federal, is it not? >> only in so far as safety is concerned, your honor. there are no federal siting regulations. >> does the public service commission have any authority to control the rate, for example, the way our gas would move through this pipeline? >> if it had intrastate commerce, it does. if it is interstate commerce, i don't begin to. >> so largely, this is about site location. >> i think it is entirely a site location case, your honor. and i think the aspect of major oil pipeline law leaves those issues to the states. the states are charged with

evaluating their resources, the needs of their people, and all of those things that the public service commission is directed to consider in order to make a quasijudicial finding that is subject to judicial review. here, the governor doesn't have to do any of those things. i think that is another reason why, frankly, section 75.501 should not be seen as an anyway confining the reach of article four, section 20. >> what is the governor expected to do under lb 1161? >> your honor, under lb 1161, i think what the governor is expected to do are these. number one, provided office of application. number two, dispatch the department of environmental quality to conduct some non-oats driven, nonjudicial procedure whereby evidence is gathered. number three, received, but not in a silly consider that report. four, make a decision about that

report and permit with no standards other than as to read the report. that is it. the gubernatorial avenue here is clearly designed to preclude any citizen input in a judicial setting and in any judicial review. >> how do those tasks relate to the bestowing of eminent domain? >> what you asked about the governor is expected to do, i think i answered correctly. the governor is permitted to identify a for-profit applicant and be restricted in the power of eminent domain. that power is also improperly delegated to the governor. >> because the domain flows from approval. it is layered.

>> it absolutely does. it is not a categorical brand, like the legislature and counties. this is the legislature to a specific applicant, maybe one of 5, 10, 15 applicants for similar authority. >> does your argument with respect to 75 point 501 consistent with the city of bear case? -- does your argument with respect to 75.501 consistent with the city of bayer case? >> i think the city of bayer case is inconsistent with my argument to some extent. the city of bayer case is specifically a strictly intrastate case. and at issue is whether the applicant in that case engaged in any actual commerce that was of any interstate character. and the finding of the court was that there was no interstate activity participated in. the question we have here was not really reached by bayard. if carefully read, it is not

authority for proposition contrary to our contentions. your honors, we respectfully request that you affirm the judgment of the district court, find that article four, section 20 was offended and that our clients have standing, and affirm the judgment of the district court, even if you don't find article four, section 20 was violated for any of those reasons we specified in our cross-appeal. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. do we have time for rebuttal? >> one minute and 42. >> one minute and 42 seconds. >> thank you. you all seem to like bayard, is that right? >> we do. it stands for the standpoint of -- actually come in the holding of bayard, they were talking

about the pipeline that wasn't interstate pipeline that relied on the domain authority of interstate pipelines. at the time, those were separate statutory authorities for engaging in eminent domain. first, i would like to point out that this is a facial challenge and the plaintiffs must show that there is no unlawful application of this law which exists. during counsel's argument, it was pointed out that no applicants of a pipeline carrier with an international border permit pending. this shows exactly the one application that involves an interstate pipeline, which would not be a common carrier under the plain definition of 75.501. >> would it be a common carrier under the common law definition? >> it would not, because the common law definition as i mentioned earlier, is one that says they operate in nebraska and through, but not outside of nebraska.

turning briefly to the due process clause, the governor in approval of a route does not deprive these applicant of life, liberty, or property without just compensation. if it occurs, it occurs during an imminent domain proceeding, where landowners will have their day in court and be entitled to challenge whether or not it was for public use and whether or not they received just compensation. i would ask the court to please reverse the ruling of the

president obama said there is 234578 agreement among nato members that there must be immediate action to address the threat posed by isis. speaking to reporters in wales, the president said the goal is to degrade and ultimately defeat the militant islamic group. this is about 25 minutes.

