reviewed by the department of defense. this training period is necessary but it is only one part of what should be a larger strategy. it must be part of a larger effort in syria and iraq and across the region. let's also remember it will be the men and women in uniforms who will be conducting the training and we continue to ask more and more military yet their funding continues to be cut. this isn't sustainable and must be addressed. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i appreciate the committee's consideration of my amendment to house bill 124 and request it be ruled in order. >> thank you very much. the question i have is to simply ensure i have the same idea i believe perhaps you will. i had a premeeting with several memberoffs the rules committee and we had a discussion about the amendment. i think it is important all members have a chance to not only hear what chairman mckeene

said but always the discussions that take place among large members and perhaps small number of members. but it is our understanding that this authorization we are talking about deals with the life cycle through december 11th with the cr. the president asked for this approval in this cr. so it is through december 11t. is that your understanding? >> yes, mr. chairman. the only thing i would say is the amendment offers if the national defensive act is enacted then that would supersede but whatever is enacted earlier. the conference report or the expiration of the cr that would be the length of this particular authorization. >> that is my same understanding and i thank you very much. is there any republican member that has a question for the

gentlemen, mr. thornberry? is there any member of the minority that has a question? >> i don't have a question but i want to be absolutely sure, mr. thornberry, i like the appropriately vetted session and that sounds thorough. i want to be certain this isn't authorize the armed forced into hostility. >> yes, ma'am, there is a specific provision that it is subsection i on page 6 that says nothing in the section shall be construed to put the united states armed forces into hostility or where hostility is included in the circumstances. >> i read that and i was pleased to see that because it would be a harder vote.

>> further discussion. thanks for being here. you know, generalry when we refer to a unit being vetted we are not references members of an extremist group but whether they committed human right violations or not. is the training subject to the law? >> it would be my assumption it would be subject to all existing federal laws. >> anybody who is guilty of a human rights violation would not be able to be trained or to be armed or equipped? >> i wouldn't be qualified to give you the exact characterization of that law and what the criteria. what we wanted to say in this is while you have the other federal laws that at a minimum the vetting would include, in this

circumstance, where or not these individuals or groups had these affilations with terrorist and were affiliated with iran for example. that is why the language says at a minimum the appropriate vetting includes these things that may not be present in other federal laws. >> i appreciate that but that is characterized as an extremist or terrorist. but there are individuals who maybe guilty of human rights abuses that may want to see isis destroyed or with us and i am trying to figure out whether or not there is an absolute disqualification for anybody who is guilty of a human right violation or an absolute p prohibition that anyone like that would be trained or

equipped. i get we don't want to train anyone associates with iran or al-qaeda. but there are instances where people committed human rights violations who say they are like us but i don't think it would be appropriate to arming and equipping them. >> i appreciate your point. we were not trying to be comprehensive but it says at a minimum what it needs to be. >> you mention on page six, line 16 and i quote nothing in the amendment shall be construed as armed forces into hostility. for those who might not be aware that language comes from the war powers resolution directly. and i guess my question and i don't know if you can answer this is do you anticipate the house taking up an authorization

regarding u.s. military operations in iraq and syria when congress returns in november? is the leadership of the committee or the house believe that is an appropriate action for congress to take? >> i certainly cannot speak for the house leadership or the leadership of the house foreign affairs committee which is the committee with the jurisdiction of this sort. our jobs with armed services is seeing from the military standpoint that the national security of the united states is being protected. but there are a number of members with opinions on that. i could not tell you. >> i appreciate the fact we will have the opportunity to speak on and vote yes or no on a small piece of what will be a bigger strategy, but i think it is difficult for people to be able to make judgments without kind of knowing what we are going to

authorize ultimately and what we are not. so doing this piecemeal doesn't seem like the appropriate way to be doing it. when people say no boots on the ground. we have boots on the ground. we have well over a thousand troops i know of. i believe it was 1300 on the ground doing more than just protecting our personal and embassy. we have americans flying these planes that are bombings iraq and potentially bombing syria. we are not authorizing the bombing of syria but it will happen without us having a role. so i am trying to ensure is anybody here committing to a vote when we come back from recess you know on whether or not we will approve the military

operations that some people are cont contemplating now. >> the one point i would make is that the president did not ask for a wider authorization for the use of military force. he did ask for this particular authority and came in last thursday and said i need it right now. so we are moving this on an ex expedited timeframe and that is why we are off to this week because we didn't want to jam it in last week. this is what the president is asking for in his strategy. >> 370-40 in july we voted to say if there was going to be sustained combat authorizations in iraq we should have a vote to

authorize that. we recessed and saw the bombing commence and we have sustained combat operations in iraq and possibly syria. we are much deeper into this now than when we had the vote. so i appreciate the fact the president hasn't formally asked congress for an authorization but he didn't have to. that is our constitutional responsibility. he notifies us what we are doing. it is up to us whether or not we want to play are role in this. my hopes is the vote we have taken would have meant we were not going -- >> would the gentlemen yield? >> happy to whilyield. >> i conquer with what you are saying. the president notified us in regards to attacking isis in iraq. he didn't utilize the aumf.

he did it under war powers notification of congress. i think that needs to be a discussion we need to have because you know there was reference today in the media about attacking syria with air power. i think we should have weigh in on all of this. i don't think that most of us agree that the amf they are talking about in iraq doesn't cover this because isil is killing al-qaeda. they are not an associate of al-qaeda. they are attacking al-qaeda in syria. i agree with you we need to have a rediscussion regarding to where this goes as it relates to the war powers act because i think we have a constitutional responsibility to be part of that. i am happy to see that leadership is allowing six hours

of debate on this particular issue. you know, i stood up there at the conference saying we need to have a separate vote and debate on the issue so all members have an opportunity to bring forward their ideas in regards to where we are going. as i said in the armed services i worry we are on a slippery slope. starting up with 300 and some personal troops sent to iraq and now i think the last report in the press was close to 1600 troops. the most troops on the ground and someone said they are not wearing ballet shoes they are wearing boots and they are at risk every time they are put in an unstable position. i hope we have the debate and like mr. thornberry was saying that is not what we are here

for. the president wanted this in the cr and we are accommodating that. and some may agree with the strategy or not. >> i appreciate that. from what i understand the administration believes they do have the authority to do all of this other stuff based on the afghanistan and iraq amuf's. not with regard to what we are talking about on the training and equipping of the soldiers. >> but then why would he bring in the war powers act on notification of congress as it relates to bombings of isis in iraq if he was using the aumf. he would not do that. maybe i am misunderstanding the administration. i think they believe they do have the authority to do bombing they have doing in iraq and

