what the magnitsky act did for human rights in russia this would do for corruption. it would not attack russian's financial institutions, it would focus squarely on the most corrupt officials in the russian government and their close associates. the sanctions we have in this legislation are good, but we should not only focus on russian corruption in ukraine, we should target russian corruption in russia. we don't want to send a message to russian people that we care about russian officials' corruption in ukraine but not their corruption in russia. this amendment would provide the president with additional authority to impose further costs on putin if events call for it. this is a pro-russia provision. corruption is the most salient issue in russia today. it is what motivated the protests in ukraine to drive yanukovych from power. this amendment will say that putin may back corruption, but we

do not. we would tell putin's top cronies and partners in crime that we do not sand for corruption. i thank you. >> thank you, senator mccain. would any other senator wish to speak to the amendment? >> let me thank senator mccain. as i'm sure the members of this committee know, this committee passed the minitsky bill that would have applied universal. it would not have been limited to just one country. it would have been applied to any gross violations of human rights anywhere in the world. if we had that bill passed in the form that passed this committee, then the president could act with the authority of

congress if this type of episode occurs again. we hope it will not. but we know that unfortunately we're seeing too often, world leaders and individuals commit types of actions that require the united states to show leadership. senator mccain, i support your amendment. i was offering a provision to make these provisions global. after talking to the chairman, i have determined that could slow down the progress of this particular little, and it is critically important that we speak in one voice on ukraine and what's happened in ukraine. i do hope we will speak to a

global minitsky bill. therefore that we cannot only give the authority of the administration to react to world circumstances but also involved congress so that we can have some degree of impact on u.s. action if this 0 kirs in the future. >> thank you. >> i want to thank senator cardin. he was the leader on the minitsky act. this act has already had impact for the good. i would like to consider pursuing under his leadership a global minitsky act and i hope the committee and its members will push for its passage. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to thank senator

cardin for his leadership in this regard. i thank him for his willingness to hold in this regard, and i share his goal and purpose, and we look forward to working with you to make that happen. any other member that would like to speak to this amendment? all those in favor say aye. nos? the ayes have it. senator paul. i believe we should send an unambiguous signal and message to the russians that their incurings into ukraine is unacceptable. i support the sanctions of the russians. i support the military and technical assistance. i have trouble with the loan assistance in the sense that the loan assistance i believe will be a gift and a benefit to russia. ukrainians owe about $20 billion to $30 billion to the russians. both private russian banks, as well as a couple billion to the gas entity in russia. bailing out russian indemocrat knit to ukraine i don't think is a way to punish russia or send a signal.

in fact, i think it sends the wrong signal. there are other questions you might ask if you are going to loan money to ukraine. i would ask for a show of hands of those who would personally bayou cranian debt. ukrainian debt is rated triple c minus. not one person in this room would buy it. in is not one expectation they can pay it back. ukraine is ranked as one of the most crument nations. corruption is one of the main reasons that the i.m.f. quit sending money to ukraine. i think sending ukraine loan money that will go to russia is not a great signal. and i think sending money without the precondition that we know this is a brand new government. this is a government that just came into existence with maybe many questions as to how they came into existence.

we don't currently have a president in ukraine. there are some questions about loaning them money. we have two billionaires from ukraine who have been recently appointed as mayors. i would be more inclined to loan them money if they would be first in line to put their name on the list of creditors of those first to call if the loan is not paid. so there are a lot of questions i have here. the question primarily is, if you loan money to ukraine, are you sending a signal or are you sending a gift to payoff russian creditors. my amendment would trike the loan guarantees and the i.m.f. one of the reasons for striking the i.m.f. reform is in the i.m.f. reform you would be giving russia an enhanced vote on the i.m.f. their vote percentage will increase by 8%. you will be giving russia more power within the i.m.f. with these i.m.f. reforms. so i don't think you are sending the signal you want to send by allowing russia to have a greater deal and greater power

within the body of the i.m.f. really it should be going in the opposite direction. there are 20 to $30 billion owed to russia by ukraine. i know the impetus is to send a signal, but i don't think we are sending the correct signal by sevending loan money that will find its way very quickly into russia's hands. >> senator paul for purposes of understanding, you have amendment number one? >> yes. >> senator corker. >> first of all, i always enjoy hearing from my friend from kentucky. he always makes interesting points. i want to thank him for thinks divot on this bill. the russia quota expands further reforms from 2.5% to 2.71%. this was done to bring growing

economies into the i.m.f. in a more appropriate way. so while that may be 8% of an increase for them, i just want to say to everyone, that 2.5% to 2.71%. and while russia may be a creditor, ukraine has lots of creditors. and somehow or another, they have to make a transition from where they are and in doing so in offering this loan guarantee the stated policy, the state department, that this does not happen unless they have entered into an i.m.f. agreement which would move the country hopefully toward these processes that we'd all like to see happen. >> mr. chairman, do we have copies of the amendment? >> and mr. chairman, can i make one quick response?

