This is just over 30 minutes. All rise. Here ye, hear ye, hear, ye. Thank you. You may be seated. Good morning to everyone. Our first case this morning is thompson versus heinemann. Reedman. Iedman good morning. Good morning. Today. Re i would like to reserve three minutes of my time for rebuttal. We are asking this court to reverse the decision for two reasons. T, second lb 1161 does not the exclusive jurisdiction. We stand on those arguments. We will turn now to the merits of our case. Well, just a minute. On your standing, didnt we in cunningham versus x carve out an exception to the standing rule. . . Would you agree that this concerns a matter of great concern . Yes. And that was a standing. And that case did not have a legal extend it through involved, correct . That is correct. Why did exxon control that . In cunningham versus exxon, there was no one to actually challenge the constitutionality of the statute. It is not only that it has to be a matter of important public purpose but there must be no , individual or entity that can challenge the constitutionality of the statute. Did we say that in cunningham . I believe we did, your honor. If theres illegal expenditure, does that go to both . Illegal expenditure goes to the taxpayer standing analysis. We would argue that in this case , we would argue that the statute on its face requires reimbursement for every expenditure associated with the statute implementation, and that there is no unlawful expenditure of taxpayer funds. If we were to decide that there was an illegal expenditure, what does that do to your argument . If there was an unlawful expenditure of taxpayer funds, we would still submit that this is a case where there are individuals better suited to bring this challenge. The taxpayer standing exception is limited to allow these particular appellees to go forward with limited exception. Who is better suited to bring this lawsuit . For one, the pipeline carriers, who are actually subject to the regulations under lb 1161. Why would a pipeline challenge this legislation . The Pipeline Company would challenge this legislation because prior to its adoption, there was simply no restriction on their ability to engage in imminent domain. Tolong as they were entitled , they were entitled to proceed with the pipeline. Isnt it more beneficial now that they have two options . To have their application granted. I suppose it is more beneficial, that they have two options, but there are still argument to be made that if they wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the statute they can do so. When you said every expenditure, could you explain that, please . You said that every expenditure would be reimbursed . Does that encompass new money, old money, direct or indirect . What you mean by that . Within the record there is an affidavit, and every cost associated with the limitation of the development oflb 1161 in all of the cases that it was applied was reimbursed, not just over and above, but any imaginable task. Cost. Does the record reflect that expenditures were made above and beyond the appropriation made by the legislature . Even though they may have been reimbursed. Doesnt the record show that . The record shows there was an authorization of an appropriation of 2 million, and as i understand, the record reflects an additional total amount was paid, but that the applicant paid the money as they went and never exceeded that 2 million limit. 2 million outstanding . Is that your view . That is what the appropriation was by the legislature. And you are saying that the pattern of this reimbursement was such that it was never more than 2 million outstanding . That is manner standing, yes. In the decision of chambers, doesnt that confer upon taxpayers the illegal use of public money to pass the laws . Yes, but again, in this case we were talking about a statute where it requires reimbursement on state and there is no illegal expenditure. If that is the case, then it would allow for an evasion of a standing for a taxpayer. Well, on this, what we are talking about is a facial challenge to the taxpayer, you are right. If there was a reimbursement provision, it would potentially foreclose a facial challenge to a taxpayer. What about the other case. . . Does that have anything to do with standing . Yes, it does. As this court held in riddum as to the commissions authority, it is to the claim of unlawful investment. This case is an outlier, isnt it . There are only three judges that decided the case, and for judges concurred without an opinion. Four judges concurred without an opinion. Is that a useful source for authority . But as to the pfc ability to challenge it, this court has never questioned whether or not or has never overturned the conclusion. Has that been cited since . It has been cited since in the number of taxpayer standing, but im not sure it was a statutory construction interpretation, wasnt it . That is correct. Turning now to the merits, article four, section 20, set for the powers and duties of the pfc to include the regulation of rates, service, and general control of common carriers as the Legislature May provide by law. In the absence of specific legislation, the pfc has Plenary Authority. The constitution of the United States allows the legislature to limit the pfc authority, and for pipeline companies, they have done so. Nebraska statute 75. 501 defined pipeline common carriers as those which operate intrastate in nebraska. The plaintiff is not challenging this statutory limit on the pfc authority. The pfc has no constitutional jurisdiction over noncommon carriers. That statute was passed in, what, 1963 . That is correct. And it had its origin in the statute in 1917, did it not . As i recall, that is correct. And you think that may have been passed to answer the concerns of the e lse ohio oil, the ohio oil, which was the standard case . As i recall, the iteration of 75. 