i want to thank the people of newport and cardiff and the people of wales for welcoming me and my delegation so warmly. it's a great honor to be the first sitting u.s. president to visit wales after more than a deck aid nato's combat mission is coming to an end. russia's aggression against ukraine threatens our vision after europe that is whole, free, and at peace. in the middle east, the terrorist threat from isil poses a growing danger. this summer, our alliance to sum mon the will, the resources and the capabilities to meet all of these challenges.

first and foremost, we reample the central mission of the alliance. article 5 enshrines our solemn duty, an armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against them all. this is a binding treaty obligation. it is non-negotiable. here in wales, west left absolutely no doubt: we will defend every ally. second, we agree to be resolute in reassuring our allies in eastern europe, increase nato air patrols over the baltics will continue. rotations of additional forces throughout eastern europe for training and exercises will continue. naval patrols in president black sea will continue. and all 28 nato nations agree to contribute to all of these measures for as long as necessary. third, to ensure that nato reforms prepared for any

contingency, we agreed to a readiness action plan, updated defense planning. we will concentrate a new highly ready rapid response force that can be deployed on a very short notice. we will increase nato's presence in central and eastern europe with additional equipment, training, exercises and troop rotations. and the $1 billion initiative i aannounced in warsaw will be a strong u.s. contribution to this plan. fourth, all 28 nato nations have pledged to increase their investments in defense and to move toward investing 2% of their gdp in our collective security. these resources will help nato invest in critical capabilities including intelligence, surveillance, rec recon sans an missile defense. our lives will reverse the

decline in defense spending and rise to meet the challenges that we phase in the 21st century. fifth, we are fully united in territorial integrity and its right to defend itself. to back up this equipment, all 28 nato allies will now provide security assistance to ukraine. this includes non-lethal support to the ukrainian military like body armor, fuel and medical care for wounded ukrainians troops to help modernize ukrainian forces and command and control. here in wales, we also send a strong message to russia that actions have consequences. today, the united states and europe are finalizing measures to deepen and broaden our sanctions across russia's financial energy and defense sectors. at the same time, we strongly support president poroshenko's efforts to pursue a peaceful resolution to the conflict in his country.

the cease-fire announced today can advance that goal but only if there is follow-through on the ground pro-russian separatists must keep their committees and russia must stop violations with ukraine's sovereignty and teartorial integrity. beyond europe, we pay tribute to all of those from the next, more than 2200 who have given their lives for security in afghanistan. nato's combat mission ends in three months and we are prepared to transition to a new mission focused odd training, advising and assisting afghan security forces. both presidential candidates have pledged to sign the bilateral security agreement that would be the foundation of our continued cooperation. but as we all know, the outcome of the recent election must be resolved. we continue to urge the two presidential candidates to make the compromises that are necessary so afghans can move

forward together and form a sovereign united and democratic nation. finally, we reample that the door to nato membership remains top nations that can meet our high standards. we agree to expand the partnership that makes nato the hub of global execute. we are launching a new effort with our closest partners including many who have served with us in afghanistan to make sure our forces continue to operate together and will create a new initiative to help countries build their defense capabilities, start with georgia, maldova, jordan and libya. i also leave here confident that nato allies and partners are prepared to join in a broad international effort to combat the threat posed by isil. already, allies have joined us in iraq where we have stopped isil's advances. we have equipped our iraqi partners and helped them go on offense. nato has agreed to play a role

in providing security and humanitarian assistance to those who are on the front lines. key nato allies stand ready to confront this threat through military intelligence and law enforcement as well as diplomatic efforts. secretary kerry will now travel to the region to continue building the broad-based coalition that will destroy isil. taken together, i think the progress we have achieved in wales makes it clear that our alliance will continue to do whatever is necessary to ensure our collective defense and to protect our citizens. so with that, let me take a few questions. i will start with julie with the associated press. >> thank you, mr. president. i wanted to go back to the situation in ukraine if this cease-fire takes effect and appears to be holding, would you and your european counter parts back away from these sanctions that you say you have prepared or do you feel it's important to levy these sanctions regardless of this cell phone cell phone