>> i think we have more leverage -- see, the question has been on both sides. there has been a lot of corruption. transparancy international ranks them as one of the most corrupt nations on the planet. we have more chance of actually getting reforms if the money is dependent on the reforms, rather than you get them the money and say you hope this new government will institute reforms. >> senator corker. >> let me point out, it is in our national interest to have strategic partners that respect the human rights of their

citizens. ukraine has gone through a difficult part. ukraine is critically important to the united states. it is in a strategic location. it is very important to regional stability. we have a lot of our native partners in that region. this is a very important country. the corruption that you are referring to was under the previous administration. that prime minister as you know is now hiding in russia, and ukraine is starting a new government, inclusive government, a government that will represent all the people of the ukraine. and it is critically important that they have the economic underpinnings so they can gain the confidence of the people. this allows for the international monetary fund to go in, do the necessary audits, put the country on the right path, and allow them to become a viable, economic country. the loan guarantees is part of a package. as senator corker pointed out, it only becomes real under the i.m.f. plan. otherwise, it doesn't become

real. it is not just the united states. it is the e.u. that wants to understand the importance of the ukraine. this plan is much more effective for the united states and the world community than the alternatives. this is a relevant stiffly small investment to get the type of strategic partner, stable partner in that region, which is important for u.s. interests. i respect senator paul's views on this, but i would urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. >> senator murphy. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. building on senator cardin's comments. with all the comment on crimea, what has been lost in the fog of this is the fact that only about two million ukrainians

live there, and the fact of russia has predecember continued -- predestined that many have a chance to make good on their deal with the e.u. this is a matter of weeks before ukraine faces default. there is only one alternative to support from the united states and europe, and that is russia. if you want a guarantee that ukraine falls back into the russian orbit, then withhold aid from the united states and europe. i know it is never an easy decision to commit this amount of money, but ultimately this is a sign of russian weakness as they lose their foothold in ukraine the way we guarantee that continued path into the e.u. is to make sure that we are an option and that they aren't forced back to russian funding and ultimately russian control. >> any other members?

>> at the risk of being rundianant, if we -- at the risk of being redundant, if we allow the ukrainian economy to collapse, all kinds of bad things happen. i have confidence that the new leaders of ukraine are absolutely committed to erasing the corruption which has plagued that country and brought an otherwise rich country on the brink of economic collapse. i say to my friend of kentucky that the prime minister of ukraine is here, and i hope that he would have a chance to hear from him how dire this situation is. and it isn't just the $1 billion in loan guarantees. they need a lot more help than that. they are going to get $15 billion from the european union. it is a sign -- it is a signal, a clear signal, that this congress and this president working together are willing to help them and assist them at a

time of the most critical need that they have. and frankly, if we adopted the pending amendment, it would send exactly the opposite signal, and this whole situation in ukraine is extremely fragile. i would think the worst thing that we could do right now is say that we aren't going to assist you, and i also would point out again, i.m.f. loans, which is really the long-term solution to their economic difficulties as senator murphy pointed out, they require reforms to be implemented as they give the money in traunches to this government. i have seen the i.m.f. in action before in these kinds of situations, and i am confident they would insist on the kind of reforms that are being promised now. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the member senator paul, i am going to recognize you for final comment, then i will have a comment, and then we'll call for a vote.

>> you know, i think if you were a bank, and you were going to give a loan, you would have some analysis of whether or not you can pay back the loan, what your assets are. i don't know that we've had any testimony on whether or not ukraine has the assets to be able to pay back any of this loan. so the real question would be, if we are going to be more honest, we would say, if we're going to do this, we just want to give them a gift maybe and not call them a loan. that would be much more honest. i don't know. if a person owes $150,000 on their house and their house is only worth $100,000, and they can only make payments really on $90,000, is it a good idea to give them more money? i don't know. i think maybe sometimes restructuring your debt and starting over might be a good idea, particularly if a lot of that debt is owed to the russians. really, the money goes to somebody. some very wealthy people will

profit off of this. maybe not the people of ukraine, but some banks will get their payments from this, very wealthy countries, countries we are not very happy with will make profit off this money. they owe $2 billion to russia. they owe another $20 billion to banks. it is unclear how much of this will find its way to government hands. realize when you give money to ukraine, you are giving it to russia. you may think you are sending one signal but i think you are in an unintended fashion sending another. >> i appreciate the senator's views. let me say the chair poses the amendment. the amendment strikes all loan guarantee he's, it strikes the i.m.f. reform. while it strikes that, it keeps rescissions that were originally included in the bill to offset the i.m.f. reforms. so it doesn't seem to me we should be having to keep rescissions if we were to adopt this amendment. there is no question for those who want to stand with the

