9:15a.m. and from a.m., we will talk about president putin and light of many things going on as far as they vote on crimea that takes place on monday. she has met the russian president several times and will give her insight on how he does things related to what is going on in the ukraine. we will do that and take phone tells and look at the newspaper all on "the washington journal" tomorrow at 7:00 a.m.. we will see you then. in [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] mike rogers, president obama's nominee to head the national security agency testifies he for the senate armed services committee. willinen security council bring you live on a resolution to russian intervention and ukraine. the suggestion is when we say thinkom of choice" what i we often mean is they know best. the government does not know best. the notion of a tonic me -- au a one-wordbasically way of saying people know better than outsiders do about what will make their lives go well. this sounds kind of academic and abstract. the stakes are real and can create.

the question we think about our policies, at least they love to the question is are people going to be sick? are they going to be miserable. dead?ey going to be if we have some policy whether it involves savings for retirement or privacy on the internet or if it involves air quality, if we can think of some way that makes them less likely to be sick or miserable or dead, while also letting them ultimately go their own way if that is what they want, that is a good bargain. sunstein on his latest book "why nudge?" mike rogers is the nominee to head the national security agency. he testified tuesday before the senate armed services committee.

if he is confirmed, he would also leave u.s. cyber command. also testify. he has been nominated to lead u.s. transportation command. the hearing is 2.5 hours.

>> good morning. the committee meets to consider the nomination of general paul silva to be commander of trans be cyber,ke rogers to director of the national security agency and director of

the central security service. we welcome our nominees. we thank you for your many years of service and for your willingness to continue to serve in positions of great responsibility. we thank your families to give up so much to enable you to serve transcom which encompasses the mobility demand and sealift command, army distribution command. it is the linchpin of our strategic mobility. and afghanistan appeared is taken the lead in bringing troops and equipment home from afghanistan. theould be interested in views of how long we can wait for a bilateral security agreement to signed by president karzai or his successor and still need the december 31 deadline for removing all of our people and equipment from

afghanistan in the event that we end up without an agreement. transcom faces constant threat from cyber intrusions. must be sensitive not only to the vulnerability of its own computer systems but also to the vulnerability of the private companies that it relies on to resupply our troops. our committee will soon release intrusions cyber affecting transcom contractors and the extent to which and othern reaches key entities within the department of defense. that is an issue which touches most of the command. we welcome your thoughts on

dealing with this ongoing problem. last month we heard testimony from general alexander. it was regarding a number of pressing issues currently facing the command. we look forward to hearing admiral roger's views on many of the same issues including the personnel that they are making available for their new cyber units. sources they will have to work with. the ability of the military services to managed the careers of their growing cautery of specialist and the steps to be taken to make sure the reserve components are effectively integrated into the cyber mission. the committee will also be interested in his views on the collection of bulk telephone

call records. the collection of the contents of internet communications and other nsa programs that have raised concerns about threats to privacy and civil liberties. we would like to know your reaction to the recent statement of the privacy and civil liberties oversight board with respect to section 215 telephone call record program. identified at " single instance involving a threat to the united states in which the program made a can create difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation." we would be interested in knowing what steps you would take it confirmed to assess the continuing value of this program and a two way that value against its potential impact on privacy and civil liberties. do you support the president

recent directive to modify the program so that bulk records are no longer held by the government while assuring that they can be accessed when necessary? what is your view on the threshold or standard that the government shall be required to meet to search through such a data? role iners will play hd providing advice on these and other issues. both of our to nominees for being here today for your service to the nation over many years and her willingness to continue that service. >> thank you. two weeks ago i expressed my support for the progress at cyber command to normalize the capabilities. despite these critical strides, of a cyber deterrence policy and to stabilize norms have left us more vulnerable to cyber

aggression. i'm concerned about the two well-publicized events by enduring involved an campaign on u.s. banks and the financial tour and another involving the exploitation of a critical navy network. the failure to acknowledge or establish penalties for these actions by north korea, russia, and places such as the power grid that has greater risks are at the president will have to get serious. provides the lifeline for every other combatant command by enabling them to execute missions from combat operations to humanitarian relief, and training exercises to supporting coalition partners. i am interested in your assessment of the readiness of its components

including the viability of the commercial sector to support missions. i'm also interested in your assessment of transcom's ability to meet requirements. general fraser testified last or that the number of cyber attacks doubledtranscom had from 45,000 in 2011 to nearly 100,000 in 2012. beenommittee has investigating these incidents. it appears that there are a number of factors that should be addressed to ensure transcom has the information necessary to send it networks and protect missions creiteria. i look forward to getting from a nominees to ensure that these issues are corrected and transcom's classification is secure. it is something that not many

people milled about. i do not draw a distinction between a cyber attack any military attack. we'll have a chance to talk about this during the questions. thank you. very much.u we are delighted to have senator kirk with us this morning to introduce one of our nominees. it is always great to have you with this committee. >> iunknown mike rogers from us 40 years. honor to do this. you cannot take an officer who has a stronger work ethic then mike. i wanted to say that is, being a

republican i am not supported a lot of the nominees of the president. i would say this is the best american you could have picked for this job. i will conclude my statement. >> thank you so much for that wonderful note an introduction. the first question we're going to ask admiral rogers is what do you know of homework? he's going to tell us some stickers that you have now unleashed on yourself. thank you for being with us. >> you are free to state or leave. we know you have a tough schedule. distinguished members of the senate armed services committee, it is a great honor to appear

before you today. the members of this committee for their steadfast support of the mobility command who have literally moved mountains to --port our airmen and really marines. is because of your continued support they have been able to breach the global reach. it is so important for this region. theok to navigate navigation commands. i am proud to introduce you to my wife who sees this right behind me. since her graduation as classmate from the air force academy. she is the love of my life. she's one of the very few people that can give me the unabashed

feedback i need when i step back from the centerline. i can think of no better person to serve in the capacity for which she has been nominated. i look forward to working with of the activeines guard reserve and their civilian, parts. it provides the distribution and logistic networks that make our nation successful. i'm thankful for the opportunity to be with you today. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you so much. i am glad you introduced your family. you're welcome to introduce family.

>> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. president hashe this.ted for chief of staffng for the confidence in my ability. she took a chance on another goes to show the truly great things to happen to a sailor on liberty. i want to publicly thank her for her love and support both for the past and made 29 years of marriage and for her service to the nation. perhaps most importantly, her willingness to take on an even greater set of challenges if i am confirmed. i've always believed that the life we lead in uniform is more

difficult for our spouses and families than it is on us. i'm glad to have a great partner . with us today are two sons. very hard-working college student. he has indicated we have had the pleasure of working together before. i can attest to his abilities for sam. i look forward to working closely with the members of the committee this. growing array of cyber threats, criminal groups in activist who are increasing their capabilities to steal, manipulate, or destroyed networks in a manner that risks compromising our personal and national security. they do so via man-made environment that is constantly evolving and through the use of

techniques that are continually changing. this is hard work. it requires change. something seldom easy for individuals or organizations. chosen, mine will be capacityr the necessary to provide commanders with a full range of options within the cyber arena. i will partner aggressively with others in doing so particularly with our allies and partners within the department of defense and organizations across the u.s. government as well as the government. these are two different organizations. oversightg its own mechanisms. to doas the potential this.

differing opinion i will make a call to the commander. the mission of features to deliver better mission outcomes. i will be mindful that we must do all of this in a manner which protects the privacy of is a sense. i will adhere strict adherence to oversight law and i will be an active partner in implementing the changes by the president. to the men and women of the national security agency, i thank you for your commitment to the security of our nation and for your professionalism. i believe in you and in the missions you execute in defending the security of the nation and its citizens. i'm honored to be considered for duty as your leader. i look for were to joining the

team. i want to thank general keith alexander for his almost 40 years of commissioned service. he has laid a solid foundation for those who come behind him. he has laid a huge contribution in this mission. i thank him for all of they have given the nation. they have given me the love and support of my life to live the dream i have had since i was literally a young boy of being a serving naval officer. from those who shipped to me in my youth to those who have guided, taught or flat out to me in detail. i thank them. i fully realize that i am here today because of the efforts of so many others in my life. the opportunity to appear before you.

i look forward to answering your questions. have the both adhere to applicable laws regarding conflict of interest? have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which would appear to influence the outcome? >> no. >> will you ensure your staff stays within guidelines? >> yes. >> will you provide this with response to congressional request? yes. >> will they be protected from the briefings? to providegree copies of electronic forms of

provide such documents. >> thank you both. let's try seven minutes for our first round. i ask you to consider this question. how long can the negotiations trans, be atre risk to get all of our cargo out there is noan if bilateral security agreement and we have to leave afghanistan completely by the end of the year? through the early fall we still have sufficient capacity in a variety of networks that we are using to redeploy cargo from

afghanistan to be able to make the decision and give you a specific date out have to consult with the general. if confirmed we will be happy to do so and come back to you with a more definitive answer. >> the next question has to do intrusions and whether or not they affect dod information. important but trends intrusions that compose a wrist to operations even if they do not immediately affect the data? >> yes. as you are aware, the network consistsse inside this with commercial transportation and logistics providers. is mobility command.

across unclassified networks. this is critical to our success. we have an obligation to ensure the validity and veracity of the information. the result, one of initiatives is to include a stipulation that it provides us with information on any intrusions into the networks. of the details of the report you spoke about. i look forward to working with your staff on working with the details. >> in january, the president ordered a transition to enter the section to benefit team telephone metadata collection program to "preserve the capabilities that we need" but without the government

collecting and holding the data on call detail records. to you agree that the government , let me ask you this. what are the essential capabilities that need to be preserved in transitioning the program as the president directed? >> there is a process on going to work through that. i'm not part of the process. when my thoughts would be the idea of speed. query the ability to new mechanisms to generate information. do you agree the government does not need to do these if they are communicating with persons located in the united states. that it can be

possible to hold this and have providers keep the data on the other hand? >> i believe we can make that work. >> you can have a third-party or would it be limited to the service providers holding the data? >> i believe we can make either scenarios were. -- work. there are some challenges we need to work in. i'm confident in our ability to do so. the privacy and civil liberties oversight board and the president review group characterized section 215 program as useful. the oversight board said "we have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the united states in which the

program made a country difference to the counterterrorism investigation. no" do you have this how it compares to the level of concern the american people have about its perceived impact on privacy? >> i am not in a position to really able to comment on the value of 215. i believe one of the most beortant functions is to able to articulate just that. our effortsvalue of so we can make well-informed and smart decisions? ast do you have an opinion to whether or not there has been an instance involving the threat to the united states in which

program goingde a in? >> he outlined a number of instances in which he thought it generated value. you think the department of defense is doing enough to provide capabilities for our defense of cyber units by exploding commercial technology? i would use my own experience to u.s. cyber command. we have a continual outreach for an industry sectors and in

attempt to identify which ones we can use. there is an aggressive effort. >> we have expressed our concern usut the threat they post to and our intelligence as far back as 2007. it would deliver this by 2015. forcefullymore pressed in a report. reaffirmed their suspicions earlier. i would be concerned about that for a long time. i'm concerned the president feels there's opportunity to get them to join the community.

they're suggesting they were able to successfully infiltrate this. iran was able to access the bloodstream of the navy network. "the infiltration of a navy computer network was far more extensive than previously thought. it to the navy about four months the hackersurge from the biggest unclassified computer network. " what thes unclear administration would do in response to such behavior. byld a similar penetration the warplanes be treated with such ambivalent? i hope not.

means that youb responsible for navy networks. what are the consequences of action in cyberspace? of operationaler security. we have never cracked her eyes -- characterized his penetrated it. >> this has been discussed in an unclassified session for quite some time. >> not to my knowledge. it has beenly gained to the system.

want to do a much more foundational review to use it as an opportunity to change. i apologize. i'm not in a position. he testified the number of cyber attacks had doubled from 45,000 in 2011 to nearly 100,000 in 2012. that is not very good. does that concern you? i am aware of the statistics. we have taken pretty aggressive actions to secure our networks. the nature of our network that haveus requires us to access to the information from the networks as well. we have been working diligently

providers to provide those. it is not equate to the number of actual equations but to the number of pros and attempts to get into the network. if confirmed, i will continue to column aswas cyber unit that provides external security for our networks. >> we had a hearing in february he was asked to explain what sort of actions they might have taken across the threshold.

