circumstances. [applause] meantime as i said earlier, we are enforcing every letter of the existing sanctions. i have instructed every state department bureau around the ford to watch vigilantly any signs of the sanctions being spurted. and to any country that wants to

trade with iran within these sanctions firmly in place, the united states will tell them exactly what i have told foreign leaders and in no uncertain is not open for business until iran has closed for nuclear bombs. [applause] now, strong diplomacy is also an essential to a threat to theel's security -- and in conflict with the palestinians. and in doing so, preserving the jewish and democratic nature of israel. [applause] i have had some folks ask me why i am so committed to these negotiations and why i am so convinced peace is possible and why is john kerry go to israel

so often. yerhink i have heard that hoey said he has been there 12 times. i have been there more times than that in the last nine months. [laughter] and i have been in the middle east more times even than that in the past month. question, a part for my affection from israel that dates back to my first visit in 1986 -- and, at it strikes me that is the question of why i go. this is not about me but the dreams of israelis and the dignity of palestinians. it is about reconciling 2 people who want to live normal, secure lives in the land that they have

fought over for so long. it is by answering king david's timeless call that we seek peace and pursue it. it is about fulfilling the fervent prayer for peace that the jews around the world recite. who want toparents raise their families that accept the nationstate of the jewish people is here to stay. it is not news to any israeli to hear me say they live in a difficult neighborhood. israelis know that better than anyone. no one needs to explain the important of peace to a mother who just sent her daughter to the army or a son who was waiting for his father to come home from another mission. no one knows the success or failure of those who will inherit them for generations to come. i have seen all of these

realities and so many different ways in my travels in israel from the rocket casings to the shelter that i visited years ago where children had to hide from potential rockets. i have seen it. my friend, i believe we are in a point in history that requires the united states, israel's closest friend, and the preeminent power to do everything we can to help and this conflict once and for all. that is why america -- [applause] that is why america helped bring the parties back to the table. let's be honest. israelis and palestinians have difficult choices to make. no one understands just how complex those choices are and how emotional that are better than the leaders who have to summon the courage in order to make them. foure set with netanyahu

hours and hours and days and days. we have become good friends. -- [applause] in fact, he should be charging me rant. i have seen up close and personally the grit and guts of the man and his love of country. and i can tell you with absolute certainty without question, prime minister and say i will has demonstrated -- netanyahu has demonstrated in pursuit of peace. [applause] knows that it is the only way for israel to be a jewish and democratic state, not a b i-national state. [applause] as president obama said in the oval office today, and i quote

it. mr. netanyahu has approached the negotiations with a level of seriousness and commitment that reflects his leadership and his desire of the israeli people for peace." and i know and i've heard the arguments, there is no part of peace that abbas will be there. both sides say the same thing about each other. that is what we have to get through here. thread forneedles to the trusted deficits. president obama has demonstrated an want to be a partner for peace. he is committed to trying to end the conflict and all of his claims. that? can do let's be candid.

some of you doubt it. as it israelis security officials will a test, -- abbas has been against the violence. many hours spent with president abbas. i believe he clearly understands both the tremendous benefit of peace and the great costs of failure. he understands that in terms of his own people, his own grandchildren, the country he hopes to be able to lead, and in terms of the history that be leakers -- beleaguers all. he know the people what never have the self-determination without ending the conflict in a solution that delivers two states for two peoples.

and so this prime minister when he looks me in the eye and said i cannot accept a deal with the palestinians that does not make the people of israel safer. we agree 100%. [applause] but i argue, there is a distinction between a unilateral withdrawal from lebanon where nothing is resolved and a phased withdrawal that is negotiated where everything is at least an an agreement resolved. i learned about israel's security of many different trips over there. one stand out. i had been a pilot since i was in college. i was on a trip over there and i was having a luncheon at the

airbase with the israeli air force and the colonel in charge was -- he had phoned. he was an ace from the six. were having lunch and i had been badgering to let me go up and fly. back and sayses senator, i hope you do not eat it too much. we go fly. i said, great. went out and drove out to visit jet. he trusted me. we put on our helmets. the moment we were off the ground -- it literally, we took off. i took the stick. we are flying around. nexen i know, he is saying you should turn faster, you are going over egypt. i turned very fast and i asked if i could use some aerobatics.

i turned upside down and did a big loop. i was coming down and looking upside down. i said to myself this is perfect. i can see jordan and all of israel below me. this is the perfect way to see the middle east upside down and backwards. [applause] i understand it. [applause] you -- i cannot tell you about me being up there and almost turning, you get this sense of the rocket from there and the threat of war and to understand, it is impossible to ignore. how vulnerable israel can be and why israel's security is our first priority. do we understand that?

that is why my friends, president obama sent a four-star general, one of the most respected minds and united states military to do something we have never done and all of the history of administrations negotiating for israel. that is to work with israelis and jordanians to make the jordan river border as a strong as the strongest borders on earth. that is what makes his effort different from what we have done before. with a combination of the best military experience america can offer and the best technology that we can deliver, we believe we can deliver security that israel needs in order to make peace and president obama is committed to doing that. we have no illusions. we saw what happened when we withdrew unilaterally from gaza and lebanon. we all learned lessons i hope. that's why and negotiated

agreement is so important. the security arrangements that we are helping to design would need to be operationally proven. we are not doing this on a whim and prayer. it turn intor let a nether gaza. [applause] understand that israel has to be strong in order to make peace. we also understand that he's will make israel stronger. [applause] any peace agreement must guarantee israel's identity as a jewish homeland. [applause] was said on this data last year, a two state solution is the only way for israel to stay true to its founding personals to remain above the jewish and democratic. , hehe last year's aipac

said statehood is not a favor for the palestinians. let me affirm he is right. it is not. israel also needs he's in order to great greater prosperity. all of you here know the great economic benefits of peace. all of you have seen what is toe has already been able build with the forces of the region against them. just imagine what they will be able to build with palestinian neighbors. i met in the foreign minister of the surrounding countries, a very wealthy country and a very smart prime minister said to me, if we make peace, under the initiative and committee that is following everything we are doing very closely and supporting and they said if we , israel will trade more and this community with in a few years that a trade with