ukraine, for those who believe that in doing so is in the national interests and security of the united states, for those who are concerned about security issues that it is the i.m.f. that is going to play a critical role, not only in the economic recovery and stability of the ukraine, but in doing so, playing a national security issue. it is also very clear that the i.m.f. is not going to give ukraine a single dime if, in fact, it does not meet a series of standards and obligations in order to do so. so our best guaranteee of ensuring both what has been stated on both sides of the aisle, which is to promote the stability of the ukraine because it is in our national interests and national security as well as obviously the people of the ukraine and to have the i.m.f. be the vehicle to be able to

ensure that that happens in terms of the key role in developing an international assistance package to stablize ukraine's committee, help implement critical reforms and reassure financial markets. with regard to the loan gaurptees in this part of the reform, this bill closely reflects that passed by the house of representatives 385-23. the one thing we do here that the house does not do is we actually have offsets to deal with the loan guaranteee. i think for all of these reasons i would urge my colleagues to vote against the paul amendment. i don't know if the senator is seeking a voice vote. does the senator accept a voice vote? all those in favor will say aye. all those opposed will say no. no? the "nos" have it and the amendment is not agreed to. any other member wishing to offer amendments? mr. barasso. >> i would like to call barasso amendment number one. page one, u.s. hopes boon in

natural gas, quote putin easing on ukraine. then "tightens squeeze on ukraine." my bill would allow liquefied natural gas exports from ewe tain to our nato allies. if we are serious about helping the people of ewe craven, we must extradite the process of liquefied natural gas. russia has no problem using its natural gas to intimidate and coerce other countries. the united states has an tun to be a supplier to l.n.g. and to our allies. this would allow increased energy and security among u.s. allies, help reduce their need to purchase oil and gas from countries such as russia and iran. as the international relations emergency in ukraine unfolds, it is clear exports from ukraine

and other nato allies furthers both the public interest and natural allies. it would help nations diversify energy imports in order to break russian dominance and their control over natural gas supplies. >> mr. chairman. >> senator corker. >> i want to thank senator barasso. he has been way before this crisis out there on this issue. i have a second degree amendment that i bheeve would bring this amendment more fully in mind with w.t.o. issues, which i am afraid that base amendment bumps up against. i know there are some complexities. i know we had a discussion the other day about l.n.g. and how you cause it to get to the place

you want it to get to. i'm going to not offer the second amendment, but i think this may not pass. i will say to my friend from wyoming, i will vote for this, and as we move along, if it is offered again on the floor, we might work together to make this work better. but i appreciate the thrust, and for that reason i'm going to support your amendment. >> before i recognize other members, which i will, and i appreciate senator barasso's being a continuous voice in that regard. and there are other members of the committee that join him on that issue. i would let the committee know that it is the chair's intention not to rule on this because it is without of the chair's jurisdiction. this bill has been referred to the banking committee. i know the energy committee also has strong jurisdictional interests on the matter. our committee has not examined the issue.

i certainly want to work with my colleagues who have strong feelings about the issue. senator barasso, senator mccain, senator udall, and others, to build the record and to try to forge where we might be headed. but for right now, this amendment, which is, i believe, not in the jurisdiction of the committee. also i would urge it be set aside. if it were in fact to pass, we would ultimately have this referred to other committees, and we have the urgency, i think, of the moment. there is also a view that because we have that urgency of the moment that what is proposed on l.n.g. would not have an immediate impact for the ukraine because ukraine does not have the import infrastructure to accept u.s. natural gas. it does not currently have the wherewithal to build that, and turkey has atold ukraine if it

ever did build l.n.g. structure, it would block them out of safety concerns. we can have a debate about all of that, but above all, i don't believe that the amendment is within the committee's jurisdiction, and i also believe that we would also believe that we would delay the bill. senator boxer? >> i strongly support the bill. i am so pleased you have worked across the aisle with senator corker and all my colleagues to stand with ukraine. i have to say that this i'm type of amendment that will lead to increases in energy prices of up to 30% to our people deserves more than a cursory vote attached to a ukrainian bill. and for those of u.s. putting a price on carbon, we are yelled at every day because it might lead to a 20% increase in

electricity. this is a huge increase. for all the reasons you've cited, we can't today resolve all these issues. some day it might be a terrific idea and it might work real well, but right now, i want to help ukraine, i don't want to hurt the american people. so i hope we will table this, or perhaps it can be withdrawn. it needs a much longer discussion than we have time for today. and again, congratulations on the underlying amendment. >> thank you, mrs. chairman. senator barasso raises an important and legitimate issue. we know that the ukraine as well as georgia, the balance ticks, the former warsaw pac countries and former soviet repics are all subject to extortion by vladimir putin and the russians as

