in the modern. . don't listen to all the political consultants. a prerequisite would be a certain amount of economic trouble. if the interest rate is 9%, a coolidge will be a serious political candidate, just not as two or three. in terms of economic liberty, you are right to point to the new deal era. people do not talk about property rights. they talk about all kinds of rights, but not rights of property. clearly, there was an assault on rights of property. we are beginning to have this conversation again, beginning to discover that rights of our party are a part of this foundation for order and liberty. that conversation needs to be had more intelligently.

>> good morning. this is addressed to anybody on the panel that wants to respond. given the last hundred years and where we have arrived at, are we passed the point of no return? >> i will take a first shot, and then you guys can. aresitate to say that we past the point of no return. i do not know the future. i think history can provide some perspective. it's easy to look at and say, "these things were different in the past and have changed now," but even just looking at 1964, goldwater got killed, right? the politics did not look very good. ryan was pointing out some of the culture shifts. can you imagine living during the time of the civil war when

americans were killing americans? we have had some pretty dark times in the country, so i am hesitant to say this is the darkest. -- there's -- i try a brief line and there, but i do take solace in jimmy stewart's line from "mr. smith" the great principles are not lost if they come to light. i believe if we do redouble our efforts to articulate those principles over and over, that in time, circumstances will shift to win those principles will again be transcendent. i am hopeful. to whistle past my grave, but i am hopeful. i don't know what that looks like. >> i will stick to the cultural somewhat in which i am pessimistic if only because the elites are so dead set against what a healthy culture would look like and what they preach but not in what they practice.

there's a book called "coming apart" that looks at the stated the white family in america because the author wanted to avoid charges of racism. was truthful ones, crime, mediocrity, religious practice, and it was marriage, and he saw that the college-educated, high school educated upper-middle-class whites more or less were living this out at the same rate they were 50 years ago, but for the lower class and the lower middle class, those who did not go to college or graduate high school, their religious practice rates were really low and marriage rates were really low. their work habits were really poor and their crime rates were fairly high. when he noticed was that no one among the intelligentsia who were practicing these virtues were willing to preach about them. there was preaching nonjudgmental as him. then he said what holds true for the right family is true for the hispanic family is true for the black family, so it's not just

an artifact of racial data mining. this is true for america at large. my fear is that we have too much ism, and it has trapped people in cycles of poverty. the likelihood of any of my college classmates, of the children really experiencing poverty is next to none. they are going to practice their lives in a certain way and raise their kids in a certain way. the people who are living in anacostia, a neighborhood in d.c. where over 70% of the children grow up without fathers -- those children have done nothing wrong, but they've been dealt a very bad hand in life. it's not clear what any of the elites in america are doing to try to counteract that. [applause] >> amity, you don't want to try to brighten it up again?

i'm glad ryan brought that up because one of the elements you look at when you are a faith-based institution is exactly the kind of questions ryan raised. one of the questions i think about is not just the preaching but actively working against the .nly thing that will work i am not a historian, but i do not know a time in the united thees history when we had entirely basically be a post to everything that made for strong society and families and all that, and i don't know how you get that back. they are not suffering because of the beliefs that they have embraced. yes, sir. >> i am a student here at regent. first, i want to say i appreciate your perspective. a single father. my youngest son is 17. right now, he is working his way

through agnostic influence trying to find a balance between conservative they sit in doubles, the sort of things that he takes to heart, and libertarian ideas, but i have to get my son credit -- he is certain to engage in many deep conversations, and the one thing that i believe has made a difference is god has made a spiritual difference in his life, and i'm waiting for a spiritual breakthrough for my son. the question i want to post to anyone on the panel -- we look to processes in government. for example, we look at the affordable health care act and 2100-page document out there and we were told once they pass the law, they would find out what is in it. it defeats the purpose of putting legislation through. it totally just demeans and undermines us putting through practical, commonsense, everyday guidance for the laws of the land. do you think we could ever get back to a place of putting rules in place in congress to simplify

and revolve back to where they are not overlapping each other, and do you think a good place to start would be putting term limits on people in office so we can get these professional politicians out of the way and get some true heart and spirit in the office? [applause] [laughter] .> take a stab, somebody >> the supreme court has kind of shut the door on federal term limits at this point. sounds like we would need a constitutional amendment for that. it's not hard to believe because of the media, but the nancy pelosi line of, "let's pass this 2300-page bill so we can see what is in it" and it has taken us three or four years to figure out all the pitfalls that it's unbelievable that that has not gotten more play more widely.