agreement and if i could go back to the rapid response force. could you say what contributions will be in terms of protest numbers and employment? is it beyond the agreement, the proposal you announced in warsaw? >> with respect to cease-fire, we are hopeful but past experience, also skeptical, that, in fact was the separatists will follow through and the russians will stop violating ukraine's sovereignty and teartorial integrity. so, it has to be tested. i know the europeans are discussing at this point the final shape of their sanctions measur measures. it's my view if you look at president poroshenko's plan, it is going to take some time to implement, and as a sequence, for us to move forward based on what is currently happening on the ground with sanctions, while

acknowledging that if, in fact, the elements of the plan is implemented, then those sanctions could be lifted is a more likely way for us to ensure that there is follow-through. but that's something that, obviously, we will consult closely with our european partners to determine. i do want to point out, though, that the only reason that we are seeing this cease-fire at this moment is because of both the sanctions that have already been applied and the threat of further sanctions, which are having a real impact on the russian economy and have isolated russia in a way that we have not seen in a very long time. the path for russia to rejoin the community of nations that respects international law is still there. and we encourage president putin to take it but the unity and the

firmness that we have seen in the transatlantic alliance in supporting ukraine and applying sanctions has been, i think, a te testimony to how certain lus people take the basic principal that big countries it just stomp on little countries or force them to change their policies and give up their sovereignty. so, i am very pleased with the kind of work that's been done throughout this crisis in ukraine, and i think u.s. leaderships have been critical throughout that process. with respect to the rapid response forces and the ness action plan we put forward, in warsaw, announced $1,000,000,000 in our initiative. a sizeable portion of that will be devoted to implementing

various aspects of this readiness action plan. we have already increased obviously rotations of personnel in the baltic states, for example. we have the air policing. we have the activities that are taking place in the baltic and the black sea. but this allows us to supplement it. it allows us to coordinate it and integrate it further with additional contributionses from other partners and what it signifies is nato's recognition that in light of recent russian actions as well as rhetoric, we want to make it crystal clear, we mean what we say when we are talking about our article v commitments and an increased presence serves as the most effective deterrent to any additional russian aggression that we might see.

angela king wilburn? >> thank you, mr. president. what are your expectations for regional act orders like saudi air arabi arabia, yemen and jordage can provide against the islamic state? is there a role there for iran as well contra as you know, secretary kerry today said he expects the allied countries to coalesce around a specific plan around the end of september. do you agree with the timeline that he set out? and what concrete commitments, if any, are you leaving this summit with from the other nations that were here? >> let me start with a general point. there was unanimity over the last two days that is ill poses a significant threat to nato members. and there was a recognition that we have to take action.

i did not get any resistance or pushback tho the basic notion that we have a critical role to play in rolling back this savage organization that is causing so much chaos in the region and is harming so many people. and poses a long-term threat to the safety and security of nato members. so there is great conviction that we have to act as part of the international community to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. and that was extremely encouraging. beyond that, what we have already seen is significant support from a variety of member states for specific actions that we have been taking in iraq. keep in mind, we have taken already 100 strikes in iraq that have had a significant impact on degrading their capabilities and

making sure that we are protecting u.s. citizens, critical infrastructure providing the space for the iraqi government to form. our hope is that the iraqi government is actually formed and finalized next week. >> then allows us to work with them on a broader strategy. and some of the assistance has been in the form of airlifts or humanitarian assistance. much of it is has been providing additional arms to the peshmerga and the iraqi security forces. there has been logistical support, intelligence and surveillance and reconissance support and a variety of folks with different capabilities have already made a contribution. i am cop finish confident we wi

build on that and have the kind of coalition that will be required for the sustained effort we need to push isil back. now, john kerry is going to be traveling the region to have further consultations with the regional actors and the regional players and i think it is absolutely critical that we have arab states and specifically sunni majority states that are rejecting the kind of extremist nilism we are seeing out of isil who say that is not what islam is about and are prepared to join us actively in the fight. and, you know, my expectation is that we will see friends and allics and partners in the region prepared to take action as well as part of a coalition. one of our tasks is also going