well as the european union, i might add, over the availability and cost of natural gas. he has played that card every chance he gets to put pressure on them. i think we need to ad depress this. i won't rule out the possibility, but some of the questions that have been raised here. not just the environmental question, and the cost of utilities in our country, but we are seeing a mini resurgence of manufacturing jobs in america because of the low cost of natural gas. i think it is incumbent on us to ask the important question, what cost to the american economy will there be? how many jobs will we lose? we may create jobs in liquefied natural gas, transport facilities and the like, but how many will we lose in the manufacturing sector if the price of natural gas in our country goes up because of this decision? these are all relevant, important questions. i don't know how they will be resolved, but i think the chairman is right. this really needs to be brought to several committees of

jurisdiction to make sure we have a thoughtful approach. >> senator udall. >> thank you, very much, chairman menendez. and let me just say, senator barasso, the thrust of where you are going with this is a very good idea, and i support it. i think the support of l.n.g. is something we should be doing as a country. we have to somehow shake up the d.o.e. process that is going on. it is, in my opinion, going through slowly. several bills have been introduced. senator barasso, as you know, my colleague and our colleague mark udall, has introduced a bill that would improve exports of all w.t.o. countries from existing or future facilities. i support this effort. the volume will be determined by the price of gas and the cost of facilities. the gas will likely go where there is the most need. there is a strong interest, i think, in eastern europe given russia's strong economic

behavior. last summer i joined a bipartisan letter with both democrats and republicans to support further l.n.g. exports, and i understand there is also bipartisan opposition to this policy. but what the letter said, and these are both democrats and republicans saying this, and it is even more true today, the world is hungry for u.s. natural gas. and the geo-political implications of l.n.g. imports are tremendous. what you are doing i would really like to work with you on, but i think this could derail this very important bill we're working on, so i'm going to support the chairman in terms of referring the jurisdiction and the ruling that he has made. thank you, chairman menendez. >> senator. >> thank you. because this has come up a number of times, i can see at least three positions on this

committee and i can see at least one in the body. one the position articulated by senator boxer and it was also articulated by senator markey. second, that we should be exporting l.n. g. it is a commodity, like all commodities. and a third opinion, which is mine, that we should export it in a limited way to accomplish certain national security objectives. if this bill were just about the ukraine, i might be willing to support it. frankly, there are three different positions about a pretty complex issue. i feel pretty strongly about my point of view, but i acknowledge there are some other good faith arguments. i think doing it in the context of this bill when i hope we would send a strong message of support for ukraine i think would complicate it. i hope we will be able to get to that debate, because these three positions ought to be thrashed out.

we should have the kind of debate senator marquis was talking about -- senator markey was talking about last week. >> thank you. yeah, we need a timeout on this issue. we don't know enough to make an informed judgment in this committee on an issue which is fundamental to american economic security. and i think that the more people understand about this issue is the more reluctant they are going to become in exporting our most valuable resource, oil and natural gas. we're not in surplus in the united states us -- in the united states at all. we still import natural gas and oil. we're not in a squation where we should be sending this valuable element in our security overseas. as we export young men and women over to the middle east to defend the imports of oil into our country. that's a pretty big decision for us to make in a foreign policy context, by the way, in terms of

what does enhance our security. last year natural gas prices went up 27%. as a result, there was fuel shifting back over to coal. meaning our careen house gases went up 2% last year, went up last year, because of the shifting back to coal because the price of natural gas went up. that's a big decision as we talk about climate change in this committee. we have jurisdiction over any climate treaty. we should think about that. as we work to america to reach its commitments to copenhagen on greenhouse gases in 2020, we have a responsibility to talk about that. we also have a responsibility to talk about the natural gas vehicle industry, and the utility industry, and consumers in our country as well. the more we export is the better it is. by the way, this natural gas is highly unlikely to ever go to the ukraine. let's just say that. pe we know they have plans -- they don't have plans to build a terminal, they don't have the capacity, and they -- the turks would oppose them even getting access to it. this is a highly flammable cryo-frozen fuel that would have

a nuclear bomb-like impact if there was a terrorist attack. i understand tour turkey's objections, but ukraine is unlikely to ever build a terminal. moreover, as we look at this issue, we have to ensure that we think about american consumers. there has always been a debate over what impact -- our climate change bill would have on american consumers. well, this would have a dramatically larger impact than anything else that's ever been

done. the energy information agency pretty much has concluded in its statement back to the congress that if four trillion cubic feet of l.n.g. have been imported, it would lead to close to a $262 billion increase to american consumers. now, if we talk here about a $62 billion tax on consumers each year in any other context but national security, people would be outraged. and as i come from an energy exporting state, i understand that. but 31 states are energy import. they don't have any natural gas or oil. we have to import it. i understand the perspective of those states that export. but this is our most valuable commodity, oil and gas. it's not like a watch manufacturer exporting, it is not like the kumkwat industry exporting. if we're going to talk about a

country that is not in surplus right now, the united states, or diplomatic reasons to be sending a signal, well, the signal is going to be for rio, seoul, beijing get ready to purchase this low cost natural gas. because as that goes out on the open market, our price goes up, because we have less levels, but the bonanza is in these other countries. and we have to talk about who the beneficiaries are in terms of manufacturing of our goods sold back to us. the control of this is not in the congress, and it is not for sure in the bhouse. the control is in the c.e.o.'s offices of energy companies in the united states. they are going to take it to the highest price.