syria based on the previous aumf's. they are not asking for authorization on that because they believe they have the authority to do that but they don't believe they have the authority to do this piece we are talking about today. >> they don't believe they have the authority to train and equip and that is why the president specifically asked for that. my understanding is some parts sited the other amuf's as justification for taking military action. i am very sympathetic with the position you lay out that it is important for congress to exercise its constitutional responsibilities but as far as the expedited cr to get it done that is what this is about. >> thank you very much. i want to associate myself very

much with what you had to say and my good friend from florida and texas said. i raised this issue before. i really believe we should have a straight up vote on authorization with all due respect to the president any administration of either party always claims it has the authority to do whatever it decides to do. so that is not a partisan -- this is an issue of constitutional propriety and legislative executive balance of power it seems to me. and i would very much -- i do not read the authorization of 2001 and 2002 that was passed about a very different place and a different enemy and a different time with members who are not in the body today as being something that is an appropriate vehicle for us to launch into another country. i think you will find you will

have a lot of people on our side of the aisle that took the amendment you offered seriously and thinks was the appropriate thing to do. the syrian thing is even more troublesome so i look forward to working with my friends. i sympathize with my friends in texas and the armed service. they are trying to respond to the commander and chiefs request at a time of crises and i think they tried to do it in the most limited way they can so they can leave these kind of issues open for us to discuss. i am with my friend from massachusetts i would rather do that sooner than later and look forward to working with my friend at the appropriate time to make sure it comes before us and perhaps frankly we relook at the 2001-2002 and i think they should be repealed and the president has asked for it to be

repeal repealed. >> i don't disagree with that. i think some of your colleagues would, though. i think i would feel better if he had a commitment from the speaker that when we come back we will have a vote. i have no idea how long we will be back. we prompted the last vote with a privilege resolution. we could do that again but it requires 15 days of being in session to ripen. >> for purpose of information, the speaker told us when he met with the president and other leadership he advised the president and the collective leadership of congress and he thought the best thing to do was a new reauthorization -- best for the institution, country and president in terms of building bipartisan support -- so i don't think this is something the speaker was interested in doing.

i think there are leaders on both sides that didn't want to bring it. i think that is a shame because members want to vet it. >> i agree. all i am trying to say is i think you are right. there is unease on both sides. but, you know, i am in the house of representatives. the person who controls the schedule and you know decides what is going to be scheduled is the speaker and majority leader. i think if all of us are feeling the same thing and there should be an authorization on a wider military operation in iraq and syria then you know, i think, if we gate firm commitment there would be a vote when we came back. i do worry. this operation has progressed a long way from the end of july to the time we come back. we will be gone after the election. you know, i assume this will continue to expand. then we will be gone until the

new session and you know it is a lot more difficult to have that broader debate you know when we are all into something. and we are dealing with the situation quite frankly that is more complicated. one final question here. so neither the amendment nor the cr specifically funds the training and equipping of the syrian opposition forces? and there is no number you said? the president wanted $500 million in the speech to train and equip 5,000 soldiers. where do you see the funds coming from? the oco accounts? >> there are two funding provisions. one is allowing reprogramming from the oco funds and the other is allowing foreign donations. those would be the two funding sources and the normal

reprogramming process would have to be followed. >> i really think, and this isn't partisan, but i think the people of both parties are looking at how we will handle this and people are worried we might duck this one. i think that would be ashamed and i think most of us agree with that. i hope we don't. >> gentlemen yields back his time. further discussion? gentlemen from florida adjust hastings do you seek time? >> i don't want to put mr. thornberry on the spot and i am not trying to play any kind of gotcha. i echo the sentiment of my colleagues and good friend from massachusetts and i want to be on record saying that when much of this began i wrote to the

speaker of the house and a copy to the president requesting that when we were away we be reconvened for purposes of discussion and approving or disapproval in the discussion. the president did say in the wednesday night remarks that we would welcome an authorization from congress. certainly that is not asking for it. and i heard mr. thornberry loud and clear and i believe all of us understand that the exacting request that came from the president is in some substance parts of what we are seeing here. i do have a concern about one word that is kind of new to me. i think i know what it means. but in the initial section, mr.

thornberry, at line 4 is the word sustainment. and that follows to provide assistance including training, equipment, supplies and sustainment to appropriately vetted elements. what does that sustainment? how do -- what is that about? i just don't understand it quite frankly. >> mr. hastings, that is a category of supplies. ammunition once they are in the field. tactical intelligence information once they are in the field. the kind of things a force in the field would need to keep going. >> all right. i wonder if my colleagues thinking about this or those of us that are old enough and willing to admit it remember that a portion of getting us in

wars has been training. and vietnam would be the classic example of how it all began with somebody that was going there to train. i am not clear when it is we have trained people to enter into combat and i am not talk about green on blue. we see enough of that in afghanistan to understand we are vetting these people and we are training in afghanistan. and we will see where they turn around and kill american soldiers. it is going to be virtually impossible in my view to be in a training position and i recognize there are other countries that have allowed and agreed some of the training takes place in their locales but

they are not immune from attack. at some point unless something goes on wrong and a significant number of our soldiers get killed then we are fastly moving down the slippery slope. and another thing when we talk about this is the president has the authority to do the abstract but he needs to, as well as us, the equipment breaks why people fly and the best example is over the paris weekend and we see it in training exercise where the youngsters wind up being ejected from airplanes. let that happen once and alginvolvingerer algmaublth-- a american soldier get his head

cut off by isil and be where down the hole again. one thing you said that interested me greatly, largely for the reason because when we were well into iraq, i was there for my second visit and i was with the chairman of the rules committee then david dryer. i came back the thought that it just didn't seem right. that we were building schools and hospitals and water treatment plants were sort of veal for me because i spent a lot of time trying to get a water treatment plant in the western portion of palm beach county. when i saw the treatment plant with the copper wires stripped and every gone and it cost almost the identical amount of

money i requested it troubled be. so i came back and drafted a bill that requested that the iraqi government, by the time i had by third visit with speaker pelosi, they had a $38 billion surplus and i thought it would not be unworthy for us to ask them not for war material, but just for construction alone to reimburse us. so i drafted the legislation, took it to the parliament and i was told i could not call on a foreign government to have endebtedness and we could not do that here in the house of representatives. now i hear the flip side and