europe today. that is what we have available to us. i believe we need to stand together with a single voice to reject any of the arbitrary, unwarranted boycotts for more than 30 years that have loudly opposed boycotts of israel and i will continue to oppose those boycotts of israel's. that will never change. [applause] every time it was subjected to attacks on legitimacy whether under the united nations or from an a nation, the united states will use every tool to defeat those efforts and we will stand with israel. [applause] finally, peace and demands that israel fulfills his destiny not

only as a nation but also as a neighbor. that begins with the palestinians and an extensive to the entire arab league. the initiative can open the door to peace and normalize relations with 20 additional arab of 55ies and a total muslim countries. eastpheaval in the middle has shown us all that arabs and israelis share some of the very same security concerns. without the palestinian conflict, these common interest can grow into real relationships and transform their standing in the region. -- i promise you you these conversations take place. i have had of them throughout the gulf region and middle east where increasingly, those countries and begin to see the

possibilities of mutual security interest coming together through all of them against iran and terrorism and religious extremism. a new commonality that's threat in the region and i believe it brings the potential of new possibilities. to remembermportant that ending the conflict means ending the incitement to the president abbas has called incitement a germ that must be removed. order to dealin with the problem. i can tell you that with any final agreement, it will also include a larger to help people on both sides move beyond the painful past and promote a culture of peace and tolerance. after all of these years, it is really no mystery what he and game really looks like -- the end game really looks like.

like. what peace looks when i talked to prime minister netanyahu, everybody shares the consistence. it is not new. after camp david and annapolis whatll of these efforts, did he end game like is straightforward. security arrangements that leave israelis more secure, not less. mutual recognition of the jewish people and the nation state of the outstanding people. and in and to the conflict and all claims. an agreed solution for palestinian refugees. one that does not diminish the jewish character in the state of israel. and, a resolution that finally allows jerusalem to live up to its name as the city of peace. it will take hard work.

any of theetending answers -- these are all narrative issues, tough issues, conduct any issues. but there is a vision of peace. it takes tough choices on both sides especially over the coming days. i guarantee you that america, president obama him and this administration will be there every day, every step of the way. we'll stand with israel's leaders today. and the leaders of the future. we will ensure that our light shines not only throughout the nations, but throughout the generations. guy's last name out and keep took part in a exchange program they bring israelis and palestinians to gather to talk about their histories and hopes. his grandparents fled europe. he was born and raised in jerusalem. he served in the idf and work as

an entrepreneur in the tech industry. this is what he said in that program. past but we do not want to live it. we are young enough to dream and believe that change is possible and that fear can be defeated." i think guy is right. change is possible. fear can be defeated. have --e charts is we and those are choices we have to make now. a few months ago, i landed in tel aviv and it was the 18th anniversary of the assassination. to the primeht minister's daughter at the site of her father's murder. we stood steps away from where the greater general sang the famous lyrics.

" do not whisper a prayer, sing a song of peace. do not say that they will,, bring that today -- come, bring that day." that is our mission. in what ever capacity. our mission is to raise our voices for peace and we also need to listen. we have to listen to those who first gave voice, voices that still echo thousands of years later. i think it was the first time i went to israel. i spent a week there. andnt all over the country like many first-time visitors, i climbed the -- i climbed it with a guide. some of you may know him or her account. -- or heard of him.

what happenedted on the top of that mountain. the accounts of what happened 2000 years before we were there. after we had this long debate, we all voted to determine did it happen as he recounted or was it different? we all voted unanimously it happened as he recounted. he told us to walk to the edge of the precipice look across and shout across the ancestral home of the jewish people. as we stood were every new israeli soldier begins his or her service by swearing an oath to honor that, if he instructed us to shout all at the same time -- we shouted. i have to tell you, at calling

-- echoing across and the unforgettable way were these haunting echoes. i will never forget hearing the words bouncing off of the mountain. it is literally like we were hearing the voices of the souls of those who had perished, sacrificing their lives. and we were affirming those words, the state of israel lives and the people of israel live. we have to listen to those voices. those long-ago who encouraged us to build a city on a hill to be a light unto the nations and an example to the world to ensure survives.l we have to listen to the voices of young people whose future depends on the choices that we,

the leaders of today, make. it is for their future that we will give a new strand to the u.s./israel partnership like aipac does. it is for their future that we will come together breaking greater voice and we will remember for ever those words -- be driven by them generation upon generation and to the future because of the work you do the work we will do together. thank you all very much. onor to be with you. [applause] >> secretary kerry is leaving for ukraine later tonight and

the state department said in the obama administration is likely to impose sanctions on russia because of his actions in the ukraine. the meeting with netanyahu, harry reid was asked how short he was in the senate would ask -- act quickly on sanctions? he said i usually not talk in these things, i am deeply concerned about what is happening in the ukraine and i think it is a crisis. i would not recommend any thing we do in congestion with our allies. president obama said he wants to get economic aid, i think it is appropriate. we see secretary kerry with aipac heading out to the ukraine tonight. john mccain spoke before aipac today. here's part of what he had to say. >> i come to you with a heavy heart. a heavy heart and great sadness because the events taking place in the ukraine. what happens in the ukraine is correctly involved in what

happens in the middle east and obviously, we know what happens in the middle east is vital to the existence of the state of israel. i am not going to go through the history of the ukraine with you crimea is a is sovereign nation. they went into a square and subfreezing weather and saying they did not want to be a part of putin's russia and that is what it was about. overhat the olympics are him easily after, we see the occupation of crimea. of the reasons why there is a majority of russians is because stalin exported over half of them were killed as he deported them. the fact is this is a blatant act on the part of vladimir that must be

unacceptable to the world community. it can not stand. and i have to be very honest with you. there is not a military option that could be exercised right now but the biggest and strongest nation in the world should have plenty of options and those are many ranging from among theg the cracks corruption people and the people who ordered this and the act. we could expand it to identify those people. if the be the last visit to las vegas. we could add got economic sanctions. there is a -- there are -- there is a broad array of options. why do we care? because this is the result of an infections -- infectious foreign policy where nobody believes in america's strength anymore. [applause]

>> we will have all of his remarks and less than half an hour. our coverage from to date with what it happened with russia and ukraine including a un security council meeting today. bring a book of fairy events to you put you in the room at congressional hearings and white house events and briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the house all is a public service. we are c-span created by the cable industry. and funded by your cable or satellite provider. watch as an hd or like us and facebook. obama's budget

request will be sent tomorrow. we'll talk about the politics of the federal budget on washington journal. our guest is robert costa. an update on ukraine. with stephen pieper, a former ambassador. everydayton journal" at seven :00 a.m. eastern. right now, our conversation with the health care law means for small businesses. host: we are covering health policy. good morning. we are here in part to talk about a report that came out from the centers for medicare and medicaid services. it takes a look at small businesses and what they might experience as far as providing health care. what did this report tell us? guest: this report looks at one provision in the health law. under this one particular provision, it said that 65% of small businesses may see their premiums rise.