to be to build capability. what we have learned in iraq is, yes, isil has significant cape abilities and they combine terrorist tactics with traditional military tactics to significant effect. part of the problem, also, is that we haven't seen as effective a fighting force on the part of the iraqi security forces as we need. and we are going to have to focus on the capable units that are already there, bolster them, bolster the work that the peshmerga has done. we can support them from the air, but ultimately, we are going to need a strong ground game, and we are also going to need the sunni tribes in many of these areas to recognize that their future is not with the kind of fanaticism that isil represents so that they start

taking the fight to isil as well. >> that's going to require the sort of regional partnerships that we are talking about. in terms of timetable, we are working deliberately. if you look at what we have done over the last several months, we have taken this in stages. first stage is to make sure we were encouraging the iraqi government formation. second stage was making sure that building on the intelligence that we were in a position to conduct limited airstrikes to protect our personnel, critical infrastructure and engage in humanitarian activities. the third will allow us to take the fight to the isil, broad en the effort and our goal is to act with urgency but also to make sure that we are doing it right, that we have the right targets, that there is support on the ground if we take an

airstrike, that we have a strong political coalition, diplomatic effort that is matching it, a strong strategic communications effort so that we are discouraging people from thinking somehow that isil represents a state, much less a caliphate. all of those things are going to have to be combined and, as i said, it's not going to happen overnight, but we are steadily moving in the right direction. we are going to achieve our goal. we are going to degrade and ultimately defeat isil. the same way we have gone after, the same way we have gone after the al-qaeda affiliate in somalia where we released today the fact that we have killed the leader of al shabaab in somal i can't and have worked to degrade their operations.

we have been very systematic and me methodical in going after these kind of organizations that may threaten u.s. person he will and the homeless -- personnel and the homeland. and that deliberation allows us to do it right. but have no doubt, we will continue and i will continue to do what is necessary to protect the american people and isil poses a real threat and i am encouraged by the fact that our friends and allies recognize that same threat. julie davis? >> thank you, mr. president. i want to follow up on what you were saying about isil and ask if you think that the objective here is to destroy and degrade them. are those the same thing in your mind? is the goal to ultimately -- secretary kerry said there was no containing them. so is it to anilate them?

and you talked about the importance of expertise on the ground and building up capacity on the ground. do you think since airstrikes are not going to do it here, ultimately if action is needed in syria, can you expect the free syrian army to destroy, not just push back isil? >> you can't contain an organization that is running roughshod through that much territory causing that much havoc, displacing that many people. killing that many notices, enslaving that many women. the goal has to be to dismantle them. if you look at what happened with al-qaeda in nafata where their primary base was, you initially push them back. you systematically degrade their

capabilities. you narrow their scope of action. you slowly shrink the space, the territory that they may control. you take out their leadership and over time, they are not able to conduct the same kind of terrorist attacks as they once could. as i said, i think in my last presence conference, given the nature of these organizations, are there potentially remnants of an organization that are still running around in hiding and still potentially plotting? absolutely. and we will continue to hunt them down same way we are doing with remnants of al-qaeda in nafatah or elements of al shabaab in somal i can't or terrorists who operate anywhere around the world, but what we

can accomplish is to dismantle this network, this force that has claimed to control this much territory so that they can't do us harm. and that's going to be our objective. as i said before, i am pleased to see that there issun animity among our friends and al eyes with respect to the situation on the ground in syria, we will not be placing u.s. ground troops to try are to control the areas that part of the conflict. i don't think that's necessary to accomplish our goal. we are going to have to find