there is something in congress with these huge omnibus bills. the affordable care act is typical american progressivism. let's get some kind of language out there and let technocrats and administration run our lives, and that is basically the affordable care act. the democrats did not really care much for what was in it as long as there was some language for determining how to run our life and health care. our president has not shown a lot of respect for separation of power. he modifies the affordable care act whenever he wants to buy executive order, which is a serious problem. you have heard some in congress recently talk about what we are going to do about the president hoc, atnging laws ad will. there's not an easy answer to that given this political environment. the only real thing congress can do is something people don't want to talk about. to -- anyonee yet else?

>> hi, there. my question to the panel at large covers a cultural aspect and a policy aspects, and you are imminently qualified to speak on it. that is -- and by the way, the last question, i think the affordable health care act is the greatest gift the left could have given us because it took the disaster of the labour party in 1970's for britain for thatcher to get elected. it took the multiple disasters that culminated in the carter administration finally to get reagan elected, so it's the perfect segue to this because we have an opportunity. my question to the distinguished panel is this -- how do we weaponize our unfair advantage law andruth, of natural fundamental absolutes versus the disaster and now we have empirical evidence to exploit up

postmodernism and relativism? now. >> it's very interesting what a good question -- it's also about timing and a time for choosing is about timing. reagan did not give that speech in other years. a very astute politician will know the moment to give it. it was not just because it was a presidential campaign and so on. there may indeed be, sadly, political advantage from the health care act. the winner in that situation is theone who puts forward highly, extremely simple health such as catastrophic health care insurance. one page. withe republicans counter 2000 pages, what is the difference between them and obamacare? it has got to be a very simple

program, and these are possible. they are even actuarially, mathematically possible. whoever has the courage to put that forward and stick to it, some of the late compromises about the budget were more about the commission than what the commission proffered. a plan that stands on its own without a politician. i think the preceding question over here was getting at the general bureaucratization of our culture, and that's a problem, too, from which both parties suffer. why is it so bad? because it takes away authority of the individual to make a choice if he cannot see what he is choosing because what is offered is so complex. ,gain, simplicity is the weapon and, fortunately, it's a good weapon. it's the right weapon. it's a righteous weapon. >> over here.

>> my name is holly. i just want to say thank you for speaking so that a 17-year-old can relate to this and understand this. my question is for mr. anderson. should be the constitutional backing of courts to defend traditional marriage? >> i think this defaults to the states' police powers, the regulation of public safety and a supreme that when court, state judge, or second-level judge is considering whether or not a marriage amendment is constitutional, they are not concerned with whether they agree with the marriage policy in question, but they are concerned with whether the state has the authority to make his marriage policy, if it violates some principle via the state constitution or u.s. constitution. the activist judges have been pointing to is a quality. they say somehow marriage law that we have had an america for the past 200 years violates the printable of equality, but you

cannot answer the question of equality without first answering the question of what marriage is. every marriage policies will draw certain lines between what is and is not a marriage. if a couple said marriage law is denying them marriage equality because it limits marriage to r hrouples, you would say no because marriages are by nature monogamous. and you would say because the union of a man and woman, husband and wife, mother and father. only a man and woman can unite and that type of action that can produce new life. every new life has one mother and one father. that means that the grounding principles for why marriage is both a union of male and female and why it is the union of only two people comes back to what marriage is and say you cannot just make a blanket appeal to the printable of equality because if it is just saying it special -- if we treat all consenting adult relationships the same, what you have now done is dissolve any category of

their it's because consenting adults can come in as many different sizes and shapes as there are relationships. they can be temporary. they can be permanent. they can be two or three or four. they can be sexually close or sexually open. we actually have new words to describe all these things. there's throuples. wedleases compared to wedlock. onogamish.'s m the way that the state does this, non-coercively, nonintrusive way, is by promoting marriage. it does not force anyone to get married. it does not force a man to marry a woman and take care of their kid, but they can hold it up as an ideal. the other thing i want to add to the question is i think that right now, it's also a great opportunity for making a connection between different parts of the center-right