35 percent might see a decrease. one thing to note is that the report did not give any predictions as to how much. there is a lot of caveats. it looked at one provision and did not take into account a lot of other things in the law like tax credits were businesses are eligible. host: to give you a sens, the report says -- let's go back a little bit -- it did not say how much it will rise but what determines of a small business will see an increase in rates?

guest: this report looked at the pre-affordable care act law and projecting out. it looked at one provision that involves how insurance companies rate for risk. under the law before, insurance companies exclude people with pre-existing conditions, charge sicker people higher rates. older people could be charged more. what the law has done is taken out the pre-existing condition thing and it has narrowed the ages. you can still rates a little bit higher for an older person but it narrowed that split. it has changed the way that companies can price risk. host: so the premium is what we are talking about and what factors go into determining a premium?

guest: it is still age and it is smoking status. insurance companies have to take allcomers. they used to be able to exclude someone. in theory, it was less expensive because you had more help the -- healthy people in your risk pool. host: that determines what goes up and down. if a company generally has younger people, they are healthier -- chances are they will see their rates go up or down? guest: it's hard to say. potentially, that group would go up. then you have other businesses where you have not as healthy workers and their premiums may come down. this is under this one provision that the report looked at and it does not take into account all these other factors like tax credits that businesses would be eligible for if they offer insurance to their employees. host: the report suggests of a company pays more for premiums,

ultimately the customer will pay more? guest: exactly. you are seeing that under the health law that individuals, some will pay more. host: 65% of small businesses possibly could see increases which is a report from cms. you have heard some details already. if you have questions, you can call us. if you are a small business owner, and have experience in's already as far as the health care, here is a line we have set aside especially for you -- as far as response for small businesses, have we heard what

they are thinking about it? guest: i haven't but there has been other changes in the law or things up and pushed out like requirements to offer health insurance at least for certain small businesses. they don't have to comply until 2016. the impact on small businesses is probably muted right now but last year, many companies renewed their policies before the law so they are still under their old insurance. i think it will take a year or maybe a few years to really see what the impact of the law is on small businesses. host: i suspect we have heard from legislators on this issue? guest: yes, when the report came out, house republicans were the ones that circulated the report and used this as a reason to criticize the law would say this is another example of why this

is not working. host: it also said the report was due at a certain time but past the deadline. when was it initially do? guest: house republican said it was due two years ago and it just came out. it depends -- administrations missed congressional deadlines all the time. cms put this thing out probably late on a friday and it did not circulate until monday. host: with that in mind, we go to the viewers with questions about small business. keith is up from virginia and is a small business owner, good morning. caller: good morning, i enjoy your program. we own a small business and we had a renewal that came through

on our insurance. it was due the first of march. the cheapest increase we had was 48% which was $24,000. it went all the way up to a 72% increase and it put us out of the insurance business. we were providing insurance for employees but we could not stand the increases. host: tell us about your business. how many employees do you have and what's their general health like? caller: probably average, we have some guys and ther 20's and we have 12 employees. we are a small independent lumber company. we had been paying the majority of their insurance and they were paying $25 per week and we paid the rest just as a service. we thought it was the right thing to do.

we got our bill and we had quotes from aetna, anthem and southern health which was the highest at 72.9%. it was a plan comparable to what we actually had. host: thanks for the call. guest: you are hearing things like this from small businesses, that they are getting their renewal bills in the mail. some small business owners try to do this on their own. this could be a year were they could find somebody who can help you find insurance broker. there could be other options for these small businesses. host: i was impressed by the swath of the cost. guest: most small businesses, if they got a bill, operate on thin margins and that would cause

concern. host: michael is up next who owns a small business from new york. caller: good morning, i have a small publishing company in new york city with six employees. most of them are part-time but i have been providing health insurance. i think it is the right thing to do. i sat down with my accountant before the year began and i am expected to get a 25% increase in my health insurance but we are a small company and we don't have a large profit margin. my accountant suggested that i cut my employees hours back to make them part-time and that suggests that they move on to the affordable health care marketplace and i would drop my health care altogether. my health care costs make up about 20% of my profit margin. as a regular business, my overhead is high and in new

york, i have high taxes. it is fiscally responsible to drop health care altogether. i am trying to find a way that i can keep my employees with health insurance but shopping the marketplace, it's better for them. i know the quality of health care will go down because we have very good health insurance but i am stuck in between keeping my doors open and taking care of my employees. where does someone go from there? host: when do you have to make a final decision? guest: i have to make a decision by december. i have started shopping and have spoken to a couple of other small businesses in the area about possibly coming together. new york does not allow you to do that and create consortiums. we have to create a larger parent company and then we would become subsidiaries of a larger company. that is something i don't want to deal with. i would relinquish control of my business.

guest: new york state is running its own exchange, have you looked at the options on the new york state exchange? the employees can have options for small businesses. you may get tax credits. it is really complicated. it might be worth finding somebody understands insurance and can see what options are out there. caller: the problem i have found is purchasing as a businesses, i would have to put up so much up front and try to get that back through tax credits. unless i have a good year, i am possibly going to have to take a loan to keep my doors open and keep my press running to get that money back is a tax credit the following year. essentially, you are projecting your earnings a year ahead. unless i am doing well enough to

stay open, i will have to close. my debt is very low. guest: it sounds like you're in the process of looking. he sounds like he is smart and knows what he is doing and he is sitting and looking at all the options. it's true, some employees may be better off not getting insurance through their company and going out onto the individual market. host: a line or two from the cms report says -- guest: exactly, if you make under a certain income threshold where people can be eligible for tax credits and individuals to buy insurance on the exchange and like the small-business business owner in new york, that is a state running its own external -- insurance exchange.