effective partners on the ground to push back against isil. the moderate coalition there is one that we can work with. we have experience working with many of them. they have been to some degree out-beguned and out-manned and that's why it's important for us to work with our friends and allies to support them more effectively. but keep in mind that when you have u.s. forces other advanced nations going after isil and putting them on the defensive and putting them on the run, it's pretty remarkable what then ground forces can do even if initially they were on the defensive against isil. so that is a developing strategy that we are going to be consulting with our friends, our allies, our regional partners. but bottom line is, we will do

what is necessary in order to make sure that isil does not threaten the united states or our friends and partners. okay? one last question. colleen? colleen nelson of "wall street journal." >> thank you, mr. president. some senate democrats facing tough races in november have asked you to delay action on immigration. have the concerns of other democrats influenced your thinking? and do you see any downside at this point to delaying until after the election? >> i have to tell you that this week, i have been pretty busy focused on ukraine and focused on isil and focused on making sure that nato is boosting its commitments and then following through on what's necessary to meet the the 2 onest century challenges. j johnson and eric holder have begun to provide me some of their proposals and recollections. i will be reviewing them and,

you know, my expectation is that fairly soon, i will be considering what the next steps are. what i am unequivocal about is that we need immigration reform, that my overriding preference is to see congress act. we h bi-partisan action in the senate. the house republicans have sat on it for over a year. >> that his a mistake. i intend to take action to make sure we are putting more resources on the border, that we are upgrading how we process these cases, and that we see find a way to encourage legal immigration and give people some path so that they can start paying taxes and pay a fine and

learn english and be able to not look over their shoulder but be legal since they have been living here for quite some time. so, you know, i suspect that on my flight back, this will be part of my reading, taking a look at some of the specifics that we have looked at, and i will be making an announcement soon but i want to be very clear, my intention is in the absence -- in the absence of action by congress, i am going to do what i can do within the legal constraints of my office because it's the right thing to do for the country. all right? thank you very much people of wales. i had a wonderful time. >> british prime minister david cameron says the cease-fire agreement in ukraine is good news but as there needs to be a commitment to a real peace plan.

he suggests sanctions continues but could be lifted if a cease-fire and peace plan are put in place. prime minister cameron took questions at the conclusion. this is about 25 minutes. . >> good afternoon. this summit has shown a real sense of purpose, resolution, and unity. everyone can see what nato stands for and why it matters. it is about here at home our national security and the execute of every family in britain. this is an alliance that is strong and united that knows what the major challenges are and is determined to overcome them. first, there has been a clear mention sent out from this conference to russia that what putin is doing is indefensible and wrong. while we meet here in newport, a package of sanctions is being finalized in brussels that will

further increase the economic cost to russia for its behavior. we stand behind ukraine's right to have make its own decisions, not to have them made by russian tanks rolling over the border. we will continue our efforts, financial assistance to improve their command control and communication capability. nato members across europe, particularly until central and eastern europe have been reassured this is an alliance that will meet its treaty obligations to any member that's under threat. no one will leave here in any doubt that our collective security in nato is as strong as it's ever been. the alliance is firmly committed to providingoing reassurance to our eastern allies. the united kingdom will contribute 3 and a half thousand personnel between now and the end of 2015 as part of nato's effort to ensure a persistent presence on our eastern flank.

we have agreed to step up nat s ability to respond to a threat with a new multi-national spearhead force which is deployable anywhere in the world within two to five days. the u.k. will provide a battle grouped and a brigade headquarters and i hope other nations will set out their plans, too, backing communique words with concrete action. nato needs to be stronger. britain is one of only four countries that currently spends 2% of its gdp on defense. but others will now do more. with today's wales pledge every nato member not spending 2% will halt any decline in defense spending. they will aim to move toward 2% within a decade. it's not just the amount of money that matters. it is spending on equipment that you can actually deploy. we have agreed a 5th of defense