coalition. andhe example of obamacare, a lot of social conservatives are upset with you because of the hhs mandate. they say it violates social liberty. this was a great teaching moment for them to say that it's not just that because of what it's doing to the little sisters and the poor. the only reason obama care is able to do that is because it was a power grab in the first place. to get the hhs mandate only when you have empowered health and human services to be issuing mandates in the first place, so it can help to see how limited government will best protect their cultural values as well, so then for the economic conservatives, to help them see how you need to have a strong civil society so that you then do not have a bleeding heart claiming we need a government welfare program to help the poor , so this can be the teaching moment to show how economic and social conservatism is best served. lobbye a booth out in the

on how to educate your fellow citizens. first you win the argument, then you win the vote. now is the time for teaching. >> thank you. standing, i would let you ask your questions, but dean refuses. maybe next time, you can do that. let's thank our panelists again. [applause] nations the united security council meeting on ukraine. after that, senators john mccain, dick durbin, and others hold a news conference. after that, another chance to see a ronald reagan symposium marking the 50th anniversary of the speech in which he endorsed barry goldwater for president. on the next "washington journal, " mary schiavo, former transportation department inspector general, will talk about the dissipation -- disappearance of malaysia airlines flight 370. dave levinthal examines the

democratic party campaign against a koch brothers and angela stent, georgetown university east asian studies director, offers her opinion on vladimir putin and whether crimea will leave ukraine. as always, we will take your calls, and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter all on "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the united nations security council held an emergency meeting on ukraine. members voted 13-1 to approve a revolution -- resolution reapproved in ukraine sovereignty and declaring the upcoming resolution crimea on whether the region should become part of russia as invalid. russia is one of the five permanent members of the council. in the tote the resolution. china abstained.

-- it vetoed the resolution. china abstained. following the vote was a referendum on a solution. this was about an hour and 10 minutes. >> 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, poland, 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 s impossible. 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 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 brave 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 ial. 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. on the 31st of may, 1997, at a ceremony to the monument of the liberated soldier in kiev, the late president of russia, boris yeltsin, declared that ukraine is a sovereign country. russia does not lay claim on any part of ukraine or on any other cities. 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 -- rwanda. >> 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. in 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 will 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, 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. 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 for parties to open the way for national reconciliation and maintaining ukraine's territorial integrity by engaging explosive dialogue between 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. this draft resolution was intended to record the principles of the united

nations, particularly in article two of the charger. it was intended to research the support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine with in its internationally recognized borders. the security council should be unanimous and upholding these principles. the united nations charter stated that the security council shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the united nations. today they presented the security council from complying -- prevented the council from complying. now dialogue and implementation of chapter six, the draft resolution before the council this morning was intended to

urge all parties immediately to seek a peaceful settlement i direct this. and to engage fully in international mediation efforts. the referendum organized for tomorrow is intended to amend the statutes against the will of ukraine. this would be a unilateral act which would run risk of seriously destabilizing ukraine in the entire region. the member states of the united nations have conferred on the council the chief responsibility

for keeping this. we prevented the security council from carrying out this responsibility and interest in ukraine and europe. the referendum organized tomorrow runs contrary to the constitution of ukraine that says the territory is indivisible. the referendum is contrary to the constitution of the autonomous republic of crimea. the international community can in no way recognize its result. this is part of a vicious cycle. to authorize the use of russian armed forces on ukrainian territory and subsequent actions consequent the international law. these actions violate the commitments russia entered into within the framework of the budapest manure and him.