host: democrat line from arkansas, hi. caller: good morning, comment and a question -- [indiscernible] health insurance premiums have been rising for, as far as i can remember, at least 10 years. i don't know exactly how much. i have also seen health insurance premiums not in the individual marketplace but also employer sponsored insurance plans. my question is -- could the rise in premiums, especially with small businesses, be due in part to the graying of america and more

older workers working in small business as well as large-size businesses? guest: there is a lot of factors that go into rising insurance premiums especially in the individual and small group market. part of the impetus of the affordable care act is that premiums have been going up sometimes double digits. the large insurance premiums have been more stable. they were rising premiums before the law. there is still rising premiums so it's an issue. host: if there is a 65% rise, is that just for this your only or will we see those increases go on? guest: i believe it was estimated to 2016 but it did not

say how much on their other forecasts out there like the congressional budget office. their estimate was that it was a small range so they could fall by one percent or rise by two percent. nobody knows exactly how much. on average, the premiums will rise. host: how often do small businesses have their insurance premiums looked at? guest: i believe it's annually. people who work for big employers have to re-up their insurance every year. host: we are talking with jennifer corbettoore about the potentialn rise. you own a small business, democrat line, hi.

caller: i have a small business and have had for -- with about six employees. most are part-time. i have not looked into the options for obama care. we have a very attractive plan with aetna where the total premium covers more still the small copay with doctors and very good hospitalization with a very small deductible. it's $360 per month. it has gone up from $300 per month. it was maybe four years ago. my question is -- we pay 50% and the employee pays 50%. as our business grows, will we be required to pay more than 50% in the future if business grows and we become regulated by the

new health care law? >> as far as i know, that is not going to change. i do not know any provisions in the law that require above that threshold, and, again, you probably know that is mrs. you have fewer than 50 workers are not required to offer insurance to their employers -- employees, but as we have heard, many small businesses do, regardless of how big or small the are. over the next several hours come the latest on the situation in ukraine. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] and then comments from republican senator john mccain, and the un security council discusses russian intervention in ukraine. 28 members met on tuesday about the incursion in ukraine.

wasfense blog says it requested by poland under the founding nato treaty, which states that any member can request a when their territorial or other security is threatened. they were calling the troops in mea a break in international law. it is said that russia had violated ukrainian sovereignty, and they are looking at economic and diplomatic measures to isolate russia. the comments came during a conversation with benjamin netanyahu. it is a pleasure, once again, to well, president netanyahu to the oval office mooreis no one i have met or consulted with more. it is a testament to the incredible bond between our two nations. i have said it before, and i will repeat, we do not have a

closer friend or ally than israel, and the bond between our two countries or people that is unbreakable, and that is the reason why on the whole spectrum issues, we consult close with and have the kind of military, intelligence, and security cooperation that is is acedented, and there strong bipartisan commitment in this country to make sure that israel's security is . in any contingency. we have a lot to talk about, so we will spend time discussing and theation in syria need to not only find a political solution to the tragic situation there but also to growing extremism inside

syria, the spillover effect on lebanon and jordan, in particular. we will have the opportunity to discuss the work that we do in and the workism that we are going to be continuing to do to try to thatlize an environment has been made dangerous in many respects. this is of critical importance, and where we have an opportunity, i think, to move beyond recent events over the last several years to a point in which, once again, there is a legitimate pass towards political transition inside of egypt, and that is for israel's security as well as the u.s. security. we're going to be talking about

my absolute commitment to make does not have a nuclear weapon, something i know the prime minister feels deeply about, and we will discuss how the joint plan in action that is currently in place could potentially lead to a solution that ensures that they are not developing a nuclear weapons, and we will spend time talking about the prospects of peace between israelis and palestinians. i want to commend publicly the efforts that prime minister netanyahu has made in very lengthy and painstaking negotiations with my secretary , andate, john kerry others. they are tough negotiations. the issues are profound. they wouldwe wish have been resolved years ago, but i think prime minister netanyahu had approached these conversations with a level of seriousness and commitment that

reflects his leadership and the desire for the israeli people to have peace. it is my belief that ultimately it is still possible to create two states, a jewish state of palestine, ine of which people are living side-by-side in peace and security, but it is difficult, and it requires compromise on all sides. i just want to again publicly commend the prime minister for the seriousness with which he has taken these discussions. the timeframe that is set up for completing these negotiations is coming near, and some tough decisions are going to have to know regardless of the outcome, the prime minister will make those decisions based on his absolute commitment to israel's security and his recognition that

ultimately israel's security will be enhanced by peace with its neighbors, so, mr. prime minister, i want to welcome you again, and thank you again for your leadership. and your friendship with the american people. thank you. >> mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today, especially since i know you have got a few other pressing matters on your plate. during the five years of your presidency, you and i and israel and the united dates have worked on important issues, security, missile defense, and we are deeply grateful for that. i look forward to working closely with you in the years ahead to address the main

challenges that confront both our countries, and the greatest challenge, undoubtedly, is to prevent iran from the capacity to make nuclear weapons. i think that goal can be achieved if iran is prevented and dealshing uranium with its nuclear and military organizations. that goal can be achieved peacefully and through diplomacy. no country has a greater stake because, as you know, and i am sure you appreciate, iran calls openly for our destruction, so i am sure you appreciate that israel cannot permit such a state to have the ability to make atomic bombs to achieve their goal.

fought back tobe and as the prime minister of israel, i will do whatever i must do to defend it. also discuss the peace process, as you said. i want to thank you and sayetary kerry for when i tireless efforts. i mean the tireless efforts that you are putting into this. it is an opportunity to congratulate secretary kerry on the birth of his new granddaughter. the new granddaughter came to secretary kerry while we were discussing bp stocks, so we have had many productive meetings, so i thank you both and your teams.