budgets should be dedicated to major new equipment. we have the second largest defense budget in nato, the biggest in the whole penal union. we have taken long-term, off difficult decisions, to put our defense budget on a sustainable footing. the fruits are coming through. we are equipping all three of our services with the best and mode modern hardware money can by. on wednesdays, i aannouncements add 3 and a half billion pound contract for the scout armored vehicles for the army, the largest such order in over three decades. the royal air force is getting new fleets of joint strike fighter and voyageur refueling aircraft as well as 22 new a 400 m transport aircraft, the first of which has just arrived. the royal navy is receiving new astute killersu sub march ease, the type 45 destroyers including duncan here in cardiff bay. and frigates. all of these decisions have been

made possible by taking the difficult, long-term approach that i have spoken about. of course we have our brand-new aircraft-carrier, hms queen elizabeth that has left the dry doc and is being fitted with the combat systems. she will be the mightiest ship the royal navy has ever put to sea, able to protect and project our interests across the globe for decades to come. today, i can announce that the second carrier, hms prince of wales will also be brought into service. this will ensure that we always have one carrier available 100% of the time. they are an investment in british security, in british prosperity and our place in the world, transforming our ability to project power globally whether independently or with our allies. third, we were clear at this nato conference about the new threat that we face, principalbly islamist extremism.

everyone remembers the iraq war 10 years ago. there were no real divisions here the nato alliance is clear about the threat that we face, the scale of that threat, and the fact that we must use all of the instruments at our disposal, humanitarian, diplomatic, and military. we have agreed to offer a nato training mission for iraq as soon as the new iraqi government is in place. the fight against isil must be led by the raebz, synthesis. but we will continue to encourage countries in the region to support this effort and we will continue to work with our partners on the ground to take all necessary steps to squeeze this bar barrick terrorist organization out of existence. this will take time and it will take resolve. we will proceed carefully and methodically drawing together the pez we need above all in the region to implement a comprehensive plan. now, fourth, as our troops

return home from afghanistan, so it is right that we do all we can to support them and their families. we are the first british government to right the military covenant, the deal between britain and her military into the law of our land. we have doubled the operation allowance for service personnel. we have introduced free higher and further education scholarships for bereaved service children, inverted 200 million in allowing service personnel to buy homes, signed up council in support of the military and given unprecedented support to military charities. today, we have taken this military covenant internationally with every nato member signing up to a new armed forces declaration to honor and look after those whose work and sacrifices have delivered our peace and security over the last 65 years and for us to ask what more we could do in future years to honor, revere those who serve

us and our families. we leave celtic manor today united in purpose and with a stronger nato better able to keep our people safe. i would like to thank everyone who has helped to make this summit possible. but most of all, i would like to thank the people of wales who have welcomed the world and, i believe, done our united kingdom and nato proud. thank you. very happy to take some questions. let's start with feisel. prime minister, do you take the cease-fire in ukraineake seriously, the offer from putin and the reaction to it? essence accepting the defective situation in that country? >> first of all, we are not accepting a partition of the ukraine. we should respect ukraine's

territorial integrity. that is why we have taken sanctions and put on pressure, and that is why you see such unity in nato today. the announcement is good news. at need to loo carefully whether it is a cease-fire or it also includes a commitment, as i understand it might, to create real progress on a proper peace plan. we need to look at the detail of that to be sure that happens. we should be clear that sanctions we agreed on last saturday in brussels will go ahead and be put in place, that of course if a cease-fire and a proper peace plan is put in place, then it would be right to look to see how sanctions could potentially be removed. doubt, theo cease-fire is good news. eight peace -- a peace would be better news, but sanctions go ahead. >> you said that ukraine should not be dictated to by russian tanks. isn't that precisely what has

happened? ukraine has summoned a cease-fire, putin has won because the ukrainians realized the west did too little, too late. >> i don't accept that. remember how this all came about. the people of ukraine has made -- have made the democratic choice to have an agreement with the european union. food and -- putin's actions have been totally unjustified, and what we have so far is a cease-fire and some form of peace process. we should be clear we should not accept the partition of ukraine. it is one country. orderone country whose should be respected, and that is what needs to happen now. i'm confident that is what president poroshenko will seek to achieve. i would challenge the view that the eu, the west, america have