-- referendum. had it been adopted, the draft resolution would have been a contribution to halt this vicious cycle and it's accompanying nationalism. essentially for russia. would it be naive to hope despite this failure we can find a peaceful resolution? luxembourg is not wish to abandon this hope. diplomatic efforts must continue to achieve a solution respecting the political independent territorial integrity with in

ukraine within the interest of prosperity in europe. i shall resume my function as president of the council. i now give the floor to the representative of ukraine. >> thank you, madam president, distinguished members of the security council. i would like to express my sincere gratitude to the members of the security council for the overwhelming support of the resolution as well as for your support in trying to resolve the crisis by diplomatic and political means. i would like to thank all of the cosponsors of the resolution for your support. we really need your support. i want to assure you that it is highly appreciated by the people of ukraine. i would like to particularly

thank the member states under the budapest memorandum who supported ukraine. the united states, united kingdom, france, and china to several times a voice in favor -- who several times voice in favor of territorial integrity. the russian federation violated its own obligations. this appeals to the russian leadership. very successful. what we are discussing today, the crisis in ukraine in crimea. i got a call 40 minutes ago. russian troops entered the mainland on the south from

crimea. now we're facing new developments. we are to face further dangers. i ask you to find the means and measures as well as the bilateral level to do what is responsible to stop the aggressor. this is not a surprise this comes at custom for any measures to maintain international peace and security. it is giving commissions in syria. it brought thousands. i'm confident we will speak

about the reforms of the security council. two cases, syria and crimea will be considered of examples of how the council behaves when peace is needed. in that particular part of my intervention i would like to say some words in russian. >> the representative of the russian federation has a stated it's great to be to achieved through the blood of the second world war. i would like to recall that this was collective bloodshed.

and to manipulate this bloodshed is in the miscible. -- inadmissible. you're manipulating the veto right on new blood, the blood on your hands. george and blood, now it ukrainian. -- georgian blood, now ukrainian. this should come to an end now. today i take an optimistic you of what is going on. i am sure that what the russian federation expressed was not the voice of the russian federation but that of the soviet union. thousands and thousands of people have come to express

their desire to protect ukraine and the territorial integrity. this the democratic future of russia them. it is on this basis we will build fraternal ties. there is the fall of the whole system of value established over the years. by the untiring work of members. a system of collective security. a process of nonproliferation. they demonstrated the unity, it ukrainian events. it protects the system. to protect the global security

there is a new approach. i am confident we are capable of this. thank you. >> i think the representative of ukraine for that statement. the represented -- the representative of the russian federation has asked for the floor. >> thank you. some colleagues today went to high levels. i have to note that the ukrainian colleague went far beyond anything permissible to forward to speak of blood. the blood is not on our hands but on the hands of your friends. the blood of the ukrainians who were shot by snipers in february of this year and to actually

upheld certain ideals reasonably and said that they have fought with the soviet union. i have to note that something jumps out at me. they have discussed not very developed argumentation on the whole but distorted elements of our position. i will not, and on everything which was heard today. i will make a few notes. it didn't not notice the smallest hint of violence. two citizens were killed by

fighters. the violence had to be noted. it hope it -- it happened over the month. violence. it threatens to spread to other regions. they blamed russia with the illegal pursuit of the ambitions. that does not go to us. this is from the political foreign-policy arsenal of the u.s.. they spoke of truth. they would be very interested to know if washington would pay -- play the truth about this. they spoke about the terrines

and aspirations while you negating the right of the people in crimea to express their will during the referendum. my colleagues that they were pushing for but had not excepted responsibility. the people of the region were the ones that should have been involved rather than intimidating people who spoke russian there. why was this not convened? it would be proven that there is not any ideology of national radicals. unfortunately, much time was lost. we would repeal to all to stop this confrontation and to begin constructive confrontation. it includes the eastern and

southeastern regions. >> >> i think the representative of the russian federation for that statement. there are no further speakers. this has concluded the examination. the meeting stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

a bipartisan group of u.s. senators were in ukraine this weekend. arizona republican senator john mccain is leading the delegation which includes republican senators john barrasso of wyoming john hogan of north dakota and ron johnson of wisconsin. three democratic senators are already there. the senators held a news conference to discuss the situation. this is about 30 minutes. >> good afternoon. i am senator john mccain of arizona and i am pleased to be joined today with a bipartisan group of my colleagues, senator the durbin of illinois, senator chris murphy of connecticut,