the 20 years that have passed since israel entered the peace process have been marked by unprecedented steps that israel has taken to advance peace. we have a gated -- vacated cities. we have not only frozen settlements, we have uprooted entire settlements. ofhave released hundreds terrorist prisoners, including dozens in recent months. and we look at what we got in return, it has been scores of suicide bombers, thousands of rockets on our cities, fired from the areas we vacated, and palestiniannt incitement against israel, so israel has been doing its part, and we regret to say that the palestinians have not. thei know this flies in face of conventional wisdom, but it is true, and the people of

israel know it is true because they are living it. all want, fervently, on the streets is not a piece of paper, although that also, but a ce, twoece -- pea nationstate to recognize and respect one another and sovereignty on the ground. mr. president, you rightly said that israel, the jewish state, is the realization of the jewish people's self determination in our ancestral homeland. palestinians expect us to recognize a palestinian state for the palestinian people, a nation state for the palestinian people. i think it is about time for them to recognize a nationstate for the israeli people. we have only been there for 4000 president i hope, obama, that you will look at the

genuine is really security needs, because as you know, and i think everybody does, in the middle east, which is definitely one of immersed -- one of the most turbulent and violent parts of europe, what we need is a pea ce we can defend, and what we know from jewish history, but i think from general history, the best way to guarantee peace is to be strong, and that is what i think the people of israel want us to do, to stand strong to secure the future of the one and aly jewish state, and it is partnership, a partnership between israel and america, which i think is important. i want to thank you again for your friendship and your hospitality and the work you show me on this snow we washington day. thank you. it is good to see you again.

>> threatening against russia for their efforts in ukraine, does not seem to be having much of an effect. is the u.s. concerned primarily about getting russian forces out , or is it about eastern ukraine? >> all of the above. talking to weekend and is across europe, think the world is largely united in recognizing that the steps russia has taken are in violation of ukraine's sovereignty, ukraine's territorial integrity, that they are in violation of international law, that they are in violation of previous agreements that russia has made with respect to how it treats and respects its neighbors, and as a consequence, we got strong

statements from nato, from the g7, condemning the actions that russia has taken, and we are going to continue these diplomatic efforts during the course of this week. my interest is seeing the ukrainian people being able to determine their own destiny. russia has strong historic ties to the ukraine. there are a lot of russian nationals inside ukraine, as well as native russians, as there are a lot of ukrainians inside russia. they have strong commercial ties between those two countries, and so all of those interest can be but what cannot be done is for russia with impunity to threaten its soldiers on the ground and to violate basic principles that are recognized

and i thinkorld, the strong condemnation in has received from countries around indicate integrate -- that history feels russia is on the wrong side of this. we support the ukrainian government. john kerry is going to be traveling to kiev to indicate our support for the ukrainian very specific and concrete packages about economic aid, because one of the things we are concerned about is stabilizing the economy, even in the midst of this crisis, and what we are also indicating to the russians is that if, in fact, they continue on the current trajectory that they are on that we are examining serious steps, economic, and telematics to isolate russia, and it will

have a negative impact on russia's economy and its status in the world. we have suspended preparations for the g-8 summit. i think you can expect there will be fallout from that. there is a whole range of issues that john kerry mentioned yesterday. and there is a question for mr. directly, i spoke to and the question for the russian government generally is if, in is that theconcern rights of all ukrainians are respected, given the fact that their primary concern is, as they have stated, that russian s areers, russian national in no way harmed or abused or

discriminated against, then we should be able to set up international monitors and international efforts that mediate between those parties, that is able to broker a deal the is satisfactory to ukrainian people, not to the united states, not to russia, but to the ukrainian people, and so we need to be very specific with the russian people about how that might be done, maybe with some other international organization, and john kerry will pursue that further when he so there are relatively few paths that russia can take at this point. obviously, the facts on the ground in crimea are deeply troubling, and russia has a large army that borders ukraine, but what is also true is that over time, this will be a costly

proposition for russia, and now is the time for them to consider what would serve their interests in a way that resorts to diplomacy as opposed to force. one last point i will make on this. i have heard a lot of talk from congress about what should be done, what they want to do. one thing we need to do right away is to work with the administration to help provide a package of assistance to the ukrainians, to the people and their government, and when they get back in, assuming the weather clears, i hope that that will be the first order of business, because at this stage, there should be unanimity among democrats and republicans that when it comes to preserving the hascipal that the country

-- no country has a right to send in troops to another country unprovoked, we should be able to come up with a unified position that stands outside of partisan politics, and my expectation is that i will be able to get congress to work in order to achieve that goal. >> senator john mccain says that russian leader vladimir putin does not believe the cold war is over. the arizona republican spoke monday morning at the meeting of the american israel public affairs committee. this is 15 minutes. ♪ >> thank you very much.

thank you for that warm welcome. thank you for those kind words. thank you for not mentioning that i lost running for president of the united states. i thank you. [laughter] after i lost, i slept like a baby. [laughter] sleep two hours, wake up and cry. sleep two hours. [laughter] i'm very happy to be with you. [applause] thank you for not mentioning that i lost running for president of the united states. i thank you. [laughter] after i lost, i slept like a and did i mention i asked your sympathy for the families of the state of arizona as barry goldwater ran from arizona for president of the united states morris udall from arizona ran , for the president of the united states. arizona may be the only state in america where mothers don't tell their children that someday they can grow up and be president of the united states. [laughter] so i ask your sympathy.

i noticed that the conference was introduced by my dear and beloved friend, joe lieberman, the finest man i have ever known in my life. [applause] and joe and i travel together extensively for many, many years, literally every corner of the world. just prior to joe's leaving the senate, there was a wonderful dinner at the israeli embassy for joe, and all of the important people in washington were there. and did i mention i asked your and there was speaker after speaker after speaker extolling his virtues and records and the wonderment and beauty of joe lieberman, and all of it was true. when i was the last speaker. i said, look, i'm not going to tell you about joe lieberman. you've already heard it. but i have an announcement to make. i have spent all of these years with joe lieberman, eating salmon, writing the shabbat elevator, not being able to ride in a car on saturday.