501 was still operating in nebraska and through nebraska. Thatver contemplated carriers would go beyond that. Maybe they were contemplating to ensure after that decision would regulate intrastate common carriers, not to define common carriers. The intent was to regulate common carriers, which operate intrastate. And by operation, they define what a common carrier was, which was those that operate intrastate in nebraska. In fact, our interstate pipelines largely regulated by the federal government . They are, your honor. In addition, lb 1161 only applies to those pipelines which are subject to a federal me the process. Eview they specifically excludes gather lanes, which are the typical intrastate pipelines within the state of nebraska. Is this all about site location . It is all about site location and whether or not that falls within the Plenary Authority of the pfc. We would submit that article four, section 20 applies to rates, service, and general control of the intrastate services. How are you using the legendary of authority . Plenary authority . As it applies to the intrastate common carriers. The source is what . The constitution. And you do not distinguish from relying on the definition in chapter 75. Correct. And intrastate pipelines would not be subject to the common carrier definition. Pfc only has the authority that the legislature would otherwise provide to them. You are implying that the federal government has totally occupied the field of regulation in the intrastate pipeline. No, that is not an issue that has been raised by the appellees in this case. Why would citing not come under general control . When you look at the cases that involve siting, for example, with rivets having a pfc authority, it is because of the customers along that route. They wanted service to be a part of this, to send their goods down a particular railroad. Here, the appellees are not concerned with wanting service or any sort of thing along that line. They want to make sure that this pipeline does not run down this particular route. And therefore, it falls outside of the rates, service, and general control that would generally apply to the pfc. In your use of the word service, are we to understand that you mean delivery intrastate. That is correct, your honor. There are a lot of people that look for service. If it goes through your property, does this, does that. Yes, of course, the pipeline affects all kinds of people. That is why the state of nebraska has determined that for good public purpose that the pipeline be constructed within the state of nebraska and go through these routes so that the goods they are providing are provided. Can i connect that a little bit to the whole picture . What do you think the trial judge did wrong . I believe the trial court was concerned because the particular Pipeline Company had Eminent Domain authority, and she saw the Eminent Domain authority is being equated with common carriers. And while common carriers have Eminent Domain authority, the legislature has afforded that authority to a broader group, and we would submit that it is not just common carriers. It is intrastate pipelines, which are not common carriers under the plane definition language under 75. 501, also have that Eminent Domain. Would and intrastate carrier be a common carrier under the common law definition of that term . The common law definition, as pointed to by District Court, is actually a prior redirection of iteration of the statute, which again, if you read it closely, it says operating in between locations within nebraska. Again the common law there even contemplates intrastate. With that, i will save my time for rebuttal. Thank you very much. Mr. Domina, good morning. Good morning, your honor. May it please the court, i am dave domina, and im here on behalf of the three landowners that challenge lb 1161 and contend that it violates several provisions of the nebraska constitution. One of those was discussed earlier today, article four, section 20. In addition to that, additional ways for a pipeline applicant to seek permission to build a pipeline in the brusca provides for a route that is without judicial review. If it goes to the governor and the governor makes the decision of the kind that would otherwise be made with legal limits apply, with proof required, and with due process hearing, if the governor makes that decision and set of the pfc, there is no judicial review in this statute. For that simple and specific reason, im answered by the attorney general see the courts decision today as simple and straightforward. Excuse me. Standing . Yes, we do believe our clients have standing. For three separate reasons. The one that has not been discussed thus far is direct standing. I want to recall some dates. Lb 1161 was enacted by the legislature on april 17. We filed this lawsuit on may 23 or 25. I dont recall which date right now. The record contains an exhibit 18, which is a voluminous exhibit. It includes within exhibit 18 that appendix b, a root, and that route in that appendix came into existence in september after we filed our lawsuit. The affidavit evidence we offered on the standing issue establishes that our clients are landowners and taxpayers and as that their land is or was on the route. The affidavits were made after exhibit 18 came into existence. With respect to think of to plaintiff thompson the , allegation is merit in lancaster county. Is that right . Right. And at the time they commenced a lawsuit those were after. The route was fluid. As a matter of fact, at the time that we filed this facial challenge, there was no route. There have been discussions, but no filing with the Public Service