and the highest price by far is china, but the way, and japan and rio, going south and going east. but it is not going west to europe. the hands on the tiller of those ships is controlled by rex tillerson at exxon, and he has a responsibility to his share holders to get the highest price. the ukraine can't compete and europe can't compete, and that's the bottom line. that's the reality of where it is going to go, but the reality is the american consumer is the one going to have the energy tax put on their shoulders and it will hurt all aspects of our economic growth. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> i urge members, since i am going to rule this out of order, that this may be a debate or another time. senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator markey mentioned reality. i have heard it repeatedly said that russia moving to crimea demonstrates its weakness.

to me it seems like a pretty strong move. what i like about this is it highlights the strategic weakness that has allowed this. the fact is, the west, europe, handing out oil, we need to recognize the reality, we need to weaken putin's hands and strengthen ours. long-term we need to have this discussion, this debate. again, that's what i appreciate about senator barasso's amendment. >> senator sheheen? >> i thank asenator barasso for raising this discussion. i think it is a discussion we need to have. but given that your intending to rule this amendment, and i assume the other, out of order, would hope we would discontinue our debate before we lose our quorum.

>> i appreciate the senator's observation. senator barasso. >> mr. chairman, i realize you have the power to make certain rulings in this committee, and i obviously disagree that this be put off until another day. but there are other amendments that deal with the jurisdiction of the banking committee, reappropriating funds from the department of defense is not necessary -- not necessarily the jurisdiction of this committee. i appreciate the kind comments from the committee. many members of the committee have said they want to take real steps to help ukraine. i am offering congress a chance to help ukraine and our

allies. the message we are sending now is we are more willing to protect russia's energy monopoly. the irony is not going to be lost on the people of the ukraine or the allies or the leaders in the kremlin. it is clear by not voting we are rewarding russia with more power at the international monetary fund while denying ukraine the opportunity to be more energy independent from russian energy sources. if members are willing to provide american taxpayer dollars from ukraine to pay russian gas bills, then we should en-- i would say by passing my amendment, the united states has the ability to be the strategic supplier to our nato allies and ukraine. it is worth noting that my amendment on l.n.g. exports has strong bipartisan support in the committee. i expect our bipartisan coalition to pass an amendment that helps ukraine decrease the -- helps ukraine.

i look forward to traveling to ukraine tomorrow and speaking to them bl buying natural gas from america to help decrease russia's grip on ukraine. >> i appreciate the senator's remarks, concern, and commitment to the issue. the chair rules the amendment out of order as a topic outside the jurisdiction of the committee. in the interests of the chair's interests the chair would ask other comments to be entered at this point in time as it relates to other elements of senator barasso's comments about other jurisdictional elements we have included in the committee. i would be happy to go through those, but i think in the interests of time, we will just put those in the record. without objection, the amendment is ruled out of order. does anyone else wish to participate in the amendments? >> i want to offer my amendment number one. it strikes section nine and offsets to the department of defense.

in order to help offset the cost, as well as to help with the enhanced security funding. my primary point -- i realize there are differences of opinion. i don't believe this is essential for the bill. it is controversial. it will divide us. we are not providing a unified front in a situation where i think we should. i do not support the amendment from senator paul. i think it is important we send a strong signal. what i'm concerned that this provision does keep us from preventing a unified front.

>> very briefly i wanted to speak to senator paul's amendment three you are not going to have the type of input or the type of economic plan that can work in ukraine. they are coming up with a plan. the u.s. needs to participate in that. the imf reforms, the cost to fully offset, that has been one of the controversial issues. i hope we would recognize that for the u.s. to fully engage on this package which is in our national security interest -- i want to underscore a point that senator murphy made.

the ukraine has been pulled in two directions. whether they are part of russia or europe. they want to be with europe. we shouldn't force them economically to have to make a choice to be dependent on russia. imf is part of the solution. the u.s. has to be part of the modernized imf reforms. these changes are needed. >> senator murphy. >> this isn't theoretical, it is practical. developing nations are increasingly hesitant to join with imf efforts to provide relief with the proper strings attached in places like ukraine. so long as the west end on the sidelines. this has practical consequences

for our ability to help lead the imf into situations where they are bested but to do so. if we continue to sit on the sidelines and the committee continues to be unwilling to have the u.s. join other nations, there will be justification for those developing nations to provide roadblocks to the type of assistance that ultimately as to u.s. security interests in the case of the ukraine. >> if there are no other members, let me say that i respect the senator's views. i disagree on the imf, particularly in this package. the imf is playing the central anchoring role in developing an international assistance package to stabilize ukraine's economy. and reassure global financial markets. the reason we seek to strengthen the imf's efforts -- it would increase available emergency funding by 16%, sending an

