Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
Pro-Kremlin party A Just Russia put forward both bills, and linked them directly to the situation in Ukraine. Separatist and pro-Russian feelings are strong in Ukraine's Crimea region, which is now the focus of the crisis. Russian MPs say a referendum or a plea from a territory's leaders would be enough to trigger the new provisions. There are already many Russian citizens in Crimea. In Sevastopol, base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, a majority hold Russian passports. Under Russia's existing law, a neighbouring state would have to sign a treaty with Russia to allow part of its territory to become a new "subject" of the Russian Federation. But NAME_1, deputy leader of A Just Russia, said the law had been drafted for peaceful times, and did not go far enough for situations where a state was falling apart. "In conditions where a neighbouring state is disintegrating I don't

Summary:
1. Russia's parliament is considering two bills that would allow Moscow to take over territory that is not part of Ukraine.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