you have crossed the line. ?ubilee that -- do you believe that? >> i agree. believe they have crossed the line in the actions they have taken? when general alexander was asked when a cyber attack does crossed the line it can become an act of war. it affects our ability to operate. you have crossed that line. do you agree with the characterization? >> i do not believe we have crossed that line. >> do agree with the statement that was made by general selva that the number of cyber attacks

against trans con doubling from 45,000 in 2011 to nearly 100,000 in 2012, does it properly express our deterrence against attacks? does this concern you that we have doubled in that period of time in the number of cyber attacks on us? >> i apologize. is your question to the general or myself? >> it is a question for you. general fraser testified that the number of cyber attacks on transcom has increased. are we not doing the job we should be doing? >> it is reflective on the level of investment that the department is making. we face challenging budget times and this is one of the departments where we remain committed to growth in capability. >> i believe a lot of the things

i have gotten from an unclassified media and classified that iran is very active in this area. i am concerned about their capabilities and i have expressed that concern. it appears that " if iran seizes this opportunity and chooses to join the global community, we can chip away at the mistrust that exists." we need to be talking about the fact that we have an enemy. he has demonstrated that clearly. this new capability -- a few years ago, no one knew what a cyber attack was.

we all understand it can be just as critical and damaging to our country as an attack with weapons on this country. i think you all agree with that. >> senator udall. >> thank you for your distinguished service to our nation. admiral rogers, i want to turn to you. your advanced policy responses, i noticed you stated the government could continue to access phone records through phone service providers repositories. that could serve as a viable alternative to the current records collection program. i was glad to read that. you wrote that the business records 215 grew out of a desire identify a gap after 9/11. you noted that the nsa saw a call, but could not see that the call was coming from an individual in the united states. i am concerned that a program such in 215 could have prevented 9/11. as the 9/11 commission pointed out, the commission knew about almodovar.

i don't know why the nsa could not gain authorization to determine if this member was in contact with anyone in the united states. i don't see wobble collection authority would be necessary. the constitution is not an impediment to our security. it is the source of our security. we can and bulk collection and not infringe on the rights of law-abiding americans. the president acknowledged what i have been saying. the status quo must change. i look forward to working with you to make those changes. looking ahead, i want to turn to the 702 program and ask a policy

question about the authorities under section 702. the committee ask your understanding of the legal rationale. you replied the nsa's court-approved procedures only allow using identifiers for intelligence purposes. the statutes written to anticipate the incidental collection of americans communications in the course of collection the communication of foreigners believed to be overseas, but the focus of the collection is clearly intended to be foreigners communications, non-americans.

declassified court documents show that in 2011, the nsa sought and obtained the authority to conduct warrantless searches for the communications of specific americans. have any of those searches ever been conducted? >> i am not in a position to answer that as the nominee. if you would like me to come back to you in the future if confirmed, i would be glad to do so. >> director clapper was asked this question earlier this year. he did not believe in open forum was the appropriate setting in which to discuss these issues. the problem i have is that we have tried ways to get an unclassified simple answer. we want to have an answer because it relates to american's privacies. can you answer the question before the committee votes on your nomination? >> one of my challenges as the director, if confirmed, is how do we engage the american people

and the representatives in a dialogue in which they have a level of comfort as to what we're doing and why. that is no insignificant challenge for those of us with an intelligence background. one of the takeaways from the situation over the last few months has been as an intelligence professional and later, i have to be able to communicate in a way that highlights what we are doing to the greatest extent possible. if it comes to the how we do things and the specifics, those are best addressed in classified sessions. i have to be able to speak in broad terms in a way that most

people can understand. i look forward to that challenge. >> i will continue asking that question. i look forward to working with you to rebuild the confidence that the public has. let's turn to cyber. before i ask a specific question, i do not want to steal senator mccain's funder, but he has a creative idea in setting up a special committee on cyber security so we can cut through some of the jurisdictional tensions that exist. in a more specific context, you noted that we have to work to develop and train a significant number of highly capable cyber personnel to meet them nation's needs. there is no doubt that we have to have those personnel. we have done it in the physical world and the kinetic world. we can do it in cyberspace. we have given cadets the ability to fly small aircraft and their college years. they are familiar with the fundamentals in the field of flying an airplane or helicopter. we are not giving that level of

attention to cyber training programs. should we invest in more hands-on, real-world training for the next generation of cyber warriors? >> yes, sir. as a navy component commander, i have worked with our navy academy. >> i look forward to working with you. thank you again, both of you, for your willingness to serve in these important positions.

>> senator mccain. >> i think the witnesses for their outstanding service. to follow-up, when i asked, because of the overlapping jurisdictions of many committees of congress that he thought that a select committee to investigate the entire issue which covers a wide spectrum would be a good idea. do you have a view? if you have a view on whether we should have a select committee are not. i'm not used to obfuscation. are you on track to remove all of the necessary equipment and armaments from afghanistan by the end of 2014 that you are tasked to do? >> yes, sir. >> you are on track right now? >> yes, sir. >> thank you.

admiral, i want to bring up this issue again of the iranian hack of navy computers. according to an article, the hack of the navy's computer network to more than four months to resolve, raising concerns about security gaps exposed by the attack. the hackers were able to remain in the network until this past november. that contradicts what officials told the public this past september. officials told the paper that the intruders had been removed. "it was a real big deal -- it was a significant penetration." >> that is why over the past few months multiple updates to

staffers on the committee. how do we learn from this and work to make sure it does not happen again. i conducted a response to that. it was much broader than to come back and say they are not there anymore. i wanted to use it as an opportunity to drive change. we put a longer-term effort in place then if i had just sent i want to remove them. i wanted to do more than that. >> the damage done? the interview said "significant." >> i would not say significant, but of concern. they did not engage in disruptive behavior. my concern was what if they had

decided that was their intent? >> i thank you. we have a real problem here, from the standpoint of those of us who feel that our ability to monitor the behavior of possible attackers of the united states of america is vital. mr. snowden has done some really significant damage. there were polls -- 57% of americans branded snowden as a whistleblower. 37% called him a traitor. a fox news poll found 68% of americans were glad to know about the nsa program snowden revealed.

a cbs survey found those disapproving outnumbered those approving. a significant number of americans view mr. snowden as a whistleblower and many significant portion of americans as a patriot and approve of his conduct. what do you think we need to do to counter that impression the american people have, when i am sure we are in total agreement that this individual violated a solemn oath that he made to not reveal this information and has damaged our ability to defend this nation.

>> i would agree with your assessment. the first is the idea of transparency. the idea that we have to have a dialogue that talks about what are we doing in the why. we have to inshore strict accountability. we have to make sure that we follow those processes appropriately and when we make a mistake, if we fail to meet those requirements, we are up front about the how and the why. >> to having thoughts about the allegations that the pfizer courts are just a rubber stamp for the administration? >> i don't believe that to be

the case. >> do you believe they are exercising sufficient oversight? >> yes, sir. >> you appreciate the fact that we have a large number of americans -- that we have a significant problem with the pr aspect of the work that you and your organization will be doing? >> yes, sir. my personal opinion is that the pfizer structure works well. we should look at a range of potential options to improve that transparency. >> if i had a recommendation for you, it would the as much as possible, given the aspects of national security that you maybe give some speeches in various venues where you could explain better to the american people what you're doing and not -- perhaps on exactly what you're doing and why you're doing it. i don't think americans are aware of the extent of the penetration that is not only accomplished, but being attempted by our adversaries and potential adversaries around the world.