[laughter] i've had to go through all of this all of these years and i've gotten none of the benefits, so i'm announcing my conversion to judaism. [applause] and joe said, that was great. only, i had to have a brisk. so i change my mind. [laughter] i thank all of you for being here trying to do the lords work in the city of satan. [laughter] and the snow may have shut down the government, i'm -- but obviously, it can't shut down aipac. applause]d as a by the way, in case you missed it, only 12% of american will approval for congress.

we are down to paid staff and blood relatives. [laughter] in[laughter] my mother is 102 years old -- you? [applause] she called me the other day. we are now down to paid staff. [laughter] so you shall i really do come to you this morning with a heavy heart, with a heavy heart and great sadness because of events taking place in ukraine. and what happens in ukraine is directly related to what happens in the middle east, and obviously we know that what happens in the middle east is vital to the existence of the state of israel. i'm not going to go through the history of ukraine with you. but the fact is, crimea is a sovereign part of a sovereign nation of ukraine. and the people of ukraine, by the hundreds of thousands, went to a square in subzero inc. -- subfreezing weather saying they did not want to be part of putin's russia.

and that is what it was all about. now that the olympics are over, immediately afterwards, we now see the occupation of crimea. and by the way, in case you missed it, one of the reasons why there is a majority population of russians in crimea is because stalin exported all ars, and the fact is that over half of them were killed as he drove them from crimea. the fact is, this is a blatant act of aggression on the part of vladimir putin and one that must be unacceptable to the world community. it cannot stand. [applause] and i have to be very honest with you. there is not a military option that could be exercised now. but the most powerful and biggest and strongest nation in the world should have lengthy of options, and those options are many, ranging from identifying these kleptocratic, these corruption people, and the

people who ordered the magnets act.niski it could be their last trip to las vegas. there is a -- there are -- there is a broad array of options. why do we care? because this is the result of an infections -- infectious foreign policy where nobody believes in america's strength anymore. [applause] applause]and in 2009, many of you may remember that we saw on youtube, young woman bleed to death in the streets of toronto.

people were saying, obama, obama, are you with us, or argue with them? and you know what? the president of the united states did not say a thing. the president of the united states believes the cold where -- cold war is over. that is fine. it is over. but putin does not believe it is over. he does not believe this is a zero-sum game. look at month-old, the occupation of georgia, the pressure on the baltic -- look at multiple the, the occupation of georgia, the pressure on the baltic nations. look at what is happening in cities and towns and the countryside all over syria. it is an outrage. and vladimir putin -- vladimir putin, while he is cooperating with us in the removal of chemical weapons, plain after playing of artillery and tanks and rocket are landing at the airport in damascus, slaughtering innocent people. i will tell you, it's hard for a mother to differentiate whether their child has been killed by a

chemical weapon or one of these horrible barrel bombs that are basically cluster bombs that are being dropped on innocent civilians all over syria. and we have sat by and watched it happen. and if bashar assad prevails, it will directly endanger the security of the state of israel. it has now turned into a regional conflict. lebanon is destabilized. what do you think 5000 hezbollah fighters will be like when they return from the fighting in syria to southern lebanon? what do you think is going to happen if bashar assad used to prevail, as far as the other nations in the region are concerned? jordan, probably our best friend, is destabilized. the whole situation cries out for american leadership, and i'm sorry to tell you it is mia. let me also --

[applause] by the way, a couple of my favorites. tell vladimir that i'll be more flexible when i'm reelected. tell vladimir i will be more flexible when i'm reelected? there is difference of opinion even amongst our dear friends as to whether sanctions should be passed by the congress of the united states is the talks fail. and my argument to you is, do you believe in light of recent events of last five years that the iranian mullahs think we are serious? i do not think so. i don't think so. i don't think so. i believe the iranian people can have access to peaceful civilian nuclear energy, but that does not require an industrial

uranium enrichment program. it does not require a heavy water reactor. it doesn't require advanced centrifuges, and it certainly does not require nuclear facilities dug deep into mountains. [applause] i hope as you do that we can find a peaceful resolution to this crisis, and the only reason there may be a modest chance for that now is because of your tireless efforts and support. thank you and god bless you for your tireless effort and support. [applause] i believe we have to keep the pressure on. iran's rulers must know the only alternative to compromising on our terms is even more crippling sanctions or worse. that is why i believe the senate should pass a new bipartisan sanctions legislation that would

take effect if the current negotiations do not succeed. [applause] we must stop iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability, and we must do so because the nature of the threat posed by this iranian regime. it is not an arms control challenge. the iranian revolutionary guard is in syria slaughtering people today. they are training these extremists and they will not quit. this regime in iran is the world's leading sponsor of terror. it has murdered americans, israelis, and jews across the globe. it is categorically devoted to the destruction of the state of israel. it is training and arming militant groups across the middle east. it is destabilizing its neighbors and meddling in their affairs. it is developing sophisticated

ballistic weapons missiles, including icbms that could target america, and more than any actor, the blood of syria is on iranian hands. i know they supported the out of time. know aipac was criticized after the chemical weapons attack last year. when the president says that person is going to take military action that sends a message all the way across the globe as far as china. [applause] if we are not willing to take action when an anti-american anti-semitic tyrant gases people , what does it say about us? you did the right thing, and i commend you for it.

a lot of my fellow countrymen say, we are weary of war. there willget out. never be another land war in which the united states engages in -- do you know how many times in history that has been said? do you know how many times prior to world war ii when neville chamberlain said, we are not going to fight in a faraway country with people who don't speak our language and who we do ?ot know the lesson of history is we have to be ready. as ronald reagan would say, peace through strength, not your weakness and not through cutting our defense budget to the smallest we have had since world war ii. friends, i see americans who want our country to be engaged in offense the on

our borders. i see americans who want an internationalist -- offense beyond our borders. willing to spend hard-earned tax dollars on effective foreign assistance and to strengthen the greatest military the world has ever known. i see americans who want america to lead. [applause] my friends, i have been around a long time. in fact, since the coolidge administration, but i would say to you, i have never seen this errld in need of strong american leadership than it is today. i believe these events, these negotiations with iran, which i it, to succeed, but i doubt

when i see the chinese asserting themselves in asia, when i see significant cuts in foreign aid and also our defense budget, i am worried. my final word to you, dear and beloved friends -- youica and israel needs more today than ever before. >> the united nations security council met monday afternoon to discuss the situation in ukraine. this is two hours.