saying we can accept under this measure monies for equipping and training from foreign government. and what i want to know is how that process going to work? is it the defense department that is going to receive the funds? or is that a part of the overall process on the training? i am not clear as to how that works. >> mr. hastings, that portion of the amendment to allow us to receive donations from other countries, including in kind donations, was part complex of this to get right and make sure it comports with u.s. law in all respects. so you can see references there to various other laws so with the appropriation committee

helping to draft that language and making sure it is credited but doesn't carry a cost according to the congressional budget office and that all of the transaction that come in and out. >> you and i have worked together on a matter of measure and we always said i have great respect for you and i mean it. are you satisfied when you say it was complex and difficult to get right, are you satisfied, and nothing is perfect, but we are as near right as we can be under the circumstances? >> bi do. but you have to ability to ask the president to reprogram. so if contributions don't come in from other countries the president can reprogram oco funds for this purpose and the

two together make sure the funding will be the. >> on the vetting, all of us know that at least i feel, i don't speak for any other democrat, and any other republican, but i feel when we went to turkey i thought it would be easy to arm the rebels and we should at that time with the thought of threat. but we didn't. i remember talking with rebles in turkey and it was six of them. and 8 o'clock in the morning and all six of them were from a different rebel you know what i am saying?

now we have literally complexities beyond ordinary rules and with people being comprim comprim comprimised. when do we know we have 5,000 people vetted and how long does it take to train them and is the $500 million the president requested sufficient to get to the end point? >> i don't know. the president says he doesn't believe he needed additional funds so there are none but there is the reprogramming authority in here. i think you are exactly right. this is complex and there are so many actors on all different sides.

i think it meets that need. we are wiser about the vetting process than it was before. >> we agree with you. but it seems by not having the debates we should have and that

is the authorization of this matter and what we are going to wind up with i don't know how we are defining this. i hear counter terrorism and all terms avoiding the war because we don't have boots on the ground. but it would seem to me if and god forbid it occurs that any american soldiers or collective number of american soldiers are killed in this training operation, by question is do they have the same rights as soldiers who die in combat when there is a declared war for their family. are the rights going to be the same under this equipment train?

>> i would want to double check. the only point i would make is we have trained and equipped security forces in something like 40 different countries. so do do this all over the world. it is true something can happen in one of those situations. whether all of the exact combat benefits attach i don't know. but i will ask the experts to look. the only other thought is this requires a progress report every 90 days including house education and workforce committee people have been trained, what happened to the equipment we gave them and that with the reprogramming authority gives us the best opportunity to have a pulse on where this is

going. >> you and i know what happened with the request for reports as well. thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentlemen yields back his time. anyone else seeking time? chairman thornberry i want to thank you. you obviously came up here and faced members of congress that have a lot of ideas. i would like to put in a context from a republican leadership perspective that we believe what we are trying to do is satisfy the needs of the president with a growing threat aimed at our al lie and the united states of america. it is up to the united states military and state department to define more quickly and carefully that which they see i believe that is what it

attempting to be done. we have our own problems as well. they are we are going to take a break that was naturally thought about and understood. but we don't want to not allow the commander in chief to understand the threat against the united states and allies and make sure the president can pivot appropriately when congress is gone. i would not like and you have not said anything withdrawn but i will not like anyone to thing this is a moving forward agreement with a wink and nod to the president because we recognize that we need to hear. and that is what we try to do.

but we also didn't want to harm the president as he goes and talks to our allies and other nations around the world of engaging in this. it is a careful process and i do not think that what we have done nor should it be construed as this up front and through the like cycle of this is through december 11th. this member and i believe the leadership team of the republican party is looking at making sure that we provide the president what the president has asked for and ask back in return what the plan is and given the president the opportunity during this period of time between now and december 11th to do what needs to be done. can i come back and promise you that we will be asking for

specifically what we are after? i don't know. but what i would say is that as chairman rogers has said he and chairman mckeene do recognize that we have got to do an armed services bill. we have got to agree with something. and certainly this would be on the table. the president would have some limits on the president because of the money alone. so i don't want you to walk out and say you didn't get an answer. you are getting an answer. short timeframe. december 11th. we are allowing and asking the president for a detailed plan but we are not trying to harm the president in any way. >> i appreciate the fact we are coming here to deal with at least this little piece. what i was referring to before

is we are bombing and that bombing will expand. and we have troops, i believe in harms way and this may get more. i am saying we ought to have a role in that. and that is what i am most concerned about this. >> i am not trying to make this further and move together. you are trying to ask i heard that in the past.

you have heard us genuinely acknowledge that. all i'm trying to say is out saying you have no answer. i can give you what i perceive the circumstances surrounding that. gentlemen from florida. >> just one point relating to the cr because it was a question i had. does this evaporate when the cr does? it isn't really true. if the nda comes back and goes to conference and we are told it will not go to regular conference but it could come back with something in it we don't like. i want to make sure everyone knows, leadership included, that is a problem for most of us if that comes back in a way that

authorizes something we don't have a vigorous debate on. what i would say is we are trying to engage the administration with a thoughtful plan that will allow us to know what we agree and disagree with. >> this is good feminist step. >> we are trying to do the rightthi thing. further discussions. i want to thank the vice chairman of the armed service

committee. >> mr. chairman res 124 the continues appropriation resolution. the rule provides one hour debate divided by the chair and the ranking member. the rule weighs all points of order from joint resolution the rule provides the amendment printed in part a shall be considered as adopted and the joint resolution is considered as read and amended. the rule makes an order only the further amendment printed in part b of the report if presented by representative

mckeene shall be separately debatable by six hours and devoting control of mckeene and smith from washington. it shall not be subject to amendment or division of the question. rule weighs all point of the order against the part b. the rule provides one motion to recommit. and section two of the rule amendments house resolution 567 with a new paragraph clarifying that paragraphs f 1-f 12 of clause 4 shall be considered to be written rules adopted by the select committee on benghazi. >> you have heard the motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina. further discussion? >> i have a question. >> the woman is recognized. >> the last part the gentlelady

ready about the staff on benghazi. there is a provision in the rule exempting them from the written rules on media access to proceedings. so we could construe they don't want media there. can you explain that? >> thank you very much. there are no rules related to that and we are simply allowing them to have, as other committees would have, the rules. >> other committees have rules for open media and media access. this benghazi select committee is being exempted from that and i am curious why. >> it says the rules of the house are their rules and offers

nothing specific. >> it is specific. you said in here that -- >> the rules of the house. >> you said they don't have to comply with the rules of the house. the rules of the house state the committee should have a rule on media. >> get the exact words. >> the provisions of paragraph f1-f12 of clause 4 rule 11 shall be considered to be written rules adopted by the select committee through such clause. it doesn't say they will not. it says it incorporates them into the select committee of the

house. >> we don't understand why the select committee is given a special exemption and we might have more to say about it tomorrow. >> there was nothing previously stated. i think you are asking a good question and i am trying to give a good answer. we are going to enumerate they have the rules of the house as it relates to media. this isn't to exempt them but authorize them the same rules of the house. >> i don't think so. but we will discuss it further tomorrow. >> further discussion for amendment. the vote is on the motion now.

eye. no. ayes have it. the gentlemen mr. cole is leading for republicans. >> and i will do the part for democrats. >> we plan to have a 3:00 meeting for the rules and jobs package. we are through the work tonight and i want to thank the members of staff and for respect and appreciate of getting the work done today. thank you very much.