>> i think you are correct. >> thank you both for your service to our nation. thank you to your families as well. the white house recently announced the creation of a voluntary framework to establish a cyber security guide for organizations involving one of the critical infrastructure and this effort and framework standardizes the cyber security defensive measures to assist in identifying, protecting, detecting, responding to, and recovering from potential intrusions.

how effective do you think this voluntary framework will be in protecting us from cyber attacks and what additional measures should the senate or the nsa take? >> it is a step in the right direction. i do believe in the end, some form of legislation which addresses both the requirement and need to share information, as well as trying to address the issue of setting standards for critical infrastructure for the nation in the long run it's probably the right answer. if confirmed, i look forward to working with a host of other people that would be a party to that. >> i agree that legislation will be necessary. there have been efforts to achieve it. bipartisan efforts, i should emphasize. some of them have been opposed

by representatives of the business community on the ground that there is no need for it, no urgency, or other reasons that i think are specious. thank you for your offer of cooperation. i look forward to working with you. >> it is only a matter of time before we start to see more destructive activity. that is perhaps the greatest concern of all to me. >> are there areas of the private defense industrial base or even financial utilities and so forth that you regard as most vulnerable? >> there are core infrastructure that is critical for us as a nation. in unclassified form, i would be leery of providing insights, but i would be glad to discuss that.

>> if the chairman at some point does have a briefing in another setting, that may be an area i would like to discuss with you. let me shift to the role of national guard in cyber security. the cybercom commander general alexander talked about the resource and the role it could play in expanding capabilities. >> at the present, the department is in the process of doing the admission analysis to address that question. if confirmed, i will be a part of that process. i intend to dig deeper into it. one of my takeaways is that the naval commander for general alexander -- how do you build an integrated team that harnesses the power and the expertise of every element of that team?

>> united states is not have a guard structure. i have worked hard to apply it in my current duties. the members of the naval reserve bring capabilities, training, education, skills that are valuable? >> yes, sir. >> another area if i may, the use of contractors following up on these very important questions asked by my colleague, senator mccain. here was a contractor who was entrusted with responsibilities that never should have been. many of us are concerned by the scope and scale of the use of private contractors, even to

screen and evaluate other contractors. are you concerned? >> i share your concern. i need to ask some hard questions. what led us to this, are we comfortable with the position we find ourselves in with respect to the role of contractors? >> are there other defects you can see the need to be corrected? >> nothing comes to mind immediately. this has not been the same issue on the navy side as it has been on the joint side of the work. >> is that concern shared widely in the intelligence community? >> i would believe so. >> general, if i can ask you a question. the chairman began by asking

some questions about how quickly we need to make determinations about our presence in afghanistan. what is your assessment now about how flexible we are in determining our time frames there? >> i would say we have the greatest flexibility that we have had in the past several months. as each day passes, our options decrease. there is a limit to the capacity of the networks to bring back equipment and those personnel out. i will commit to consulting with general austin of the specific limits of those networks. we want to make sure the transportation distribution layers of those networks is prepared for the capacity of

whatever comes at us. >> thank you for your helpful answers are it i look forward to working with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to both of you, thank you for your service and commitment to freedom. i want to make a comment for the record. admiral rodgers, with regards to comments that senator udall made, i don't want to leave a false impression with the american people that if we had had 702 and 215 in place in 2001, there is a strong probability that we would have been able to determine that a major attack was going to occur. there is the probability we would have picked up on conversation between those in yemen and those that were planning the attack. knowing that he was in country versus knowing he was in communication with terrorists planning an attack are two different things.

we did not have 215. we did not have 702. we knew that a phone call came to the united states. we did not know it went to san diego. if we had had more information that we had gleaned from these programs, there is strong probability that we might have picked up on that. i want to make sure that the record reflects the actual facts on the ground relative to him. we discussed something that senator mccain discussed earlier. those with respect to trying to communicate these programs to

the american people. it will be very difficult. he mentioned doing speeches and whatnot that is part of it. what can we do to show more transparency to let the american people understand how these programs work? >> we can be a little more communicative with why we are doing this, what led us to these kinds of decisions. it is important that the dialogue needs to be more broad than the director of the national security agency, regardless of who that individual is. there are more aspects to this discussion than just the intelligence piece. in the end, it boils down to an assessment of risk. in terms of our security as a nation as well as our rights as individuals. we value both.

we have got to come up with a way to enable us to ensure that both sides of that risk coin are addressed. we should never forget that there is a threat that aims to do us harm. that does not have the best interest of this nation in mind and wants to defeat with this nation represents. >> you are right. it is unfortunate that general alexander was put out there on a limb by himself by the administration to seek to explain these programs. he did a very good job of it, had the president with the bully pulpit been out there with him, i think we would have already had a better understanding on the part of the american people. number one, the misrepresentation of the facts regarding what information is collected on individuals, what is done with that information, and how very difficult it is to be able to access personal

information on any single american. it is extremely difficult and requires the same process, virtually, that you would have to go through if you were a u.s. attorney seeking to get information on an individual american. the fisa court is not a were stamp. all you have to do is look at the makeup of the court as well as the decisions. some of them will be made public. i think that is a good idea. as long as we do not reveal sources. the fact that the administration did not give general alexander the kind of support that they should, it is pretty discerning on my part. i am hopeful. as i mentioned to you yesterday,

i have expressed this to the administration. i hope they will give you more support in explaining these programs than they have given to general alexander. i have confidence that maybe they will. let's talk about information sharing. we have been working on a cyber bill for years now. we are getting very close to an agreement within the intelligence committee between the chairman and myself on a cyber bill. one of the key provisions and the last remaining obstacle we have is the immunity provision. would you talk for a minute about your opinion how important liability protection is to companies that will share privileged and personal information if we are going to

have a program that works relative to cyber? >> i am not a lawyer, but my sense is it is a critical element of any legislation. to be successful, we have to provide the corporate partners that we would share information with some level of liability protection. >> do you think firms will are to survey in the sharing of information if they are not granted blanket liability protection? >> i think they would be much less inclined to do so without it. >> thank you so much. >> senator donnelly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, admiral, and your families. the chairman mentioned an article and i thought one of the interesting quotes was where they said why would somebody want to be the head of cybercom

now? it reminded me of the movie apollo 13 were they said this might be one of the worst things that could happen to us and they said this could be the best. this could be the most amazing time. we have more challenges may be than ever before. we are giving you the football and expecting big things from both of you. i wanted to ask you, general, in regards to what we have seen in ukraine and the dealings we have had with russia before, are you making alternate plans in terms of transcom as to the work we do with russia? are you gaming out worst-case scenarios as to how we proceed in the future? >> if confirmed, that is a priority. as the air component to transcom, that we have been building alternative lands.