commission or with the governor. There was no permit because the statute authorizing it had not been enacted. So as the route morphed. They are still plaintiffs in your view. We think they are still direct plaintiffs. We are talking about the final reroute. Exhibit 18 is the final reroute, your honor. Do we have any addresses or legal descriptions of the property your clients own . We do not. We also do not have any addresses are legal descriptions of the route. If you look at exhibit 18, what it does is identify in a very rough, nonmeets and bounds way where this pipeline would purport to go, plus or minus a mile on either side in a map drawn in exhibit 18. There are no legal descriptions in the record. We think that the standing issue, the direct standing issue, makes us appropriate point is. Appropriate plaintiffs. The taxpayer standing issue does as well. And of course, cunningham versus exxon, this is obviously a case of substantial Public Interest and has commanded the subsequent attention of a general session, a letter from the governor to the president of the United States, and action that is in record by the u. S. State department. We think that standing is not a matter that is of concern here today. On the issue of direct standing, didnt the District Court concluded that your client did not have direct standing. It did, your honor, and did so because it specifically said that our landowner plaintiffs own real estate which is or was on the pipeline route. That is why i was careful to pull out the dates and identify those this morning for the court. Did you crossappeal on that determination . What is no, we did not. We did not because we took the position strictly that we have standing, since standing is jurisdictional. We think we only need one kind of standing. We did not need to crossappeal the direct standing findings of the court. In regard to taxpayer standing, we have spoken about whether or not there is a better plaintiff. Who has the burden to show that . Your honor, the party that challenges standing must show that a better plaintiff that exists. What is your authority for that . You made findings that strongly suggests that as recently as your knox county taxpayers decision, banks versus heineman, i think your project extra mile clearly discloses that it was not the nonprofit challenge for the liquor statute that had to identify an alternate plaintiff. And the rationale was that you would put a taxpayer who seeks to sue in the position of proving a negative. If the proposition were to prove there is no one better to sue than us. Instead, the proposition to be proven is someone identified better to sue than you. The state argues that the carriers would be the proper party. Yes, i heard that this morning. There are, of course, none identified. The state has never suggested there is another applicant for an International Border crossing permit that seeks to put a pipeline through nebraska which , is this specific class of statute. When it says other carriers it is motioning to the universe without identifying another potential plaintiff. Can the pfc challenge the statue . I dont think the Public Service commission is in a place of standing here. It has a route, and it is in place. Its route is in a place that is not a part of this litigation. If we were to conclude that the pfc is duty bound to challenge any statute that might affect his jurisdiction, we set up disputes within the State Government that i dont think are consistent with your finding with your previous holdings. Previous cases have suggested that they are outlines. It is much clearer that your jurisprudence has moved in the direction of making sure that when there is an expenditure issue that is challenge, a taxpayer can make that challenge, unless it is altogether clear that the taxpayer is meddling in a problem that involves someone who is a dramatically more directly affected player. A better one. Yes. Would than to have rule written . No, you dont. It is a morality opinion. ,t is confined to narrow facts and for good reasons. Your jurisprudence has decided that in the past. You could overrule it, but i dont think it would be here properly. I think the state has relied that is the definition of a common carrier. Yes, and if i do not get to our crossappeal issues, and i may not, i want to be sure that i say that we think we win on all of the crossappeal photo. Crossappeal issues. Which one is your strongest . I dont want to lose justice but ily, your honor, think my best argument is that it is standardless when the gubernatorial route for approval is taken. In order to ensure there is a valid delegation of authority, assuming there can be a delegation, it is standardless in this statute. I dont think there should be a delegation. As a lawyer and parttime banker, i really like our credit of the state argument, too, but i will answer the justices question about 75. 501. It is a statute that has a history very closely related to u. S. Supreme court jurisprudence. As you said a few moments ago. , it does not purport to define the outer limits of the Public Service commissions constitutional authority. It does not purport to define the legislatures limitations on its subsequent and enactments that involve the Public Service commission. It does not purport to say that a common carrier, using a pipeline as the mode of transportation of cargo for the public, has to be intrastate in order to be effective. As we said in our brief on page 14, we identify five separate reasons why that argument fails. I think the best of those is that at any particular moment, or hour or week, a pipeline can be either an intrastate or interstate carrier. It can switch back and forth, just like a Trucking Company can do. In fact, the regulation of this pipeline is largely 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 dont 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 doesnt 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 nonoats 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 forprofit 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 dont , find article four, section 20 was violated for any of those reasons we specified in our crossappeal. 