>> congress woman, welcome back to the program. nancy pelosi came out in favor of reclassifying broadband as title ii and making it more open to regulation. do you support that? >> guest: going back to 2010, i spoke publically about what i thought the fcc should do to be on firmer, legal ground and pointed to title ii. and now we have had fast forward we had discussions that the committee about it. and this is all about net neutrality obviously. people in our country feel very, very strongly about the internet. not only how they use it, but how they think about it and access to it and that it be free

and open and that no one, no isp or anyone should be able to interfere with that. now there have been a lot of problems obviously with court cases, lawsuits and i think a lot of time, valuable time has been eaten up by that. noww we are at a juncture and know close to one a half million people commented. i think the largest response to any federal agency in the history of the country and that is really saying something. so i have examined title ii. one of the charges against title ii is that it is the old fashion way to regulate. in other words, it is a heavy hand. you really have to be very

careful, cautious, about heavy-handed regulation because we want innovation. i represent the innovation capital of the country and we want to keep it that way. there have been a lot of investments made around this innovati innovation. but for consumers and innovators i think you can do a light touch of regulation and i can particularly in section 202. title ii has 47 statutes in it. you don't have to take 47 statutes and throw it at this to cure it. so i would -- if i were a member of the fcc, i would examine that section very particular. it is brief and i think you can

find the gold in that section. where it is placed and how they handle it is the fcc. there are five smart people there. but i hope that the rhetoric doesn't prevail and that you can simply not go near title ii because it is old fashion, heavy handed regulation. we are legislatures and words really matter and what is written matters because it walks into people's lives. you don't need all of title ii. you need very little of it in order to address blocking which is the most upsetting part of

the proposal that the chairman made and that is what is really causing the ruckerous around the country and i think it is legimate. >> host: can you reclassify broadband and not use of all of the statutes? >> guest: i believe so. this is today's form of communication. when we talk about the infrastructu infrastructure. i think that you know our thinking to catch up with our words and action and there are people that will say one sentence out of title ii is not acceptable. well i think that is uninformed

view. you have to be a problem solver in this. it isn't what is at the top of the page. it is the language itself that will address what i think the american people have spoken clearly about as a high value and that no one is for blocking. i can go into umpteen town hall meetings or my telephone town hall meetings and by the way as the american people were expressing themselves, they were expressing themselves to the fcc on their wireless device. so this shouldn't be addressed as simply the old way in terms of land lines as everything is going wireless. i think our thinking and legislative language needs to address that. and before getting to brendan

sasso you represent google, facebook and some of the great big players in the tech world but thousands of upstarts as well. what has been the reaction to your approach from some of your voters? >> i spend a lot of time with them. most particularly the startups. i am proud of the companies that were born in my district and that became toddlers and grew and are what they are today. i mean these are brand names around the world. and their thinking and products are exciting and they are really changed how people live and learn and work. but i think in the united states of america we always have to have policies that encourage new companies to be born because that is a creation of jobs. and that is at the top of the list of every american.

they want more opportunity, more jobs created and so this is no doubt in my mind and the mind of many that we have to make sure that innovation continues. now these small startups, seven, nine, 11, 17 people they don't have an army of lawyers or lobblobb lobbyest but they happen if there is a boot at their throat in terms of what they have and offer and can be slowed down or discriminated against or blocked they are knocked off their blocks. we have to be wise and prudent and practical. and i think that we can protect innovation and we can do so with

what i call a light touch of regulation. i think we can accomplish all of that. >> host: brendan sasso of "the national journal" is joining our conversation. >> you are saying a light touch regulation. do you think it is necessary -- the only way you think the fcc can get to where you think is necessary is reclassify under title ii and wave the more burdensome requirements? >> guest: we want to accomplish certainty. businesses, no matter the size, need to know what the rules of the road are and we need to be clear about that. i think the fcc over several, you know, chairman have tried hard to come up with the right combination of things in order to move ahead.

but it has been a decade where there has been one lawsuit after another. the fcc had to go back to the drawing boards. and i want to get beyond lawsuits. i really do. i think that america really needs to be on the move. and we have been. but just think if we don't have to drive with an emergency brake on. that is way i would characterize it. i think the fcc should direct itself toward and i think it wants to, toward certainty, and certainty means there is not a legal cloud hanging over whatever their decision is. and that is why i think that this particular section that i mentioned holds a great deal of promise. >> fcc chairman wheeler gave a speech yesterday where it seemed

yesterday he was hinting he might want to expand the net neutrality regulations for wireless so your home broadband and cellphone. do you think that is an important piece of the regulati regulation? >> guest: i mentioned it a few moments ago. i do. close to 1.5 million people have voiced their opinion to the fcc during the comment period on the whole issue of net neutrality with a wireless device i mean what more can we say? this is our world today. it is just simply a fact of life. and i think that our national law should reflect that. >> a few weeks ago you did a post on reddit and if there should be a new name on net neutrality. any new names that work better?