the distribution network that flows to russia consists of five different options of how we move cargo in and out of afghanistan. we will have to look at other options should the conduct in the ukraine continue. >> i would recommend we get working on that right away in light of what we have seen going forward. admiral, when you look at what happened with mr. snowden, i know we have done reviews. have you continue to look and ask what if about this or that in regards to where we are now to make sure that we are not going to face this again internally? >> as the nominee, i have not done that. >> have you thought that through? >> if confirmed, we need to ask ourselves -- given this

compromise, what are the indicators that would highlight or point out compromise. how are we seeing changes in behavior and how will we have to stay ahead of that threat that faces the nation? >> you will determine what policies -- where did we go off the highway, how do we fix it, how we squared away? one of the areas of interest to me as contractors. again, you are not in a position yet, but why do we have contractors in those positions as opposed to military personnel or other government personnel who are expert in those areas? is it a lack of individuals who can fill those positions? >> i can't speak to the specifics of mr. snowden.

it is reflective of a trend over the last decade or so, whereas we look at the size of the government and workforce, some decisions were made in some of these issues could be solved by using a contractor. you should use contractors for the functions that are either so specialized that you do not have the capability or skill resident within the government workforce or it is prohibitively expensive to try to achieve that capability. >> we are called to order. the provision area agenda for this meeting -- 28th of february come -- 2014.

the unitedraine to states. addressed to the president of the security council. the agenda is adopted. in accordance with rule 37 of the council's provisional procedure, i invite the albania,ative of germany, austria, belgium, bulgaria, canada, cyprus, estonia,denmark, then, finland, georgia, greece, japan,, iceland, italy, malta, liechtenstein, montenegro, norway, new zealand,

the netherlands, poland, portugal, republic of moldova, czech republic, the mania, slovakia, slovenia, sweden, turkey, and ukraine to participate in this media. it is so decided. the security council will now begin consideration of item two of the agenda. members of the council have 2014-189,em document s- fte text of a dra resolution submitted by albania, germany, australia, austria, belgium, bulgaria, canada, cyprus, deutsche, denmark,

spain, estonia, the united states of america, finland, france, georgia, greece, japan,, iceland, italy, lithuania, in stein, moldova, norway, new zealand the portugal,s, portland, although the, czech republic, the united kingdom, northern sweden, slovakia, turkey, and ukraine. four tonow give the council members who wish to make a statement before the vote. i give the floor from their presented above the russian federation. >> thank you, madam president.

many times we have put forth in the chamber the essence of russian position regarding the cost of developing the internal crisis in the ukraine. this is the general context that is important for understanding how we view the u.s. drafted resolution, brought to vote today. it is a secret to no one that the russian federation will vote against the resolution. we cannot go along with a basic assumption that is declaring march planned referendum, where the very people of the crimean republic will determine their future. this type of philosophy from the sponsors of the draft is counter to the basic principles of international law. the principle of equal rights and self-determination.

enshrined in article one of the u.n. charter. this principle, confirmed by the u.n. declaration of 1970. a number of other decisions of the u.n. general celebrity -- assembly in 1975. we do not dispute territory of states. it is very important. it is also understandable that enjoyment of the right of self-determination and separation from an existing state is an extra ordinary measure. applied when future coexistence within a single state become some possible. moreover, the practice demonstrates the enjoyment of people with the right to self-determination. was implemented without the agreement of a central authority. regarding crimea, this case arose as a result of a lethal vacuum arising from an

unconstitutional coup d'etat carried out in kiev by radicals, as well as from the direct their of individuals in order across ukraine. should be noted that, generally agreed-upon principles of international law are closely interlinked. each should be considered in light of other principles. specifically, clinical context. and historic specificity. the political, legal, and historic backdrop of the events in ukraine are extremely complicated. it would be useful to recall until 9054, crimea was a part of the russian federation. it was given to ukraine in violation of the norm of that time under soviet law. without taking into account the

view of the people of crimea. they nevertheless remained within a single state. fell, it became part of ukraine automatically. the view of the people of crimea was ignored. more the fall of the ussr, than 20 years, crimea attempted to defend itself. crimea,ry of 1991, in there was a referendum conducted. -- result, there was a lot law that established a economy. in december 1991, the high council of crimea adopted a declaration. a constitution was adopted in crimea. it declared them an independent state. 1995, through the decision of the ukraine, the

constitution was an old without the agreement of the people. other arguments have been put forward by this delegation in favor of the legality of the referendum. this was on 13 march. in conclusion, we would like to infer that we will respect the will of the crimean people during 16 march's referendum. thank you very much. >> i think the representative of the russian federation for that demand. the draftw put resolution to the vote. favor, s-2014-189, raise their hand?

those against? abstentions? the result of the voting is as follows. 13 votes in favor. one vote against. one abstention. the draft resolution has not been adopted due to the negative vote of a permanent member of the council. i now give the four to those members of the council that was to make statements after the vote. i give the floor to the representative of the united states of america. madame president, the united states deeply appreciate the support from our colleagues around this table. and from the many state who have called for a peaceful end to the crisis in ukraine. however, a sad and

remarkable moment. this is the seventh time that the un security council has convened to discuss the urgent crisis in ukraine. the security council is meeting ukraine because it is the job of this body to stand up for peace and defend those in danger. timeve heard a lot each that we have met about the echoes and relevance of history. we have heard, for example, about the pleas of the rape democrats of hungary in 1956 and about the dark chill that -- to the dreams of checks in 1968. we still have the time and collective power to ensure that the past does not become prologue. history has lessons for those of us who are willing to listen. unfortunately, not everyone is willing to listen today. under the u.n. charter, the russian federation has the power

to veto a security council resolution. it does not have the power to veto the truth. has aknow, the word truth prominent place in the story of modern russia. from the days of lenin and trotsky to the fall of the berlin wall, that was the name of the house newspaper of the soviet communist regime. throughout that time, one could search in vain to find truth in that newspaper. once again, one searches in vain to find truth in the russian position on crimea, i knew crane, or on the proposed resolution considered and vetoed a few moments ago. the truth is, this resolution should not have been controversy over. in principlesd that provide the foundation for international stability and law. article two of the u.n. turner, their prohibition of forced to