important signal to other potential doors. is also crucial to ensure that the u.s. maintains its preeminent leadership and influence within the imf and increase the effectiveness of the imf and protecting global financial stability. including the 20 reforms. this bill will ensure the fund has the necessary resources to support structural reforms in the ukraine. and the wherewithal to prevent a financial crisis in the ukraine that could spill over to global markets and threaten u.s. economic security. the events in the ukraine are the perfect example for why the world needs a strong international financial -- and the imf to serve as its first responder. all parties are looking to the imf as the lead actor developing a financial stabilization package in the ukraine. this preventing an economic crisis that would only

exacerbate current tensions. and further damage u.s. geopolitical priorities. for all of us who are concerned about stability and security, all of us were talking about the next crisis, i heard voices complaining about the administration not responded to the ukraine at a different time. and the west was not responding sufficiently. you have to be in a position to do that. the position is through the imf. even our loan during tea is nowhere near what you will need to accomplish through the imf. we need to get this done for the ukraine. we need to get it done for the next global crisis. for us to be in a preeminent leadership position with influence over what the imf

does. we do that by meeting our obligation. it is very important to do so. i opposed the amendment. i respect his views. i think we have had a full debate. >> i don't believe the u.s. will be standing on the sidelines. i don't believe the imf will not be able to act. i want to refute those charges. this is simply not necessary for this package. but i would request a rollcall vote. >> i would say to the gentleman that i spoke to christine. she sees this as an essential element of being able to move forward not only in this crisis but in others. which will likely --

we will call the roll. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> no. >> murphy? no. >> no. >> mr. corker? >> no. >> mr. rich? >> aye. >> mr. rubio? >> he didn't send a proxy. >> aye. >> no. >> i am sure he is a yes. meaning no.

[laughter] >> the clerk will continue the role. >> esther paul? -- mr. paul? >> yes by proxy. >> no. >> he is not coming. the clerk will report. [indiscernible] >> excuse me? [indiscernible]

>> i know washington counts in unique ways. the amendment is not agree to. anybody else wishing to offer an amendment? >> we have it in amendment from me. what the amendment would do is add number eight to section 6 (a). and to also address violence against women and girls. i want to thank senators johnson, boxer, durbin for cosponsoring. and senator cardin has been asked to be added as a cosponsor. let me point out the reason i thought this would be important

to add is because of we look at how ukraine fares when it comes to their treatment of women, they rank very low in terms of women's political anticipation. 119 out of 136. only 10% of women in parliament in ukraine are women. 45% of women in the ukraine report that they have been subject to violence at some point in their lifetime. i think this is an issue it is important for us to continue for this to focus on. i hope the committee will support this amendment. >> i thank the senator for her amendment.

>> i share the sentiments. is there anyone who wants to speak to the amendment? the ayes have it and the minute is agreed to. >> you have an amendment that is a very simple amendment. we have prepared every year a report regarding chinese military activity. this does the same thing for russia. admittedly, a similar report was included in the defense authorization bill, but for one year only. given the activities of russia recently, it appears to me we have to have this as an ongoing report. it adds a few other things to what was in the annual report that was asked for in the defense authorization bill such as an update on the nuclear

modernization programs, weapons proliferation, and others. it should be relatively noncontroversial. it attempts to support ukraine and at least take a hard look at the russians if not actually do some appropriate discipline. this falls in the latter category. >> i generally am supportive of the thrust of what the senator wants to do. the amendment asks the dod to prepared a report to congress on the future military power of the russian federation. that is fine. but the amendment also requires a full accounting of our military to military engagement took this with russia. it asks for a detailed summary of the topics discussed. that would likely curtail the potential for productive meetings between the u.s. and russian defense officials. it would likely and any chances of u.s. russian military cooperation.

with the gentleman consider taking that section out? in which case i would be prepared to accept his amendment. >> i would. mr. chairman, i think that is a broad interpretation. having said that, i can take that out. >> i will make a motion that the menendez amendment to strike the language i just referred to be accepted. is there a second? all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes have it. are you willing to except a voice vote? all those in favor say aye. the amendment is adopted. is there any other amendment? >> although mr. rubio is not here, he is here in spirit.

he has jury duty and has asked me to offer on his behalf rubio number one. it adds language to paragraph 15. that language strengthens the language of regarding the situation with russia's participation in the g-8. most language in the bill puts sideboards or restrictions if you would on russia's participation in the g-8.

and that particular language is strong -- talking about not invading your neighbors. this adds additional language -- the norms -- that would be added after discouraging them from entering and violating territorial integrity of the neighbors. >> is there anyone who wishes to speak to this amendment? you have other amendments? >> no. >> i am inclined to be more excepting if there are limits. >> i already gave you might answer. any member who wishes to speak to the amendment?