>> i have not gotten to review them. but we are going to put out on announcement about it. i am thrilled so many people participated. 28,000 people is larger than some of the communities i represent. so people care about it. and in addition to their voting, so to speak, there were thousands of others that weighed in and gave very long written opinions on how to address net neutrality. that wasn't the if tent of the contest but they felt strongly about it. >> host: back to section 202,

you are either a common carrier or you are not. is that a fair division on section 202? and how do you delinate? >> you have to look at the lines and see it how it has work forked a long time. the first section -- worked -- a and the discrimination blocking, well we call it blocking in the broadband world, is not acceptable. ...

there are corporate interest in my district i probably don't agree. but that's all right, they supply equipment to different people and i understand that. they have a different purpose in life. my responsibility is to the public, to the public good, to the public interest and i'm a very pragmatic person as well. we need to get beyond lawsuits around this. we need to keep expanding our

economy and understand that this area of our economy holds extraordinary promise with good-paying jobs and then the effect that it has on people across our country and around the world. we don't want to lose american leadership in this area. so i'm not for stifling anything. if anyone has listened or read what i have said or the legislation that i have done, it has always been around innovation, protecting consumers and growth. i think that we need to direct ourselves to that end i think they're very light regulatory touch will do it. that's my view. we will see what the fcc does and i think the american peopl people -- you know the american people are not caught up in different sections of the law. and title ii and versus

whatever. they know what they want. they think that it's fair and they want the regulatory agency, congress, whomever, they call it government. they want those protections and they will move on and so will the companies, so will the startups. so they are not caught up in all of this language. it's our job to get the job done for them. and i think that this is a creative pathway toward it. >> host: my last question on net neutrality i promise. i don't know about brendan. netflix is supporting reclassification or at least they put their name to that but at the same time they were looking at deals to maybe have enhanced broadband service or so-called -- the so-called fast lane. do you support the so-called "fast lanes"?

>> guest: i think that obviously companies do what they need to do to protect their investments and their shareholders. so i don't get into the weeds about what someone is doing before the next decision is being taken. they are doing that for their own interests but i think that what it points to is that they needed to protect themselves because of the specter of blocking. that is what i pull out of that story. and so look, there isn't anyone who's going to stand up anywhere and i said it this earlier, and say guess what i'm for blocking. there just isn't anyone that's for it. even those that may be have been inclined to its say we are not for discrimination. so i think we need to be a bald and we need to be pragmatic and

i know that there is a whole range of interests that have an interest in this. god bless all of them. i have my responsibility overall to the people of the country, the people of the district and the public interest. that really has to, at the end of the day, after listening and playing out all of this, that is the major ingredient that i have to throw into the mix in order to bake the cake. and for those that fear heavy regulation, i understand that. i'm not for that. >> host: brendan sasso. another issue that i think is important to the internet which is the wave of potential consolidation we are seeing. comcast wants to buy -- cable and we have at&t and directv and a deal that's not dead the government scared away spread from trying to buy t-mobile. so your thoughts on should this

consolidation be allowed and what does it mean? >> guest: i think the american people viewed these proposed mergers with a wary eye and i say that because of a number of constituents that i have heard from. i mean thousands that sat down with handwritten smote -- handwritten notes to me and obviously most of the correspondences via e-mail. there's a reason that they are skeptical about it. they want to be assured that they are not going to be getting less and paying more. they are for competition and they know just in their own personal experience that without robust competition, that they have very little choice and the price of their bills go up. and in some instances their service is less than what they want. so i think the reviews of these

mergers have to be viewed through that lens. there have been mergers that have been approved over the years. i guess they have portended one of the instances in terms of what would be emerged, they don't compete with each other in the same market. but the lens that i view it through is what i just stated to you. i think that is a central responsibility of those in the federal government that are going to review this. because at the end of the day, who are our bosses? i mean who is paying her salary? who ends up with the result in their lap in their day-to-day lives?

>> american people. so i think that these mergers really need to be scrutinized very very carefully and i think that driving them in terms of the review need to be value because they are values to people. >> guest: do you think there could be tough conditions that would make the deal acceptable or do you think the fcc and justice department should block comcast from time warner cable outright? >> guest: i'm not ready to go there in terms of outright blockage. i'm not the one that's doing the reviewing. i thought it was a good idea for our committee, our subcommittee to bring in the parties and to have a hearing on it. i suggested it. i asked chairman walden, the chairman of our technology, communication technology

subcommittee to do that. i think perhaps he doesn't think it's a good idea. it hasn't happened that way but i thought that it would be a very good idea for members to be exposed to more of the issues other than what we may pick up on however we absorb informati information, newspapers, our phones and what our staff may give to us but that hasn't happened. i still think there's time for it. i don't think these decisions will be made immediately but that didn't happen. but i think that those elements are really very very important. and that's directly from the people. >> host: i'm sorry, i apologize. we have been hearing a lot about data breaches, target and home depot etc. etc.. is there a role for congress?

is their legislative role for congress? >> guest: i think that there is. i think that there is. i didn't ask for my credit card to be replaced when there was a breach at target. i did go through my statements according to the timeframe that was mentioned in the news and during that timeframe i hadn't made any purchases so i didn't make a call about my card. but these are sweeping breaches. i mean this in snares tens of millions of people it. it's no source of comfort to my constituents and i don't think anyone else, certainly not to me when it's announced after the breach has taken place we detected it a few weeks later or a few months later. what does that mean? it's just not a source of comfort. now we have real thievery going

on and it needs to be addressed. if every major bank in the country were held up all at once more successfully -- successively don't you think there would be a massive response on the part of law enforcement? so we are the cops on the beach. congress and the administration should be i think working to achieve two changes. at least i think that these are prudent ones and that is one, that there be security requirements. you have to work with the private sector. i have never done technology specific legislation but i think that we can work with the private sector and say there needs to be standards met. it would be in their interest as well. this time and money and effort that has to go into playing catch-up after the breach takes place.

as in my case, i got a new credit card. i didn't ask for it but it was replaced. so were tens of millions of others. i think that security standards, two steps. security standards to be examined and working with the private sector and also what would be the other one? the penalties. the penalties need to be very very stiff in terms of these really huge and malicious undertakings, those that do them and that would send a very strong message as well. >> guest: another important issue that's coming up the fcc wants to hold the spectrum auction where they will buy back the spectrum from tv stations and auction them to cell phone companies. the national association of broadcasters has sued the fcc. are you concerned about that lawsuit and could delay the

auction? >> guest: i think it's a bump in the road but i don't think it's going to delay the auction. i think the fcc is on track to conduct the auction in 2015. it's a huge and very very important undertaking and is the first time in the history of our country, i think in the history of the world that an auction has been set up this way is voluntary and the purposes of the auction are real essentials on the 21st century that we create more unlicensed spectrum that is an innovation platform, that we fund first net. you know that there was one recommendation for the 9/11 commission that congress did not make good on and that is that we establish a nationwide interoperable public safety network. why?