acquire territory, and the territorial integrity of mem ber states. these are principles that russia agrees with and defense vigorously around the world, except, it seems, in circumstances that involve russia. -- nosolution broke new new legal ground. it called on all parties to do what they had previously pledged to internationally binding agreement to do. act andl the helsinki the budapest memorandum, in which russia and other signatories reaffirmed their commitments to respect the youth --ukraine's territorial integrity. the resolution called on the government of ukraine to do what it has promised it will do to protect the rights of all ukrainians, including those belonging to minority groups. the resolution noted that the planned memorandum for tomorrow

has no legal affect on the status of crimea. from the beginning of this crisis, the russian position has been at odds not only with the law, but also with the fact. the claims that the rights of people within the ukraine were under attack. that has validity only in parts of ukraine where russian military forces were exercising undue influence. russia denied they were intervening militarily. they have surrounded and occupy public openings, shut down airports, and prevented entry into ukraine of international observers. leadership has disclaimed any intention of trying to annex crimea. then reversed itself and concocted a rationale for justifying just such an illegal act. they claim their intentions are peaceful. but russian officials have shown little interest in u.n., european, and american efforts at diplomacy. including secretary of state

john kerry's effort yesterday and monday. russia has refused ukraine's outstretched hands. russian armed forces are marching across the eastern border. two days ago in this very chamber, the prime minister appealed to russia to embrace peace. instead, russia has rejected a resolution that has piece at its heart and law flowing through its veins. the united states offers this resolution and a spirit of reconciliation and a desire for peace, in keeping with the rule of law and recognition of the fact and for film and of this council to promote and preserve stability among nations. decision, onlyf one hand rose to oppose those principles. russia isolated, alone, and wrong, blocked the resolution's passage, just as it has blocked ukrainian ships and international observers. russia put itself outside of those international norms that

we have painstakingly developed to serve as the bedrock foundation for peaceful relations between states. the reason only one country voted no today is that the world believes that international borders are more than mere suggestions. peopleld believes that within those internationally recognized borders have the right to chart their own future, free from intimidation. and the world believes that the lawless pursuit of one's ambitions serves none of us. russia has used its veto as to accomplish for unlawful military incursion. nearly 70 years ago to countries that have led an epic fight against the russians. in so doing, russia can not change the fact that moving forward in blatant defiance of the international rules of the road will have consequences. nor can it change crimea's status. crimea is part of ukraine today. it will be part of ukraine tomorrow. it will be part of ukraine next

week. it will be part of ukraine unless and until it status is changed in accordance with ukrainian and international law. russia prevented adoption of a resolution today. but it cannot change the aspiration and destiny of the ukrainian people and they cannot ,eny the truth displayed today that there is overwhelming international opposition to this dangerous actions. thank you. i think the representative of the united states of america. i now give the floor to the .epresentative of france president, it is with a feeling of incredulity that we are meeting here today. at the incredulity scenario brought under our gaze by the russian federation to annexed crimea. nothing had been missing.

we thought this had been relegated to the dusty shelves of history. military maneuvers on borders. a man ignored yesterday. that elevated crimea. occupation denied against all evidence. propaganda. now, the masquerade of a memorandum that is not merely legal, not merely cobbled together, not merely an electoral campaign, but just reduced to yeses. the people of crimea cannot say anything. the international law is so obvious that we almost feel pity at witnessing the russian diplomat being so -- onpecting form and debating the legal basis for action. one day, a letter

from a head of state disappeared. day, it was recorded. researcher feverish fromhear it was exhumed 1975. moscow is willing to grasp it straws. we want --we have seen them take opposite positions. they are proving that russia has made a mistake in both cases. in 1976 and 2014. all the same, my russian agreementand i are in and with the representative said in 1975. destroy theto

national unity or integrity of withountry is incompatible the principles of the united nations charter. fromality, nothing emerges these pathetic efforts. not the embryo of a legal reasoning. a text which is vetoed recalls the fundamental principles of the charter. the headlines can be quite clear. russia has vetoed the u.n. charter. desperately then, moscow is invoking the pretest of protecting russians threatened in crimea. i am sure that in neighboring countries where there are russian minorities, this right to interfere that russia suddenly takes into itself will be appreciated. violence ishtest observed by journalists.

refugees.med by hundreds of thousands of refugees -- where have they gone? why have they never existed? in the absence of law, we commit to history. crimea was with russia. so what? are we to take up our history books again. to scrutinize borders, challenge them, or defend them? when will we stop? for 170 years, crimea was russian. for three centuries, it was under turkish rule. justify what is unjustifiable. this education -- these speeches that are denied as soon as they are made. the reasoning is forgotten as soon as they are put forward. things are simple.

force cannot prevail over law. this is too serious or dangerous for every member state, faced with the savagery of international relations. --present, they are causing costing the lives of thousands in syria and elsewhere. to accept the annexation of crimea would be to forgo everything we are trying to build in this organization. it would turn the charger into a farce. that the sword settles disputes. member nations will prove by their refusal to acknowledge, recognize the annexation of crimea, that they know that territorial integrity -- it is a guarantee for all. minorities exist throughout the world.

what would we do if they were to become the pretext for any adventure at the whim of an enterprising neighbor? what will the next time you be? this annexation goes beyond ukraine. it is the business of all of us. this veto must not be a defeat. russia.defeat, just for we do not need to follow them. we have remained form and our attachment to the principles that it denies. these principles are our only defense against a path of russian aggression against ukraine. >> thank you madame president. this resolution was designed to prevent further escalation of the crisis in ukraine. councilmembers to uphold the sovereignty, unity,

and territorial integrity of the u.n. member states, and to reaffirm u.n. principles. it was about sending a clear signal that holding a referendum in crimea would take us further away from a diplomatic solution. the resounding message from today's vote is that russia stands isolated in this council and in the international community. russia alone axis referendum. russia alone is prepared to violate international law, disregard the u.n. charter, and tear up bilateral treaties. this message will be heard well beyond the walls of the chamber. the positionent, of the international community is clear. if this referendum is held tomorrow, it will have no validity, no credibility, and no recognition. we trust that russia will take notice of its isolation. we heard a clear

message from the prime minister of ukraine. ukraine is willing to it -- engage in dialogue with russia. to address its concerns. the ball is now firmly in russia's corporate if russia fails to respond to ukraine's outstretched hand and continues with its military adventurism, or seeks to take advantage of its illegal referendum, it will lead to further escalation and tension in the region and further consequences for russia. we asked russia to hear the collective voice of the international community today. to rethink the actions and to take the decision to work with ukraine and with the rest of the world to find a peaceful solution. thank you. i would like to thank the representative of the united kingdom for that statement. now i would like to give the floor to the representative of lithuania. >> thank you, madam president.