this meeting of the security council is called to order. for this meeting is a letter dated the 28th of february from the permanent representative of ukraine to the united nations addressed to the security council. it is adopted. in accordance with number 37 of the council's rules, i invite the representative of ukraine to participate in this meeting. it is so decided. in accordance with rule 2039 of the provisional rules of procedures, i invite the assistant secretary general for political affairs to participate in this meeting. it is so decided. the security council will now begin its consideration of item 2 of the agenda. i now give the floor. >> thank you, madam president. madam president, members of the security council, since the briefing by the deputy secretary general on 1 march, the

situation has evolved rapidly. we understand there is a continuing buildup of russian troops in crimea and that a number of ukrainian military bases have been surrounded by russian troops. in addition, the situation in eastern ukraine remains fluid with reports of demonstrations in certain cities as well as attempts by local groups to seize control of some official buildings. on sunday, the parliament urged russia to fulfill immediately the agreement of the black sea fleet on ukraine territory and called for the fast withdrawal

of russian troops to their bases. the russian position on event was articulated by the foreign minister in remarks made at today's human rights council. he stated that russia's actions were a question of defending our citizens and compatriots and assuring human rights. the secretary-general has remained closely engaged on the situation in ukraine. in the latest phone call conversation with president putin over the weekend, the secretary-general told him that he was closely following the serious and rapidly unfolding developments in ukraine. the secretary-general expressed

concern about the situation that would compromise the unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of the country. he reiterated it was critical to restore calm and proceed to a de-escalation and asked for cool heads reveal. since secretary-general appealed to president putin to urgently engage in direct dialogue with the authorities, he has repeatedly said that it is critical to exercise respect for ukraine's independence, unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. he has underscored the utmost importance of restoring calm to de-escalate tensions through dialogue. he stressed in the spirit of the u.n. charter, we owe it here to peaceful resolutions of disputes. following the council's consultation on saturday, and given development on the ground in ukraine, the secretary-general asked that the deputy secretary-general travel

to ukraine on sunday. while there, the deputy secretary-general was personally appraised of the facts on the ground and will brief the secretary-general on the next steps the united nations could take to support a de-escalation of the situation. the deputy secretary-general arrived in kiev today and has already begun his meetings. a person who briefed the secretary-general yesterday on his mission joined the other in kiev today. in the last 48 hours, the secretary-general has spoken to a number of key people, including the prime minister of ukraine, the president putin, the e.u. high representative, as well as the osce's secretary-general. he met with secretary lavrov today in geneva. the secretary reiterated the need for coordination in support of a stable and united ukraine. in conclusion, i wish to reiterate the secretary-general's call for dialogue to de-escalate tensions.

as he has underscored in his calls for leaders, he urges us to find a peaceful resolution and the collaborative effort. thank you, madam president. >> [indiscernible] i now give the floor to the members of the security council. i give the floor to the representative of the russian federation. >> thank you, madam president. the russian federation was the initiator of the holding of today's meeting of the security council. since what is happening with our neighbors and ukraine, folks are very deeply concerned.

the crisis provoked by the state in kiev as a result of the takeover of extremists is continuing to get worse and is creating risks for the country. today in geneva our minister of foreign affairs spoke in detail about the situation in ukraine. we are convinced any internal crises must be overcome by a dialogue of forces in a constitutional way and with respect to international obligations and obligations on international humanitarian law, defending human rights and national minorities. it is important to avoid extremists who are trying to take the situation under their control who are using violence and open terror.

it is well known who created the crisis in ukraine. disputing the legitimate actions of the legitimate authorities, some of our partners have taken a course to support antigovernment statements. they have encouraged their participants who have moved to aggressive actions of force in attacking the police, stealing from warehouses, and mocking officials in the region, and crude interventions. many towns in western ukraine have been taken over by armed national radicals under extremist anti-russian and other slogans being used. on the 21st of february, almost three months after the unrest

and the excesses, there was an agreement between the president of ukraine and the opposition whereby they signed by the ministers of foreign affairs of germany, poland, and other countries where they refused to bring in an emergency situation. they took to the streets. the opposition did not do anything. the use of legitimate weapons was not surrendered. civic buildings were not freed. radicals are continuing -- instead of a promise of the national unity government based in the formation of the -- the parliament of ukraine made a decision limiting the rights of minorities, sent away the judges of the constitutional court, and insists on pursuing them criminally. their arguments to limit or make it punishable to ban political

parties that do not suit them and to use them as examples, so the victors want to use assurances of their victory to trample the rights and basic freedoms of people. all of this has bothered eastern and southern authorities of ukraine where millions of russians live. they do not want a repetition of this type of thing in this area. this situation of ongoing threats by the ultranationalists, who are jeopardizing the rights of russian-speaking people. we already have had to curb attempts of a forcible takeover in crimea and bringing weapons. we got information of provocative acts through the russian black sea fleet in ukraine. the legitimately elected authorities of the republic have asked the president of russia to provide assistance to restore calm in crimea.

it is legitimate in russian law that the threats to our compatriots, citizens, and the black sea fleet and the russian federation in ukraine, the president of russia went to the council of the confederation asking for the use of forces until there is a normalization of the situation. on the 1st of march, the federation supported this appeal which we hope will cut off the radicals. i repeat, we are talking about defending our citizens on defending the most important human rights, the right to life. madam president, today i am also authorizing the following -- the president has received the following from the president of

ukraine. the statements of the president of ukraine as a legitimately elected representative says the events in my place and the events in kiev have resulted in the fact that ukraine is on the brink of a civil war. in the country there is chaos and anarchy. the rights of people in the southeast part of crimea are being threatened. under the influence of western countries, there is terror and violence. this is why i would call on mr. putin, asking him to use the armed forces of the russian federation to establish legitimacy, peace, law, order, stability, and defend the people of ukraine. 3 march, 2014. i have an opportunity to show all of you a photocopy of the

original of this statement of the president of ukraine. i show it to the president of russia. there it is. madam president, those who are trying to interpret this situation as aggression are threatening all with all kinds of sanctions and boycotts. these are indeed our partners who consistently have encouraged forces close to them to engage in alternatives and refrain from dialogue, to polarize ukrainian society. we call on them to show responsible approaches to set aside geopolitical calculations and to put above all the interests of ukrainian people. it is necessary to fulfill obligations in the agreements dated february 21. the full consideration of ukrainian federation for subsequent approval in a

national referendum, and the establishment of the legitimate governments of national unity, considering the regions of the country. the russian position was and remains consistent and open. while for some western politicians ukraine is only a geopolitical playground, for us it is a fraternal country and we are bounded by many centuries of common history. russia is interested in a strong ukraine. we see the legitimate rights of ukraine, our compatriots, and of all citizens. in this extraordinary situation, not of our making, when the security of the residents of crimea and southeast region are subjected to a threat due to the provocative actions of gangs and other ultranationalist elements, we would like to emphasize that the actions of russia are fully appropriate and legitimate. thank you, madam president.