because on that horrible dreadful day of 9/11 fire and police went into those towers and they could not communicate with each other. so we finally put that in place. so the funding for that effort would come out of auction dollars and also to pay down the deficit. so it's a very very important and historic undertaking. i think it's unfortunate that the broadcasters have done that but i would consider it a bump in the road. i don't think that's going to stop the effort. >> host: representative eshoo the 113th congress is nearing its end. waxman on there -- committee has leaving. you have expressed interest in taking over that commission. how's it going? >> guest: i think first we should the number of

years of service of henry waxm waxman, 40 years in the congress, 40 years of extraordinary leadership. john dingell from the committee who also served as chairman, chairman emeritus, ranking member, 60 years so that's 100 years of service to the american people so i salute them. when mr. waxman made the announcement i also made mine that i would throw my hat in the ring to be the lead democrat at the committee. so we have been working hard on the effort. i'm highly encouraged. it's a long journey from the end of january to december. but it's a worthwhile effort. so i'm encouraged by the support of my colleagues. the people that are listening are probably wondering who votes on this.

it will be the democrats, the then new new democrats the come and plus the newly-elected democrats after the national election. i'm looking forward to it and we are still working very hard. which you need to do to earn people support. i'm very encouraged and overwhelmingly grateful. >> host: does your fellow californian nancy pelosi support your bid? >> guest: she does. i think enormously, i think enormously. because it's such an important vote of confidence. this is not something that she has ever done on a regular basis and i didn't know that she was going to do it. so it is, i think it's a blessing myself. >> host: anna eshoo, brendan sasso, thank you. >> guest: thank you.

>> now nato's secretary anders fogh rasmussen discusses the future of nato relations with russia and the continuing threat posed by the islamic militant group isis.

mr. rasmussen's five-year term as secretary-general go and at the end of the month. this hour-long event is hosted by carnegie europe. [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen we have still a few seats and it would be fantastic if we could just fill it up completely. the morbid cheer we get from the crowd the better today. let me welcome you all to this event. nato and carnegie europe posts together today. they say that when you made once it's a coincidence. when you meet twice its luck. when he made three times it's a tradition and when you make four times you are an old couple. today marks the fourth time in five years that you

mr. secretary-general have chosen and picked carnegie europe as the platform from which to address the foreign-policy and security policy in brussels and europe. so in the carnegie rasmussen relationship we have moved in to old couple territory which feels very good today. it sounds odd but only if you don't put it into perspective for an organization like ours that is 103 or so. it's always nice to know that the 65-year-old young lady called nato still wants to play with us and so it's great that is innate nature of the odd couple are today. more importantly however we are proud that you have chosen us to give their farewell speech today with carnegie europe and carnegie europe has often been critical and the definition of an old couple that you can do that to each other and still work together. when you started your tenure at nato gave your first public

speech in brussels by carnegie europe and that was almost a day five years ago and apart from afghanistan which of course which featured prominently at the time the big topic of yours and that speech was made, the relationship of nato with russia. you had decided he wanted to put a lot of effort into a relationship that you call that the new beginning. the war in georgia had just happened and everybody was still kind of recovering from us and everybody was still in high hopes. you wanted to make that a better relationship knowing that it was the key variable in european security and architecture. as we know it was not to be replaced by old fears and that's where we stand today. i am sure today russia will figure prominently in your speech. not least because over the last few months you have been at the forefront and a key player in putting together a robust response to russia's actions in

eastern europe, robust western response and like many other things that you have done in the last five years that has not only made you friends. apart from this latest management of the western response you have of course use the afghanistan mission of nato and the experience that nato got out of that mission to change the way the alliance works and the way europe thinks about itself. that was an important change that you administer taking mind it again and again states that they were often not in compliance with promises they had made earlier and you push those that were reluctant to show more dedication and to show more dedication to alliance of solidarity which was a key issue that always resurfaced whenever you spoke up. you did all of this during the time period when major political and economic crises shook europe and north america. nobody really have the time to do a defense debate but nobody

really wanted to look at the and difficult truth out of afghanistan. everybody thought it was a crazy to even mention 2% spending. that was a lot of leadership under incredibly difficult circumstances and no wonder it was painful for some that you addressed. in the upcoming weeks when you are leaving your job as secretary-general, we will -- many will issue a sigh of relief that that nagging man from denmark is finally leaving the stage but that site is a bit more about them then as you. with you hear those guys you should know that you have also earned them. we are looking forward today to to the last big rasmussen reminder of what matters in atlantic security. we thank you that you will speak to us to this event and a stream in a carnegie will publish an article you have written for us and which you point out the fundamentals of security in europe once more and that

greater detail than in your speech today. we have printed copies for all of you. i think some of you have already picked up a copy that's available at the door and it will be featured on our web site in our media channels. therefore invite you to take the floor let me me say two very quick things. first of all thing to peter spiegel from the financial tim times. it's always great to lure you back into your old love which is security and defense which i know you are missing a whole lot and secondly mr. secretary-general u. just told me that you can't announce just now as to what you'll be doing as of the first of october but whatever it is we wish you good luck and we are sure we will hear from you just like we did in the past five years. secretary-general, the floor is yours. thank you. [applause] >> thank you again for that very generous introduction.

first of all thank you very much for your dedicated work, and your strong engagement in the public debate on foreign and security policy issues. and also a big word of thanks to carnegie europe for hosting our event. as you mention my very first speech as new secretary-general in september 2009 was also hosted by carnegie europe so i feel that i have come full circle by delivering my last brussels speech that as secretary-general also hosted by the carnegie europe endowment. by the way this also gives me sweet memories. actually it was in this very room that heads of state and

government of the european union agreed on the economic framework for concluding negotiations with the african countries in octob october 2002. denmark held the rotating presidential european union at that time so as prime minister of denmark i hosted the dinner were heads of state and government and we reached an agreement on the economic framework for concluding these negotiations which led to the historic decision at the e.u. summit in copenhagen on the 13th of december. and historic decision to enlarge the european union and actually the foundation was laid in this

very room. this is my last month in office as the secretary-general and i have to say these past five years have been the busiest and most challenging for nato and for me personally. nato has carried out demanding and difficult operations on three different continents. we have reformed and renewed our alliance to make it vitter, faster and more flexible. a new strategic concept, the action plan, smart defense, the connected forces initiative, defense capacity building, missile defense, and hands cyber defends. these are all major achievemen achievements. they demonstrate nato's continued ability to change and

to adapt. so i am confident that i will be leaving my good friend jens stoltenberg an alliance with a solid foundation in the clear compass and i am sure that he will do a great job in keeping nato strong. keeping nato strong could not be more important. there is an arc of crisis and instability that stretches from east to south, and it poses a threat to our populations and our territory. we see challenges on a scale we have not seen for over two decades. and they will into word for years to come. we need to face this fact. to the east, there is russia. we have tried long and hard to build a partnership with russia.