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 wasnt interstate pipeline that relied on the Domain Authority of interstate pipelines. At the time, those were separate statutory authorities for engaging in Eminent Domain. I would like to point out that first, this is a facial challenge and the plaintiffs must show that there is no unlawful application of this law which exists. During counsels 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 District Court and uphold lb 1161 as constitutional. Thank you very much. President obama has said he will make a decision on the xo pipeline project after he receives a recommendation from the state Department Regarding the pipelines potential Environmental Impact after the state judge ruling earlier this year. The department announced it would delay its report until the Nebraska Supreme Court issues ruling. President obama said there is unanimous agreement among nato members. There must be immediate action to a dressed the threat posed by isis. Speaking to reporters at the conclusion of the nato summit, the president said the goal is to degrade and defeat the militant islamic group. This is about 25 minutes. Good afternoon. Let me begin by thanking my great friend Prime Minister cameron and his entire team for hosting this nato summit and making it such a success. And i want to thank the people of newport and cardiff and the people of wales for welcoming me and my delegation so warmly. It is a great honor to be the first sitting u. S. President to visit wales. We have met at a time of transition and of testing. After more than a decade, natos combat mission in afghanistan is coming to an end. Russias aggression against ukraine threatens our vision of a europe that is whole, free, and at peace. In the middle east, the Terror Threats from isil pose a growing danger. At this summit, our alliance has summoned the will, the resources, and the capabilities to meet all of these challenges. First and foremost, we have reaffirmed the Central Mission of the alliance. Article five enshrines our solemn duty to each other. An armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against them all. This is a binding treaty obligation. It is not negotiable. Here in wales, we have left no doubt we will defend every ally. Second, we agreed to be resolute in assuring our allies in Eastern Europe. Increased air patrols over the baltics will continue, rotations of Additional Forces throughout Eastern Europe for training and exercises will continue, naval patrols in the 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 remains prepared for any contingency, we agreed to a new readiness action plan. The alliance will update its defense planning. We will create a new highly ready Rapid Response force that can be deployed on very short notice. We will increase natos presence in central and Eastern Europe with additional equipment, training, exercises, and troop rotations. And the 1 billion initiative that i announced in warsaw will be a strong and ongoing 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, reconnaissance, and missile defense. This commitment makes clear nato will not be complacent. Our alliance will reverse the decline in defense spending and rise to meet the challenges we face in the 21st century. Fifth, our alliance is fully united in support of ukraines sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity, and its right to defend itself. To back up this commitment, all 28 nato allies will now provide Security Assistance to ukraine. This includes nonlethal support to the Ukrainian Military like body armor, fuel, medical care for ukrainian wounded troops, as well as assistance to help modernize ukrainian forces, including logistics and command and control. Here in wales we also sent a strong message to russia that actions have consequences. Today the u. S. And europe are finalizing measures to broaden our sanctions across russias financial, energy, and defense sectors. At the same time, we strongly support president poroshenkos efforts to pursue a peaceful resolution to the conflict in his country. The ceasefire announced today can advance the goal, but only if theres followthrough on the ground. Prorussian separatists must keep their commitments, and russia must stop its violations of ukraines sovereignty and territorial integrity. Beyond europe, we pay tribute to all those from our isaf mission, including more than 2200 americans who have given their lives for our security in afghanistan. Natos combat mission ends in three months, and we are prepared to transition to a new mission to focus on training and assisting Afghan Security forces. Both president ial 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, so we continue to urge both candidates to make the compromises necessary so afghans can move Forward Together and form a sovereign, united, and democratic nation. Finally, we reaffirm the door to nato membership remains open to nations that can meet our high standards. We agreed to expand the partnership that makes nato the hub of global security. We are launching a new effort with our closest partners, including many that have served with us in afghanistan, to make sure our forces continue to operate together, and we will create a new initiative to help countries build their defense capabilities, starting with georgia, moldova, jordan, and libya. I also leave here confident 