senator ron johnson of wisconsin, senator john barrasso of wyoming, senator sheldon whitehouse of rhode island, senator john holden of north dakota, and my fellow senator from arizona, jeff flake. i won't forget when senator murphy and i were here months ago, we stood in the trade union building and watched as hundreds of thousands of ukrainian patriots stood in the freezing cold and demanded freedom, rule of law, and a european future. we are honored to be here to congratulate you on all that you have accomplished, and all of us joined the ukrainian people in mourning more than 100 brave souls who gave their lives for the ukraine's future. we met with the prime minister, government leaders, including the governor of dennis with leaders from across the political spectrum including the party's regions, and with representatives from ukraine's business communities, civil society, and the model movement. we are here to express a strong

bipartisan support for ukraine that exists in the u.s. congress and among the american people. we are united in our full support for ukraine sovereignty, national unity, and territorial integrity. then against russia's baseless violation of these principles and its efforts to divide this country. we are also deeply concerned about reports today of russian military movement into areas around eastern ukraine. these movements are deeply disturbing. ukrainian government is legitimate, constitutional, and have them portend popular mandate for change, but change will not be easy. it is essential now for the government here to reach out to all ukrainians and take steps to unify the country. among these are strengthening democracy, the rule of law, reforming the economy, and the military and moving ukraine toward europe. we are confident the government is committed to these

principles. the government must also prepare the country for elections on may 25. during our visit, we have heard overwhelming supports for proceeding with elections on schedule, and we believe it is critical. ukraine's journey will be difficult, but ukrainians will not make that journey alone. the united states and your other partners will be with you. many of us here serve on our foreign relations committee in the senate, and last week, we pass bipartisan legislation to support ukraine and support -- prepare for elections, enhance security cooperation it imposes severe sanctions on those responsible for violence and human rights abuses against peaceful ukrainian and those who threaten ukrainian stability,

sovereignty, and territorial integrity, and on russian officials, responsible for corruption here. we want to assure you the united states senate will pass this legislation imminently, and we are confident can soon become law. finally, let me say up word about military assistance, and this is my personal view. ukraine is going to need a long-term military assistance program from the united states, equipment both lethal and nonlethal. i see ukraine has been invaded. russia is blasting forces on the border, provoking unrest, threatening to annex part of the sovereign nation and possibly worse. victims of aggression wish to protect themselves and their homes from further aggression and when they ask for some

modest means that can help them resist, i believe we should provide it. not to offer false hope -- not for ourselves, but simply because it is the right and decent thing to do. i also want to add there are now thousands of brave ukrainian members of the military who are surrounding bases in crimea. we are deeply concerned about after this phony referendum that is going to take place that the lives and welfare of these individuals could be in danger. we urgently urge the russians to be restrained and to respect the lives and welfare of these brave ukrainian servicemen and women who are serving in that country. senator durbin. >> i want to thank my colleague, john mccain, and others who

joined me. this is on extraordinary visit that we have made to ukraine. it is maybe the largest to senate delegation to visit ukraine in history. and the moment we came we thought was the right moment. we wanted to save the people of ukraine and million to support ukraine across the world that we stand shoulder to shoulder with ukrainian people who are seeking a new future in a new opportunity. we know that they have a new government, with many challenges, including economic challenges. and we know that they are committed to the rule of law, to open and free elections, and we stand by them in this commitment. we have met with the president, prime minister, and leaders of this government. and the message we have given them is that we will be by your side on a bipartisan basis in the united states senate. the visit of the secretary of state john kerry, the meeting between the prime minister and the president just a few days ago are further indications of the strengthening alliance between the united states and

ukraine. but we also, this moment because we know we are only hours away from the soviet style election in crimea. we know the outcome. we always knew the outcome of those elections long before they took place. keep in mind there was also a vote today just hours ago in the un security council where the nations of the world serving a security council were asked to stand with ukrainian project this referendum. of course, the russians voted no. he chinese abstained. all other nation stood with the ukraine and the united states. it is an indication of the growing world support for the future of ukraine and resistance to what the russians are threatening now in crimea. we owe it to the people of ukraine and those in crimea to speak up or them at this moment and to tell russia we will not return to a history of invasion and aggression, which is too common in this part of the world. and we also need to make it clear that when countries like the united states, the united