>> i thank the representative of the russian federation for his statement. i will give the floor to the representative to the united states of america. >> thank you, madam president. listening to the representative of russia, one might think that moscow had just become the rapid response arm of the office of the high commissioner for human rights. so many of the assertions made this afternoon by the russian federation are without basis in reality. let's begin with a clear and candid assessment of the facts. it is a fact that russian military forces have taken over ukrainian border posts. it is a fact that russia has taken over the ferry terminal in

kerch. it is a fact that russian ships are moving in and around sevastapol. it is a fact that russian forces are blocking mobile telephone services in some areas. it is a fact that russia has surrounded or taken over practically all ukrainian military facilities in crimea. it is a fact that today russian jets entered ukrainian airspace. it is also a fact that independent journalists continue to report that there is no evidence of violence against russian or pro-russian communities. russian military action is not a human rights protection mission. it is a violation of international law and a violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the independent nation of ukraine, and a breach of russia's helsinki commitments and its un obligations. the central issue is whether the recent change of government in ukraine constitutes a danger to

russia's legitimate interests of such a nature and extent that russia is justified in intervening militarily in ukraine, seizing control of public facilities, and issuing military ultimatums to elements of the ukrainian military. the answer, of course, is no. russian military bases in ukraine are secure. the new government in kiev has pledged to honor all of its existing international agreements, including those covering russian bases. russian mobilization is a response to an imaginary threat. a second issue is whether the population of the crimea or other parts of eastern ukraine, are at risk because of the new government. there is no evidence of this. military action cannot be justified on the basis of threats that haven't been made and aren't being carried out. there is no evidence, for example, that churches in eastern ukraine are being or will be attacked. the allegation is without basis. there is no evidence that ethnic russians are in danger. on the contrary, the new ukrainian government has placed

a priority on internal reconciliation and political inclusivity. president turchinov - the acting president - has made clear his opposition to any restriction on the use of the russian tongue. no one has to explain to ukraine's new government the need to have open communications, not only with leaders of the country's russian ethnic minority in the crimea and elsewhere, but also with its neighbors. that is why, when the current crisis began, the government sent its former chief of defense to the region to try to defuse the situation. a second emissary was prevented from entering the crimean rada to engage in discussions. and it is why ukrainian authorities have repeatedly reached out to russia. russia needs to reciprocate and begin to engage directly with

the government of ukraine. i note that russia has implied a right to take military action in the crimea if invited to do so by the prime minister of crimea. as the government of russia well knows, this has no legal basis. the prohibition on the use of force would be rendered moot were sub-national authorities able to unilaterally invite military intervention by a neighboring state. under the ukrainian constitution, only the ukrainian rada can approve the presence of foreign troops. if we are concerned about the rights of russian-speaking minorities, the united states is prepared to work with russia and this council to protect them. we have proposed and wholeheartedly support the immediate deployment of international observers and monitors from the un or osce to ensure that the people about whom russia expresses such concern are protected from abuse and to elucidate for the world the facts on the ground. the solution to this crisis is not difficult to envision. there is a way out. and that is through direct and immediate dialogue by russia with the government of ukraine, the immediate pull-back of russia's military forces, the restoration of ukraine's

territorial integrity, and the urgent deployment of observers and human rights monitors, not through more threats and more distortions. tonight the osce will begin deploying monitors to ukraine. these monitors can provide neutral and needed assessments of the situation on the ground. their presence is urgently necessary in crimea and in key cities in eastern ukraine. the united states calls upon russia to ensure that their access is not impeded. the leadership in moscow may well be unhappy about former president yanukovych's decision to flee ukraine and move in with them. russia may be displeased with the new government, which was approved by ukraine's parliament by an overwhelming majority, including members of yanukovych's own party. russia has every right to wish that events in ukraine had turned out differently, but it does not have the right to express that unhappiness by using military force or by trying to convince the world community that up is down and black is white.

russia's calls to turn back time to implement the february 21 agreement ring hollow. it was yanukovych who failed to abide by the terms of that agreement, fleeing kiev, and ultimately ukraine. the united states categorically rejects the notion that the new government of ukraine is a "government of victors." it is a government of the people and it is one that intends to shepherd the country toward democratic elections on may 25th - elections that would allow ukrainians who would prefer different leadership to have their views heard. and the united states will stand strongly and proudly with the people of ukraine as they chart out their own destiny, their own government, their own future. the bottom line is that, for all of the self-serving rhetoric we have heard from russian officials in recent days, there is nothing that justifies russian conduct. as i said in our last session, russia's actions speak much louder than its words. what is happening today is not a human rights protection mission

and it is not a consensual intervention. what is happening today is a dangerous military intervention in ukraine. it is an act of aggression. it must stop. this is a choice for russia. diplomacy can serve russia's interests. the world is speaking out against the use of military threats and the use of force. ukrainians must be allowed to determine their own destiny. thank you, madam president. >> thanks for the statement. >> i said it is a feeling of consternation we see what is happening in ukraine and when we hear with our russian colleague we hear the voice of the past when forces entered

czechoslovakia. it was the same justification, the same allegations. we expected with the construction of europe to awaken from this nightmare. we hope the balance of power .ould be substituted where the again where overcomes the law, every crisis must see the victor and the vanquished, where propaganda denies reality. no nation canect deny. these are simple facts. the russian army is occupying against the government