my delegation is profoundly troubled by russia's veto of the resolution on the legality of the issue in crimea. and the consequences -- and is worried about the consequences for the future in the region and internationally. on the 31st of may, 1997, at a ceremony to the monument of the liberated soldier in kiev, the late president of russia, boris yelsin,-- boris declared that ukraine is a sovereign country. russia does not lay claim on any part of ukraine or on any other cities. yet, in defiance to the budapest memorandum, whereby the --sian federation referred reaffirmed its right to use force against the territorial integrity, -- contrary to the treaty of

friendship between ukraine and the russian federation of 1997, which are from the book countries agreed to respect each other's territorial integrity and confirmed the ability of the existing rules between them. and in violation of the commitments undertaken by russia during its international organizations. ukraine is about to be carved up. world leaders have been trying hard in the past few weeks to get russia to engage with ukrainian authorities, to avoid a crisis over crimea. while the ukrainian authorities repeated their readiness to accept international monitors and efforts, russian troops and equipment were being amassed in crimea. accompanied by an aggressive propaganda campaign and anticonstitutional acts by crimean parliament to prepare

the ground for an illegal referendum and eventual annexation of crimea by russia. tomorrow, a referendum will be held. in flagrant violation of ukraine and crimean constitutions and international law. the inhabitants of the peninsula who see their future in and with ukraine said they will boycott this happening. all of us who care for the sovereignty of the country, including the ukrainians, will be left voice list by this he slowly concocted plan. this is simply not on the ballot. our russian college has talked about self-determination and independence of crimea. the self-proclaimed prime minister of crimea. there will be no independents, he said to the press, for crimea.

crimea must join russia. it may happen in the next week or so. this a missed context that council has voted for a resolution condemning the legal referendum in crimea, saying yes to the nonuse of force. yes to the sovereignty and territorial integrity and political independence of ukraine. and by way of extension of any sovereign state. my country's yes is a yes to nonaggression. to free choice of destiny. the rule of and law. to the internationally accepted rules of behavior, based on the morals and principles of international law. today's veto is not business as usual. ,hey be doing this resolution built on the tenants of the charter, which states that all members shall refrain from a threat or use of force against territorial integrity or

political independence of any state. or in any other manner inconsistent with the practices of the united nations. dispute, it could endanger peace and security. all, we will seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, -- orort to agencies arrangements or other peaceful means of their own choice. the russian federation is challenging the very principles on which this organization is felt. -- built. and which supported the international system for the last seven decades. we call on all u.n. member states, regional and international organizations, not to recognize the results of the referendum in crimea. not to recognize any alteration of the state carried out in

clear violation of the constitution of ukraine, a u.n. founding member. we call on russia -- international observers have been invited by the ukrainian government and must be allowed to do their job. we also urge russia to reaffirm their treaty obligations, including respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. and to withdraw without delay of armed forces. only political dialogue and armed --respective international law can put an end to this crisis and prevent further bloodshed. i think the representative of lithuania for that statement. i now give the floor to their preventative of -- president.u, madam our thoughtstend

on the task before us. it is unfortunate that we have come to this. this could have been avoided today. working for this was a hard decision. why so? we are not convinced that the timing of this resolution is productive to the objective and purpose of the security council. it is based on the timing. it may not resolve the crisis. stated?bjective being they isolate each other, including stakeholders. and our search for a peaceful solution to the crisis in ukraine, there is no need to

isolate whoever. there is a need for a real and frank dialogue. that is why we are here, all of us. as the united nations. the situation in ukraine has rapidly unfolded. we are concerned that the pressure has blinded us from carefully analyzing the situation and understanding the causes. therefore, it deters us from finding a suitable solution. it possibly escalate the crisis. why then did we vote? the draft resolution contains important principles, we all agree on. the respective independence. sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries. and the need for de-escalation

of the crisis. us, thisrtant, for calls for a ukrainian political dialogue. we believe that the crisis in ukraine could be settled by more vigorous campaigning geared towards winning the hearts of ukrainians and ensuring protection of all. we have not seen this so far. there has not been a dialogue. it is time for ukrainians to listen to their hearts. see both sides helping their communities. to identify the silver thread that has kept them together as a united and prosperous nation for all of these years. in this regard, we appeal to all conflicting parts in ukraine.

deny their fears to all aggravating returns. talks.chance to if that means mediators, the u.n. should help. we invite both sides to consider mutual interests for the people of ukraine and to uphold their commitment to bilateral arguments. we call on the international community to fulfill the obligation and ensure no further deterioration and respect the principles of peace and security. , this is not a win or loss to any of us. this also should not be taken as shame for any of us. let it be a lesson to all of us. to truly communicate

constructively and work towards finding a sustainable solution to this crisis. i think you. -- i thank you. >> i think the representative of rwanda. i now give the floor to the representative of china. president -- at present, the situation in ukraine is highly complex and sensitive. it has the bearing on both regional and international situations. the international community should engage together and putting through our political solution of the crisis in ukraine. so as to generally maintain peace and stability in the region. the situation in ukraine has developed to what is today, involving complex historical reasons and reality.

it is both accidental and inevitable. for aore, it calls comprehensive and balanced solution. respectedalways sovereignty of territories and integrity of all states. long-standing, fundamental foreign-policy of china. at the same time, we have noticed that foreign interference is also an important reason leading to violent clashes on the streets of ukraine and resulting in crisis in the country. failure to implement a the february 21st agreement has accelerated the turmoil in ukraine with serious social and economic damage to the country. we condemn and oppose all extreme and violent acts. ukraine,he crisis in

the key is to act with in the framework of law and order. seeking early solution of the differences, through dialogue and negotiations. legitimatet to the interests of all the people in the various communities and areas. all parties should proceed to maintain peace and stability and protect the fundamental interest of all of the communities in ukraine to keep calm and exercise restraint to avoid further escalation of tensions. while firmly aiming at a political solution, so as to find a specific way out. always called on the international community to make construction efforts -- constructive efforts to