in a way, that respects russia's security concerns and based on international rules and norms. and as jan mentioned, in fact my very first speech as new secretary-general of nato five years ago was about developing a stronger partnership between nato and russia. regrettably, russia has rejected our efforts to engage. instead, russia considers nato and the west more broadly, as an adversary. russia has trampled all the rules and commitments that have kept peace in europe and beyond since the end of the cold war. the pattern is clear. from moldova to georgia and now

ukraine, russia has used economic pressure and military actions to produce instability, to manufacture conflicts, and he to did diminish the independence of its neighbors. to the south of there is so-called islamic state. not a state, but a group of terrorists who are committing horrific atrocities against thousands of people across iraq and syria. i strongly condemn the outrageous murders of american journalist david -- james foley and steven sotloff end of the british aid worker david haines. on nato allies stand shoulder-to-shoulder, resolute and united against the scourge of terrorism. this group poses even more of a

danger as it risks exporting terrorists to our countries. it also controls energy assets and it is pouring oil on the fire of sectarianism already burning across the middle east and north africa. a region that is a tinderbox of porous borders, arms proliferation, weak governance and poverty. we are confronted by forces that reject our liberal democracy and our liberal rules-based order. their agendas and ideologies are different, but they are feral and, violent and viciously anti-western.

they will grasp at every opportunity to undermine our values of individual liberty, freedom, democracy, respect for the rule of law and human righ rights. and to impose their backward looking vision on others. we are on the frontline of a new battle, a new battle between tolerance and fanaticism, between democracy and totalitarianism, between open and closed societies. in this new age of unrest and revisionism, we must stand strong. and we must stand united as a force for freedom.

strengthen our collective defense, strengthen our community of nations, and strengthen our collective engagement. first, we must strengthen our collective defense, our ability to defend our populations and our countries against any threat. in response to russia's aggression against ukraine, we immediately reinforced our defense and deterrence. and at the nato summit in wales, we agreed our groundbreaking readiness action plan to make sure our response to any challenge is firm and fast. our defense capabilities, military posture and political will must send a clear signal to any potential aggressor.

we must also improve our ability to participate in international crisis management. the threat posed by the so-called islamic state requires a military response to degrade and defeat this terrorist organization. and it was the credible threat of military strikes against syria that pursued the assad regime to give up their chemical weapons. and it was the principle of responsibility to protect that led up -- that lead the u.n. security council to mandate a military cooperation in libya. we must be able, ready and willing to step up to the plate when complex can affect our own security.

and we must improve our ability to help partners build their own security forces. if we train local security forces to take care of local security, we can project stability without necessarily projecting large numbers of our own troops. so we must do more to help our partners defend themselves, find their own solutions and prevent crises in their regions before they emerge. that is why at the whales summit, we launched a new defense capacity building initiatives. as an initial step, we extended to georgia, jordan and moldova. and if the new government requests it, nato will consider a new defense capacity building

mission for iraq as well. all this will require more investments in defense and security. at the whales summit, we turned a corner. the commitment to gradually increase defense investment over the next decade is as strong and united response to the ark of crises surrounding us. security comes at a cost. but insecurity is much more expensive. and freedom does not come for free. second, we must strengthen the global community of free societies that are devoted to democracy, market economy, the

rule of law, human rights, and respect for the liberal, rules-based international order. europe and north america are at the core of the global community. the transatlantic bond is the bedrock of our shared security and our common values. we must continue to strengthen that community and reach out to the like-minded partners across the globe. we should invigorate our economies by enhancing economic ties, more trade, more mutual investments. i welcome the free trade agreement between the european union and canada, and i hope to

see a rapid conclusion of negotiations on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership between the european union and the united states. frear trade and greater investments will create jobs and set a strong example for others to follow. and a stronger economic partnership will boost our ability to protect and promote an international rules-based economic system, whose benefits we all enjoy. we should strengthen the strategic partnership between the european union and nato. we share 22 members. we share a positive vision of a europe whole, free and at peace. but we also share difficult neighborhoods. so we should work even more

closely together to deal with those threats and to project stability. by bringing new members into nato and the european union, we have spread peace, prosperity and progress across the continent. we made clear in wales that we are actively supporting our partners in europe to choose their own path. we will keep nato's door open for new members. we continue to help partners to walk through that door if they so wish and if they make the necessary reforms. and no third country can have a veto. our shared vision of a europe

whole, free and at peace cannot be complete without the integration of the western balkans. montenegro could be an important next step. that's why our door must, and will stay open. the united states and europe are core partners and allies. but this is not an exclusive club. we should continue to reach out to like-minded partners across the globe. a stronger global community of democracies would help us protect and promote freedom, democracy, free trade and a rules-based world order. those are the values that forces of oppression violently oppose.

by working together, the world's free societies can better preserve and bolster our core values. because to preserve the rules-based global order and our way of life, the forces of freedom, cooperation and modernity must prevail over those of division, dictatorship and destruction. third, we must strengthen our engagement in the world securi security. stand up for our fundamental principles and values, defend the rules-based international order. for decades, the world has

profited from a liberal international order, a cooperative order of states observing common rules and nor norms, embracing freedom, market economy and democracy and renouncing the territorial conquests. a rules-based order that can manage the peaceful rise of new powers, a liberal international order that has facilitated global peace, progress and prosperity. we the citizens of free societies need to show greater self-confidence and our own values, principles and way of life. of course, our societies are not perfect.

but freedom and opportunities for each individual have tapped undreamt of resources and unleash progress and innovation. the right to choose your own way of life stimulates creativity and energy. the freedom to oppose critical questions about established truths and dogmas insures progress, renewal and development. and the right to speak against those in power contributes to more open society and a more efficient and transparent government. i see these values and principles now coming under pressure from forces of oppression.

forces of oppression that want to limit the liberal democracy and trample the liberal international order. recent events show only too clearly that freedom, democracy and peace cannot be taken for granted. it is for us to stand up for freedom and defend our freedom. we have to be willing and able to use both soft and hard power to protect and promote our values. however we approach the end of over a decade of combat operations in afghanistan we see pressures to turn inward.