somehow been weak in response to what happened. it is important to focus on the pressure that we can realistically and effectively bring to their. that is, economic sanctions pressure. day russiaof the needs europe and america more than america and europe need russia. that's why the sanctions we introduced, the russian economy was growing. it is now shrinking. the ruble has fallen. the stock market is falling. banks have problems raising money. i believe russia can see that the eu and u.s. have moved together in these things, most recently in the latest round of sanctions. if they go on to stabilize the country, partitioning the country, they will face more pressure. we are taking the right approach. these things are never solved easily, but there is genuine resolve between america and the countries of the european union to keep up the pressure if there is not a fair outcome.

minister, in dealing with islamic state, isn't part of what you need to do going to involve dealing with the situation on the ground in syria? could you tell me what your thinking is on the? are you tempted to come to a new deal with president assad, or is that off the table? assad's deal with the question first. my view is president assad is part of the cause of the problem because it has been the brutality with which he has attacked his own people that has led some of them, some of the sunni population, to seek solace in the extremist movement because they have been brutalized by assad. i find it hard to see him being part of the solution. it is important we act in a way that preserves our moral authority and we don't start is my friend.

-- doing deals on the basis that my enemy's enemy is my friend. i don't think that is the right approach. if we are going to deal with the problem of isil, isis, we have to deal with it across the board. as i argued that starts at home , with stopping fighters going to fight. making sure we are secure. it involves a new iraqi government. it also involves the same thing in syria that we need in iraq. just as we need in iraq a pluralistic government that can represent all the people of that country, so in syria we need a transition to a government that can represent all of the people in that country and stop brutalizing them. >> part of my argument is you need that mixture of intelligent politics, diplomatic pressure, long term engagement and a comprehensive plan, as well as the potential for military or

other more aggressive action. you need all those things to solve this problem. that will be the case with syria as with iraq. let's have the gentlemen here. >> you have been asking other countries to pledge to go back to defense spending. the think tanks say britain's defense spending has dipped to something like [indiscernible] next year. did you make any commitments? >> we are above 2%. we are one of only four countries. estonia, greece, and britain in the european union, and america, four out of 28. we have stayed above 2% even at a time when we have one of the biggest budget deficits anywhere in the world. i think that is important. i think it is worth looking at

what the declaration says pretty what is remarkable is there has always been the 2% pledge in nato, but it has never been set out as clearly as this. it is very clear what has been signed up to. it makes a differentiation. it says those meeting 2% should aim to continue. some year after year have not been spending 2%. it says allies whose current proportion of gdp spent is below on this level will default any aim toward [indiscernible] an aim to move toward the 2% within a decade. i would argue there's a lot that has been achieved. proper training missions that will go to countries like jordan and georgia and iraq. here an important breakthrough in terms of getting other countries to bear the burden britain and others have been bearing.

we will set our budget at the time of the next election. i am proud of the fact that even in a difficult fiscal environment we have frozen the defense budget in cash terms, 35 billion pounds, a top five defense budget anywhere in the world. because we have made difficult choices, we have the aircraft carrier, the destroyers, frigates, and all the other hardware i mentioned. we have talked about that a lot today. tom? >> prime minister, john kerry was forthright in his views on how to tackle isil and what was needed. i wonder if you agreed with him in three specific areas. one, that it could be a last to fight up to three years.