kingdom, russia, and ukraine enter into an agreement, the budapest memorandum, that it means something. when a country will step away from its nuclear arsenal, only asking for protection of its territories and its future, we need to stand by them, and that is why we are here as well. we want a more peaceful world and we believe that standing with ukraine is the way to achieve that. i am proud of my colleagues are with me. i'll hope you understand the significance of our visit to the ukraine at this moment in history. >> good afternoon. my name is chris murphy, senator from connecticut and chairman of the foreign relations subcommittee on europe. senator mccain and i had the opportunity in december to stand on the maidan looking out over the almost one million protesters assembling peacefully, all united by the temperament that they wanted to bring dignity back to their

country and to their existence. many were there because they wanted an orientation with your. others were there because they wanted to leaders in government, but they all held in common the basic simple belief that it should be the people of this country, no outside entity, that dictates the future of this great nation. it is difficult in washington these days to get a group of senators as politically diverse as those that are standing here today to agree on much of anything. but we are standing here united, republicans and democrats, as we did in the foreign relations committee last week, making it clear that the united states is going to stand with a free and sovereign ukraine. that we are going to stand with this new government to help them do what it takes in order to prosper. we pass, as a senator mccain said, a strong bill for the

foreign relations committee, with republicans and democrats supporting it, that will offer aid to keep ukraine's economy on its feet and deliver a strong message to russia that there will be consequences for the actions that have already been taken, and we are confident well that we will be able to join with our european allies in delivering an economic blow to russia that will make it clear that there is a price to be paid for this type of aggression. the next several days will be critical. as we look at the broad scope of the history of this nation. we know that there are several thousand ukrainian troops whose lives are in jeopardy. we are here today to tell the russian forces that we hold them directly responsible for the safety of those brave young men and women who are now cornered in different parts of crimea. the world is watching, and the message that we bring today,

both to ukraine and to russia, is that the united states senate is watching as well. senator johnson. >> thank you, mike. my name is ron johnson. i'm a senator from the state of wisconsin. i want to thank senator mccain for leading this delegation. i want to thank my colleagues were standing together. the main reason we're here is to show that strong unified support for the courageous people of ukraine. unfortunately, i was not here for senator mccain and senator murphy when they stood with the ukrainians on the maidan, but we did walk down to the maidan. it was a moving experience. incredibly moving experience to understand what has happened, and i tell you what, my standpoint, there is one person i hold accountable for this aggression, and it is vladimir putin. and if there is further bloodshed, there is also one person i will hold responsible. there is one person that can stop it, that can prevent it, and that is vladimir putin. now, senator mccain and senator murphy mentions the brave members of the ukrainian

military now garrisoned in crimea and those stationed along the border. i have seen moving pictures of journalists that have real courage throughout this process. i want to thank all of you, and i want to ask you to maintain that courage, bring the pictures to the world of what is happening here, this aggression. it is probably the single most important thing that can be done to prevent further bloodshed. again, i want to thank our host, i want to thank my colleagues for showing the strong level of support, and i want to thank you for reporting and preview pictures to the world so that we can prevent further bloodshed. thank you. >> i am senator whitehouse from rhode island, and i thank senator the cane and senator

durbin for leading this delegation. we have all been moved and inspired by our visit to ukraine and by ukraine's commitment to freedom, a simplified by the bloodstained maidan. we hope our country can be helpful as ukraine rids itself of the shackles of corruption that have burdened its people and injures a new day. ukraine's new day is shadowed by minutes, however. russia's conduct is already outside the conduct of the civilized nation. and russia has failed to provide the world adequate assurances that its conduct will not yet be even worse. we intend to take a unified message back to our president that he should support ukraine with strongest action he feels he can, to deter further

aggression by russia, to protect ukraine's independence and territorial integrity, including imposing painful and damaging sanctions on russia and its industries and oligarchs. russia cannot expect to live in a halfway world in which it enjoys the benefits of a community of civilized nations without conducting itself like one. and in the days ahead, let us all remember the ukrainian marines and other ukrainian forces garrisoned in the crimea. thank you very much. >> my name is john barrasso. i am a united states senator from the state of wyoming. a number of us on wednesday had a chance to meet with your prime minister, a man of great courage and determination, and to do so in washington, d.c., to see how the people in the united states could be helpful to the people of the ukraine.