if not, all in favor say aye. the amendment is agreed to. we thank him for his civic participation in jury duty. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i contend we are sending mixed messages to russia on whether or not we are encouraging them by sending them loan money via ukraine. are sending them a message that their behavior is unacceptable. i offer this amendment to make it clear we would like to send a message. we will call this paul amendment three. this will end a $50 million fund, the u.s. russia investment fund.

there are clever washington mathematicians who have concluded that cutting spending is increasing spending. i don't agree with that. this would send a good signal if not a great deal of money. a signal to russia that we are unhappy with the behavior and putting our money where our mouth is. >> any other member who wishes to speak to this amendment? >> if we could have a roll call, i would appreciate it. thank you. >> while i appreciate senator paul's thinking and tapping the trust funds, recent events have underscored the need for more assistance to democracy, rule of law, and civil society organizations in russia, not less. the amendment is technically not

possible. the fund is not free for reprogramming. it is an independent capital fund incorporated in delaware, with specific restrictions on its expenditures. i think that what we need to do is hope of democracy and rule of law in russia. not take away resources. i would have to oppose the senator's amendment. >> i know the house looked at this, saying cbo would actually score this is spending. not as a reduction. they were counting on the money coming back to the treasury. for what it is worth, i appreciate the intent of

reducing spending, but but it has been indicated it will be scored in the opposite direction. it takes money -- i would like to point that out. >> does the senator -- the clerk will call the roll. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> durban. >> murphy. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> mr. corker? >> no. >> aye. >> mr. rubio? >> mr. johnson? >> aye.

>> no proxy available. no vote. >> no proxy available. no vote. >> mr. paul? >> aye. >> the clerk will report. >> nos are 11. yays are 4. >> one final comment. with reference to the defense appropriations under this bill, these are rescinded from unobligated balances from other procurement. it is a fund that is under executing. this is out of a $6.4 billion appropriation that procures various types of equipment. we are talking about $57 million in budget authority.

it is also out of a program that the army, due to the recent termination of a certain program, has ultimately decided to retire all of what they call the warrior helicopters. that program is proposed for cancellation in the budget request. on all of these defense appropriations it has been vetted with the appropriators. programs itng about has canceled. we feel it is fitting. they can share with both the state department and the dod. work with happy to

you to find these recessions. that they have no hisction >> i appreciate role as the chair. i hope that eliminates any questions. the vote is on final passage of the bill. the senator. >> i will vote against this. i have to tell you i am disappointed. i wanted to do the things we all want to do with the ukraine. i'm disappointed we have included matters regarding the imf that i think should be debated separately. that i and others have strong feelings on. as a result of that, i will cast a no vote. i'm hoping after it comes back from the house and that is out of there, i can vote positively. >> all those in favor. aye by proxy.

>> mr. durbin? >> aye. >> murphy? >> aye. >> i by proxy -- aye by proxy. >> mr. johnson? >> aye by proxy. >> no by proxy. >> mr. chairman? >> aye. >> 14 -- the legislation is favorably reported to the senate. i ask unanimous consent that staff the allowed to make technical and conforming changes to the bill.

with that, this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> we will continue this tomorrow on "washington journal." we will talk to angela stent at 9:15 est. we will also look at air travel and how the disappearance of flight 370 could change air travel with mary schiavo. on the democratic party's campaign against the koch brothers and their political influence. inthal will have more. at a starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. on monday, john kerry will be

hosting a town hall meeting for college students at the state department with remarks on making foreign policy less foreign. the secretary will also unveil the department of state by state map object which shows the ways in which the department programs have benefited each of the 50 states. we will have the money. here is their vote and at 11 -- .nd the deliberation for >> we are called to order. the provision area agenda for

this meeting -- 28th of february, 2014. from the ukraine to the united 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 representative of albania, germany, austria, belgium, bulgaria, canada, cyprus, croatia, denmark, estonia, finland, georgia, greece, hungary, iceland, italy, japan, latvia, liechtenstein, malta, montenegro, norway, new zealand, the netherlands, poland, portugal, republic of moldova, czech republic, slovakia, slovenia, sweden, turkey, and ukraine to participate in this meeting.

it is so decided. the security council will now begin consideration of item two of the agenda. members of the council have before them document s-2014-189, the text of a draft resolution submitted by albania, germany, australia, austria, belgium, bulgaria, canada, cyprus, denmark, spain, estonia, the united states of america,

finland, france, georgia, greece, hungary, iceland, italy, japan, latvia, liechtenstein, lithuania, moldova, norway, new zealand the netherlands, portland, portugal, czech republic, the united kingdom, northern ireland, slovakia, sweden, turkey, and ukraine.