two, that he would like to seek you an authorization as early as the end of the month at the general meeting. and third, it would take real military commitment from the air and coalition partners. >> i agree with the sorts of points he has been setting out. the issue about the time this will take, i would not put a specific time on a specific problem like so-called islamic state. it arose very rapidly. i believe it can be squeezed effectively. i would not want to put a time on that. but i have said many times this is a generational struggle. we have been fighting against islamist extremism around the world. one thing i tred to get across at the conference is i think it is wrong to think the cause of the problem is the particular fracture in a country like syria or iraq. the cause of the problem is the poison of islamist extremism. wherever there are fractures,

civil wars, conflicts, it bubbles to the surface. that is why you have seen it in somalia, nigeria, afghanistan when it was controlled by the taliban. and tragically in syria and iraq. the struggle we are involved in is a generational struggle. in terms of the u.n., i think the more the human can say to back and support hopefully a new iraqi government and condemn islamist extremism, i think the better. in terms of military commitment, solving this problem has already taken military commitment. britain has been dropping aid out of military planes. we have been flying over iraq. we have been supplying the peshmerga with arms. clearly military commitment is required. anything we do must be part of a comprehensive plan. we must be working with allies.

we must help those on the ground involved in the fight. i would put front and center the need for an iraqi government that can represent all its people because the heart of this problem is in iraq itself. if you ask who is responsible for running an iraqi state that is not extremist, that is not backed terror, that supports all people, that is the job of the iraqi government. you cannot overestimate how important that is as part of the comprehensive plan to deal with this problem. andy? >> is it your understanding the 10 countries at the core coalition, that they are the countries prepared to take military action? if they are not, what does this amount to? >> at the danger of repeating

myself, there was great unity at this conference about what needed to be done, about making sure we are backing those on the ground, helping the locals in the region and the rest of it. for britain's part, we don't rule anything out. we will act in our national interest. the sort of decisions you're talking about, we are not at that stage yet. i think it is important we do it as part of a comprehensive plan. one more. why don't we have at the back over here? >> in two weeks, scottish voters will be deciding whether to stay with the u.k. or leave it. how will you explain to your partners in nato if there is a yes vote that one of its major allies is breaking up? can i ask whether the pledge

would mean an independent scotland would have to agree to the 2% target as a condition of entering nato? >> i will be consistent as i have been throughout this campaign that all questions for what a separated scotland would have to do are effectively questions for alexander to answer. i don't think he has answered them effectively at all. for the united kingdom, i can answer this. on nato questions and the rest of it, you have to ask him. there is total confusion about whether a separated scotland has a place in the european union, nato, or the rest of it. in terms of the last two weeks of this campaign, what i will be wanting to stress is what a vital and important question this is. it is a question for voters in

scotland to consider for their future. but i take a very clear, loud message from the rest of the united kingdom, which is that we want you to stay. we care passionately about our family of nations. scotland can make a different choice. the scottish people are sovereign in this matter. this should be no doubt that the rest of the united kingdom wants them to remain part of our successful family of nations. when you reflect on the dangers in our world, i don't think there is any doubt with live in a dangerous and insecure world. i would have thought one of the strongest arguments those of us who want to see the united kingdom stay together is to make in that dangerous world with terrorist threats, isn't it better to be part of a united kingdom that has a top five defense budget, some of the best security and intelligence

services anywhere in the world, that is part of every alliance that really matters in the world in terms of nato, the g-8, the g-20, the european union, a permanent member of the security council of the u.n., to have all those networks and abilities to work with allies to keep us safe, isn't it better to have those things than to separate yourself from them? those are some of the arguments we will be making in the weeks to come before this vital vote. let me stress again it is a decision for the scottish people. but i want them to know that as they make that choice, the rest of the united kingdom cares passionately about our family of nations and wants them to stay. thank you all very much for coming. i hope you have enjoyed being in wales as much as i have for this summit. let me say again, a big thank you to everyone, the police, our armed services. i think they have performed brilliantly. above all, to the people of wales who have given such a warm

welcome to the world and have done the united kingdom

this morning washington times chief cover respondent patrice hill will discuss the latest job numbers and reid wilson looks at some of the ballot initiatives in this year's mid-term elections. later, james louis from the center for strategic and international studies examines the security of information

stored in the cloud, computers and servers that are accessed by the internet. as always, we will take your calls. you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter. "washington journal" is next. host: fast food employees