de-escalate the situation in ukraine and has carried out some mediation. we have noticed some new developments and proposals have appeared. the drafting of the draft resolution by the executive council at this juncture will only result in confrontation and further comforted the situation. this is not in conformity with the common interest of both the people of ukraine and those of the international community. we can only abstain from voting on this resolution. on the issue of ukraine, china has always been their objective. mediate andto promote dialogue. to play a constructive role in seeking political solutions to the crisis and cream. to that end, we would like to propose three suggestions are in

first, to establish as soon as possible and international court mating mechanism consisting of all the parties concerned. to explore means for the crisis. second, all parties should refrain from taking any action that would further escalate the situation. international financial institutions should start to explore how to help, maintaining financial stability in ukraine. thank you. i think the representative of china for that statement. i now give the floor to the representative of chile. >> thank you, madam president. chile voted inof favor of the draft resolution. we believe that this constitutes

appropriate response of the counsel to the current crisis in ukraine. aren the situation, there fundamental principles of the international legal order at stake, such as abstaining from the threat of force and use of force and respecting the territorial integrity of ukraine. the budapest memorandum requires the contracting parties to andrve the independence current borders of ukraine and to avoid the use of force or threat of force or any action against political independence. the holding of a referendum on us of crimea is not in accordance with the constitution of ukraine. of which crimea

is part and parcel. they ruleamental that of law be observed in ukraine, nationally and internationally. it is for the people of ukraine alone to determine their destiny, it is an inclusive democratic process. guaranteeing the rule of law, human rights, fundamental freedoms. with respect to the rights of minorities. crisis to resolve the has to be a peaceful one, by means of dialogue. in accordance with the provisions of international law, that the united nations, which bears the primordial responsibility of safeguarding international peace and security, has not been able

resolution today because of the use of the veto. we have not the filled the task, thank you. >> i think the representative of chile for that statement. i now give the floor to the representative from argentina. >> thank you, madam president. the delegation of argentina there is not much sense in talking about future events and political consequences. however, we have voted for the draft resolution because it is the primacy of territorial integrity. we have done this with the hope that this draft may contribute to implementing constructive dialogue in ukraine, seeking ways to a peaceful solution.

all political and social actors, who today disagree. we trust that all of the parties fromraine will refrain unilateral action that could hamper dialogue or remove the opportunity for a peaceful solution. is all up toat it the ukrainians to decide their internal affairs. it is not for the security council to define this situation. our responsibility is to maintain international peace and security. countriespe that all will respect the principle of non-interference and and internal affairs. and the commitment to act strictly in compliance with

international law and the united nations charter, with the goal of achieving a peaceful solution in this country. thank you. the representative of argentina. and now give the floor to the representative of australia. >> thank you, madam president. australia is seriously disturbed that the draft resolution before us has been vetoed. its purpose was to reaffirm the fundamental principles and norms governing relations the between the states in the post-1945 world. obligations that form the core of the united nations charter. respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states. the obligation to refrain from threat or use of force against territorial integrity and political independence of any state. illegality of acquisition of territory through threat or use

of force. any the obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means. as the body mandated under the u.n. charter, the primary responsibility is the maintenance of international peace and security. this council has a primordial responsibility to uphold these obligations. as council members, we do so on behalf of all member states. the draft resolution, directly and carefully reflects the fundamental norms. there is nothing in it that any u.n. member states could reasonably oppose. the russian decision to veto the resolution profoundly unsettles. the referendum to be held tomorrow in crimea is dangerous and destabilizing. it is unauthorized and invalid. we will not recognize the results or any action taken on the basis of it. with or without a resolution, the message from council members and the wider international community has been overwhelming.

the escalation of the current crisis is imperative. russia must collect its forces to their bases and decrease their numbers to agreed levels. it must allow international observers access to crimea. it must demonstrate its respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of resistingncluding by any action on the basis of the results of the referendum. and a much engage in direct dialogue with ukraine. ukraine has repeatedly requested, either bilaterally or a diplomatic mechanism -- nosia can be under misapprehension about the action of the international community. should it fail to respond, there will be cuts quonset. the international community will man it. thank you. >> i think the representative of australia for that statement. i now give the floor to the representative of the republic of korea. >> thank you, madam president.

the republic of korea voted in favor of this draft resolution. the unitybelieve that and territorial integrity of the ukraine should be fully respected. the future of ukraine should be decided by the ukrainians themselves, without any intervention or influenced by outside forces. we think that this draft resolution clearly embodies these principles. it is regrettable that the draft resolution is not adopted by this counsel today. that, we very much hope today's failure will not close the window of peace and diplomatic solution. thank you. i think the representative of the republic of korea for that statement.

i now give the floor to the representative of nigeria. thank you, madam president. voted in favor of the resolution. it reflects the favors -- printable the embodied in the charter of the united nations. we must refrain from international relations from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity of clinical independents have any amber state. the u.n. charter also states that we must settle disputes by peaceful means. all through the crisis in ukraine, nigeria has consistently and unequivocal called on everyone to abide by these principles in the

interest of international peace and security. , which isresolution not a's this book resolution, but one that is under a universally agreed-upon principle, and the sanctity of international law, also mentions the 1994 budapest memorandum. that provides the framework within which the crisis should be resolved. forave consistently called dialogue, mediation, restraint, and an end to hostile rhetoric. therefore, nigerians fundamentally oppose the threat of use of force in settling international disputes. the lessons of history are not far-fetched. we are concerned that history must not be repeated by those alive today. nigeria has consistently

advocated ideation and settlement of dispute, including territorial dispute. we are in submission to the ruling of the international court of justice. tos should serve as a beacon law-abiding nations. nigeria is vehemently opposed to designed to alter the consideration of states in their internationally recognized boundaries. standing on the fundamental principle, nigeria is opposed to any unilateral declaration by a set that will alter the states to which it appropriately bongs. -- belongs. notreferendum and crimea is

in confidence with the constitution of you crane. defiancequences of any are better imagined than described. thank you. >> i think the representative of nigeria. i now give the floor to the representative of chad. >> thank you, madam. since the beginning of ukrainian consistentlyhas expressed its commitment to the territorial integrity and unity of ukraine. in line with united nations charter. the changing nature of borders and the territorial integrity of states -- principle,rosanct and trine in the final act of the african union.

thad is in favor of the draft resolution. it is to be explained by the chad is very concerned to note the continuing escalation of the crisis in the ukraine despite of the repeated appeals of the international community, are to go really from the security council for restraint and calm. we think it is still possible forparties to open the way national reconciliation and maintaining ukraine's territorial integrity by engaging explosive dialogue between the various components. diversity, human rights and the rights of minorities, chad