[inaudible] we must be prepared to back up the soft power with military hard power when necessary.

we must not only develop the capabilities we need. we must also demonstrate the political will to use them when required so i welcome the important efforts of the united states and other allies and partners to act against the so-called islamic state. we have seen again and again that crises breed crises. force is still a factor. and if we fail to defend freedom and democracy, forces of oppression will seize their opportunity. we have seen again and again that appeasement does not lead

to peace. it just incite tyrants and a failure to counter oppression only invites further oppression. that is the lesson of the 20th century century, a lesson we must never forget. so, while military action remains the last resort, we must be able to resort to it when we need to, not to wait for but to build peace. ladies and gentlemen, i am very proud to have served this unique alliance.

nato is the only permanent framework where 28 democracies of north america and europe consults, decide and act every day to ensure our collective security. after 20 years of challenging operations, we have the most capable and connected forces in the history. and we are at the center of a wide network of security partnerships with countries and organizations across the globe. this is a challenging time. a time when our values and our will are being tested. we must rise to the challenge, resist the pressures to retren retrench, and remain resolute.

over the past year we have seen why we need nato. the question is no longer why nato. the question now is about more nato. our wales summit has set out a clear course. we need to pursue that course urgently, to reinforce the rules-based international order and remain united today and in the years to come. we must preserve our freedom, protect our people and promote our values. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you very much mr. secretary-general and i thank john for inviting me to share the stage with you. it's been a great pleasure working with you in the past five years. sadly we are losing you that we have new skin in the game and hopefully he will be as open open and oppressive to have been. let me start with current and recent events. he said in your earlier remarks the threat posed by the islamic state demands military response. there are some who have argued recently that we are in the west reacting precipitously because of images of americans and british people killed. i wonder if you could address and perhaps as a follow-on to that the same people argue that

perhaps faces is not a threat to our homeland where is the major strategic -- russia and ukraine risk becoming stranded by her focus on vices. can you address those issues? thank you. >> first, i think it's fair to say that the rise of isis because i don't want to call it the islamic state because it's not a state, the rise of this terrorist organization has become obvious during the last months i would say. i think this is the reason why the international community takes action now. of course the despicable acts, the murder not only of sunni westerners but actually thousands of people in iraq and

syria add to this picture. and i think all this has provoked the international efforts to establish a coaliti coalition. and i also think it's important to build a coalition that includes regional powers within countries. and it takes some time. so i think that explains why it is now that we take action. the next question, all the efforts against isis detract attention from what is happening in the middle east? definitely not. we are able to handle the broad range of security challenges whether they are seeing to the

east or to the south. that is actually one of the very important conclusions of the whales summit that nato will not become a one-dimensional alliance. we will keep our ability to address the broad range of security challenges. we will not lose sight of what is going on in this. >> will you follow up on the issue whether isis presents a threat to nato? he said rather definitively that and again one of the things you cited was the foreign fighter issues where european americans are going to the region fighting and coming back. is that the greatest threat this poses to our stability both in europe and the u.s.? >> of course the issue of foreign fighters returning to our countries is a very direct threat and we have to address

that. we decided at the whales summit that they would strengthen our cooperation on intelligence and information-sharing to counter that threat. but obviously increasing instability will also have an impact on the overall euro atlantic security. this is the reason why nato allies take action and try to create an international coalition to counter isis. >> both nato and carnegie submitted questions via twitter and i will pick a couple that are wrote to her conversation. first i wanted to touch on from a gentleman named tom steinocher is a senior research -- and it does to this issue. what is nato's role in anti-isis coalition? thus far nato as an institution

he argues the state on the sidelines. why is that ann is that accurate? has this been a coalition of the willing rather than a nato-led coalition why so? >> first of all actually this goes beyond nato. i think it's of utmost importance to establish a coalition that also includes countries from the region. so this goes actually beyond nato. secondly, we haven't received any requests for nato involvement. however at the whales summit we decided three strands of activities that could be relevant for nato and strands that are relevant for nato. firstly we declare that if we receive a request from the new iraqi government we stand ready to consider defense capacity

building which for instance could be to resume our training activities in iraq. we had a training mission in iraq in 2011. we could exchange of activities if the iraqi government request though. secondly dado can contribute to coordinating individual allies efforts in iraq and certainly as you mentioned we will strengthen intelligence cooperation to counter the threat of foreign fighters returning. >> to push push him point to one thing that nato does bring to the table that many organizations organizations can't is this command-and-control capability with allies. is that something that potentially down the road as the alliance comes together could play a role in terms of being the backbone for that command-and-control operation? >> at this stage i won't exclude

anything because they think the international community has a responsibility to degrade and defeat isis. that poses a threat not only to iraq and to the region that poses a global threat. but as i mentioned so far we haven't received any requests for nato involvement. in 2011 you saw that the military operation against libya started as a coalition unwilling but it eventually became a nato operation including the. >> i will abuse my chairmanship for one more question and turned to the audience for q&a and give further questions as we continue. you mentioned in regard to isis the appeasement does not lead to peace. i want to turn out slightly on its head and use that speech, that line and ask you about

russia. what we have seen over the last week is on friday day suspension or delay on elements in the e.u.-russia or china trade deal to the end of 2015. we saw the e.u. foreign ministers are talking about suspending or lifting sanctions. are we suddenly now willing to accept something of a conflict in the basque against the russian threat inside the ring? >> we should never accept a new frozen conflict in eastern europe and of course we should do all we can to encourage a peaceful solution to this conflict but actually my concern is it's in russia's interest to establish a new protected frozen

conflict in the region. actually i think the long-term ambition of freshness to reestablish russian influence in the neighborhood and prevent countries, neighboring countries, prevent them from seeking integration with nato and e.u.. at that and that is within russia's interest to keep these frozen protracted conflicts in moldova and georgia now crimea and eastern ukraine and ukraine. so we should never accept that. >> just to push a slightly on this you have used stark language in your address the threat posed by russia and the violation they have done to any number of agreements. an almost equally stark language

for isis you advocate military involvement and for russia by last year in interviews in person but also press conferences whether you advocate military systems and heaven only -- heavy weaponry and you have have to first lay on that. why are you advocating military prevention for isis but not help for ukraine militarily win in your rhetoric you seem to present an equal threat to our way of life. >> firstly, while it's clear that russia has violated all its international commitments and has conducted illegal military actions in ukraine, i don't think russia poses an imminent threat to nato allies for the very reason that russia knows

that we have a nato treaty that protects any ally against atta attack, and an attack on one of being attacked on the whole. that's why i don't think russia poses an imminent threat to nato allies. however, to keep our deterrence credible, we have taken steps as you know to reinforce our collective defense and for ukraine, we do believe that the right way forward is it a political solution and while it's clear that russia has violated international norms and rules, i still think russia would be capable to negotiate if they decide to do so. ..

mr. secretary general, i am -- my origins are from palestine, jordan. mr. secretary general, two years ago we were invited by europe to speak about nato and arab spring, and youai