we told him that we did not think meeting with him about ukraine was enough just there. we wanted to come here to show our commitment. two people of ukraine, and that is why we are here in a unified way, bipartisan, republicans and democrats from all different spectrum of politics in the united states. we walked the maidan. we saw the bullet holes in the trees and in the buildings. we saw the faces and the pictures of over 100 martyrs, those who gave their lives, and those faces are burned into our brains, and they will never be forgotten. we had a chance to meet and listen to members of the leadership of various parties in the government. we have had a chance to visit with people from different parts of the country, and what we heard from them and what we told

them as well is a unified message of -- this will not stand. we cannot allow vladimir putin to do what he appears to be doing. we have great concerns for those who are surrounded right now in the military barracks in the crimea, and we will hold vladimir putin personally responsible for anything, the damage that may occur to them. brave men and women risking their lives for freedom. thank you. >> i am john hoeven from the state of north dakota. i served as the governor of my state for 10 years. during that tenure timeline, i organized several trade organizations to come to the ukraine.

last night, i had dinner with leaders from 10 different companies representing many other companies in many associations across the ukraine. that is from one state and our country, just one state. i make that point because we have so many relationships which we the united states and the ukraine. we have much in common. we're here to show our solidarity. and as a way of showing that we truly are united. as senators, representatives of our congress and of our country, i want to read a short note that i took a few minutes ago when we were meeting with the ukrainian prime minister. the reason want to go through this for just a minute is because it was said by senator dick durbin, who is a democrat, and i am a republican, and i want to show that the support is truly bipartisan because i could not have agreed more with the point that he was making to reassure your prime minister that we stand with you. he said we need to take economic, diplomatic, and political sanctions against russia, that we need to use the

magnitsky act to take strong action, and have it passed by the full sun as soon as we get back. we need to undertake economic assistance to the ukraine, and we need to work with the imf to make sure that we provide that economic assistance as well as loans, not only from our country but also from the european union. we need to work with the european union so that when we say we stand with ukraine, we mean not only the united states but all of the european union and the world as well. jeff flake, arizona. >> thank you. my name is senator jeff flake

from the state of arizona. my colleagues talk about walking the maidan, and to see the determination that is needed in the coming weeks and months, just they were to russia -- this is not your grandfather's war. people are watching today like they never have watched before. there is no drama in tomorrow's referendum. but what is left unsaid, what is still left unknown, is how russia will treat soldiers garrisoned in crimea and what they do thereafter or don't do in eastern ukraine. people are watching like ever before. people can organize like never before. so we hope to have an outcome that is fitting and honors those who have fallen here. i am pleased to be here with my colleagues today. >> the time is running out for

the referendum. we have talked about the opinions of the congress of the united states that it is better for ukraine to keep up crime here and concentrate on the eastern part of the country. do you agree with that? >> we do not agree at all. we do not agree that vladimir putin has a license to invade a sovereign nation, as was mentioned by senator durbin. an agreement in 1994 that was made when ukraine gave up its nuclear inventory and return for guarantees of its territorial integrity, so we do not, and the last thing we want to do is send any message to people in crimea that we have abandoned them.

yes, sir. >> cnbc. you wrote today, three u.s. presidents have sought to work with president putin when interests converge. those interests do not converge much. he will always insist on being our arrival. how far away is that rivalry between the u.s. and west and russia from becoming a new cold war? >> i do not believe there will be a reignition of the cold war. but i do believe it is long overdue that we understand vladimir putin for who he is and what he is and what his ambitions are. this is a person that stated that the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the breakup of the soviet union. this is a person who wants to restore it. this is a person that occupies arts of the sovereign nation of georgia, that occupies moldova, that has now acted in an act of naked aggression.

and again, all of us are concerned about recent reports of additional military buildup in this area, and so we have to treat him for what he is, and that does not reignite the cold war, but it means we enact steps that make it clear to vladimir putin that his images will not be -- his ambitions will not be realized by the great community of nations that would resist. i will give you a couple of things wrote quick. one, start the missile defense system again in poland and the czech republic that we abandoned once. look forward to perhaps moldova and georgia and ukraine, if they wish, to become partners in nato. have some military exercises with our baltic friends, latvia, estonia, lithuania, that are under severe pressure by by putin.