i shall now give the four to council members who wish to make a statement before the vote. i give the floor from the representative of the russian federation. >> thank you, madam president. many times we have put forth in this chamber the essence of the 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 illegal the 16 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. it 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 threat of individuals in their order across ukraine. it 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 here that up 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. when the ussr fell, it became part of ukraine automatically. the view of the people of crimea was ignored. after the fall of the ussr, more than 20 years, crimea attempted to defend itself. in january of 1991, in crimea, there was a referendum conducted. as a result, there was a lot -- law that established a economy. in december 1991, the high council of crimea adopted a declaration. in 1992, a constitution was adopted in crimea. it declared them an independent state. however, in 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. i shall now put the draft resolution to the vote. those in 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. this is, 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. we have heard a lot each time 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. as we know, the word truth has a 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. it was grounded in principles 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 member states. these are principles that russia agrees with and defense vigorously around the world, except, it seems, in circumstances that involve russia. the resolution broke new -- no new legal ground. it called on all parties to do what they had previously pledged to internationally binding agreement to do. we recall the helsinki act and 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. russian 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. at the moment of decision, only 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. the world believes that people 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. it was given 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 deny 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 representative of france. >> madam president, it is with a

feeling of incredulity that we are meeting here today. we feel incredulity at the 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 -- respecting form and debating on the legal basis for action. wednesday, -- one day, a letter from a head of state disappeared. the next day, it was recorded. then, after feverish research, we hear it was exhumed from 1975. moscow is willing to grasp it star -- 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 colleague and i are in agreement and with the representative said in 1975. any attempt to destroy the national unity or integrity of our country is incompatible with the principles of the united nations charter.

in reality, nothing emerges from 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. not the slightest violence is observed by journalists. not confirmed by refugees. 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. we cannot 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. at 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. it would mean 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. it is a defeat, just for russia. 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. it invited 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. madame president, the position 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. on thursday, 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.

and yet, in defiance to the budapest memorandum, whereby the russian 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. individual 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. let me quote 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. it is a missed context that this 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. to democracy and the rule of 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. they 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. if there is a dispute, it could endanger peace and security. first of all, we will seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, -- resort to agencies or 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 -- >> thank you, madam president. we wish to extend our thoughts 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. is the objective being stated? 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. most important, for us, this 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. it is time to 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. give a chance to talks. 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. finally, 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. >> madame 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. therefore, it calls for a comprehensive and balanced solution. china has always respected sovereignty of territories and integrity of all states. this is the 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. to stop the crisis in ukraine, the key is to act with in the framework of law and order. seeking early solution of the differences, through dialogue and negotiations. with respect to the legitimate 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. china has 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.

we continue to mediate and 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. thirdly, 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. the delegation of chile voted in favor of the draft resolution. we believe that this constitutes appropriate response of the counsel to the current crisis in ukraine. given the situation, there are 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

observe the independence and 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 the status of crimea is not in accordance with the constitution of ukraine. a unified state, of which crimea is part and parcel. it is fundamental that they rule 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. the way to resolve the crisis has to be a peaceful one, by means of dialogue.

in accordance with the provisions of international law, chile regrets that the united nations, which bears the primordial responsibility of safeguarding international peace and security, has not been able to support a 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 believes that 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. including all political and social actors, who today disagree. we trust that all of the parties in ukraine will refrain from unilateral action that could hamper dialogue or remove the opportunity for a peaceful solution. we believe that it is all up to 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. we then hope that all countries 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. >> i think 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. the 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 ukraine, including by resisting 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 -- russia can be under no 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. we firmly believe that the unity 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.

still, we very much hope that 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. nigeria has 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 goalie called on everyone to abide by these principles in the interest of international peace and security. the draft resolution, which is 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. we have consistently called for 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. this should serve as a beacon to law-abiding nations. nigeria is vehemently opposed to the decision 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.

the referendum and crimea is not in confidence with the constitution of you crane. the consequences of any defiance 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 crisis, chad has consistently 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 --

it is a sacrosanct principle, 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 commitment to the principles. and then in particular from the security we think that it is still there to open the way for national reconciliation and maintaining ukraine's territorial integrity by engaging in dialogue tween the various components.

and respect for diversity, human rights and the rights of minorities, chad reiterates its call for the upholding of the territorial integrity and nonuse of force and diesel settlement of disputes in step with united nations charter. also, we would like to once again appeal to calm and restraint and believe the solution can only be a political and negotiated one. >> i now give the floor to the representative of jordan.

>> thank you, madam president. jordan has voted in favor of the draft resolution mentions in the document 2014. out of the belief of jordan and respect of ukraine's sovereignty and political independence and noninterference in affairs. it comes upon the adherence of the charger, especially one there of. and resorting to peaceful means to settle a dispute. jordan confirms the importance of holding the authority of ukraine including crimea to ukrainian sovereignty including the memorandum of understanding of 1994 and the agreement of a friendship between ukrain and russian federation of 1997.

>> i thank the representative of jordan for that statement. i shall make a statement, speaking as the representative of luxembourg. luxembourg deeply reset -- regrets of the resolution of prepared by the united states of the america was not adopted because of the member of the council russia. luxembourg voted in favor of the resolution. why? this draft resolution was anchored on principles of dialogue.