we can ask to counter vladimir putin's ambitions without reigniting a cold war and without reigniting a conflict. margaret thatcher's famous words about ronald reagan is that he won the cold war without firing a shot, and that can be accomplished. >> senator mccain, senator durbin mentioned that china today abstained from the bow. do you think there is a greater role that china can play in helping to defuse this crisis? >> why don't i let senator durbin -- >> i talked today to some powers, the member's -- the u.s. ambassador to the united nations, and she was trying mightily to bring in china to vote with us. the abstention is something, but we with that they had been with us -- we wish that they had been

with us. we will continue to work with them. we need to increase that family of nations across the world that are willing to stand up, and i hope they will be part of it in the future. >> mr. senators, [speaking foreign language] >> there is lots of information regarding the u.s. position on the crisis. particularly president obama that if russian forces crossed the border from the crimea into ukraine that this would mean a state of war exists, and the united states could potentially take part. is that a possibility?

>> senator durbin and i just got off the phone with secretary kerry. i can assure you that the congress and the president will be working with the president of the united states. this is too serious for any partisanship. i can't exactly say what the reaction would be because it would have to be the extent and size and other aspects of it, but i am confident that the united states of america with our european allies would have a very vigorous response. >> i would just say that when we met with the prime minister, arseniy yatsenyuk, in washington last week and again today, he made it clear that he is not

anticipating be so-called military action of boots on the ground. that is not being discussed. we are talking about other ways that we can help ukraine, other ways that we can put pressure on russia and other aggressors. >> i would just add that the line has already been crossed. there is no moving from crimea into ukraine. crimea as part of ukraine. so our message to russia and to vladimir putin is that he needs to take immediate steps to de-escalate a situation in crimea, and if he does not -- regardless of whether there is any additional incursion -- there is going to be an escalating series of steps from both the united states and europe to make it clear that the actions that have been undertaken already are completely unacceptable within the scope of the world community. china should be involved in this issue. every other nation should care about this because this essentially reorders the roles of the game when nations are allowed to unilaterally change

borders. that is why this moment in our world's history is so important. >> what i would like to add is -- i do not think we should prescribe all the things we will or won't do right here, right now. it is incumbent on russia and president putin to step back and defuse the situation. we will have to respond as that situation develops. the important point here is that we are together and we are solid with ukraine. >> can i just point out -- we have proven that economic sanctions can be very powerful weapons. we have seen the effect that it had on the iranians. most of us, all of us agree that it rot them to the bargaining table. the severe regimen of economic sanctions on individuals, corporations, and even governments, i think, can have a significant beneficial impact. >> i can volunteer one other thing that can help will stop we

are producing a lot of energy and our country. my state is a great example. we are producing more natural gas every day. we are flaring it up. we need markets. what better way then to start bringing some of that liquefied natural gas over here and putting some real pressure in an economic sense on russia and helping ukraine and the eu, which right now depend on russia for so much of their energy. there are many things we can do. that is just one example. and that is a solution that helps on a long-term basis. >> [microphone feedback] jimi hendrix. i'm from al jazeera america. there was a report of an -- an incursion into a ukrainian territory property. all of your ideas are very long-term, including economic and military aid. the russians are actually moving

today on the ground. do you have any reaction or response to the immediate incursion by the russians rather than the long-term economic and military aid? >> again, it is hard for any of us to respond to hypotheticals. but as i mentioned, we are deeply concerned about reports of russian military units moving closer and in a more tactical way around eastern ukraine. and i can't say exactly what our response will be, but i think it will be a breach of such enormous consequence that the united states of america and our european allies will be contemplating action that we have not ever in our relations with russia, to be honest with you.

>> we talked but unity. we are united, democrat, republican. we are united from the senate to the house. we are united from congress to the present, we are united from you america to the european union. the other thing we learned, and let's face it, the reason we came here was to show that unity, show that support for the ukrainian people. the one thing we learned, and one message that was given to us will defend themselves even ifns the odds are against them, they will defend themselves against further bloodshed. we will hold flat of beer. >> thank you very much. thank you.

next, a ronald reagan symposium marking the 50th anniversary of the speech where he endorsed barry goldwater for president. senators john mccain and others hold a news conference in ukraine. c-span. putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events commas and briefings. offering complete gavel-to-gavel covering of the u.s. house. we are c-span. created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you by your