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 isils 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 for those on the frontlines. Key nato allies stand ready to confront this Terror Threat through military come intelligence, and law enforcement, as well as diplomatic efforts. Secretary kerry will now travel to the region to continue building the broadbased coalition that will enable us to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. So taken together, i think the progress we have achieved in wales makes it clear 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 pace from the associated press. Thank you, mr. President. I wanted to go back to the situation in ukraine. If the ceasefire does appears to be holding, would you and your european counterparts back away from these sanctions you say you have prepared . Or do you feel it is important to levy the sanctions regardless of the ceasefire agreement . If i can go back to the Rapid Response force, can you say specifically what u. S. Contributions will be in terms of troop numbers and equipment . Is it beyond the proposal you announced in warsaw . With respect to the ceasefire agreement, obviously we are hopeful. But based on past experience, also skeptical that the separatists will follow through and the russians will stop violating ukraines sovereignty and territorial integrity. So it has to be tested. I know the europeans are discussing the final shape of their sanctions measures. It is my view that if you look at president poroshenkos plan it is going to take some time to implement. And as a consequence, 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 are implemented, then those sanctions could be lifted is a more likely way for us to ensure there is followthrough. But that is something we will consult closely with our European Partners to determine. I do want to point out that the only reason we are seeing the ceasefire at this moment is because of both the sanctions already applied and the threat of further sanctions, which are having a real impact on the russian economy and have isolated russia in a way 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 we have seen in the Transatlantic Alliance in supporting ukraine and applying sanctions has been a testimony to how seriously people take the basic principle that big countries cannot 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 has been done throughout this crisis in ukraine. And i think u. S. Leadership has been critical throughout that process. With respect to the Rapid Response forces and the action plan we have put forward, in warsaw i announced 1 billion in our initiative. A sizable portion of that will be devoted to implementing various aspects of this readiness action plan. We have already increased rotations of personnel in the baltic states, for example. We have the air Police Activities 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 contributions from other partners. What is signified is natos recognition that, in light of recent russian actions, we want to make it crystal clear. We mean what we say when we are talking about our article five commitments, and an increased presence serves as the most effective deterrent to any additional russian aggression we might see. Angela king, bloomberg. Thank you, mr. President. What are your specific expectations for what regional actors like saudi arabia, yemen, and jordan can legitimately provide to a coalition against the Islamic State . Is there a role there for iran as well . As you know, secretary kerry said he expects the allied countries to coalesce around a specific plan by the end of september. Do you agree with the timeline that he set out . What concrete commitments, if any, are you leaving this summit with from other nations that are here . Let me start with a general point. There was unanimity over the last two days that isil 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 to the basic notion that we have a Critical Role to play in rolling back the savage organization that is causing so much chaos in the region and is harming so many people and poses a longterm 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. That was extremely encouraging. Beyond that, what we have already seen is significant support from a variety of Member States for specific actions we have been taking in iraq. Iven min keep in mind, we have done 100 strikes in iraq today that have had a Significant Impact on degrading their capabilities and making sure that we are protecting u. S. Citizens, critical infrastructure, providing space for the Iraqi Government to form. Our hope is that the government is actually form and finalized by next week. That then allows us to work with them on a broader strategy. And some of the assistance has been in the form of airlift for humanitarian assistance. Much has been providing additional arms to the peshmerga and the Iraqi Security forces. There has been logistical support, intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance support. And so a variety of folks with different capabilities have already made a contribution. I am confident that we can build on that Strong Foundation and the clear commitment and have the kind of coalition that will be required for the sustained effort we need to push isil back. Now, john kerry will be traveling to the region to have further consultations with the regional actors and players. And i think it is critical that we have arab states and, specifically, sunni majority states that are rejecting the kind of extremist nihilism we are seeing out of isil that say that is not what islam is about and are prepared to join us actively in the fight. My expectation is that we will see friends and allies and partners of ours in the region, prepared to take action as well, as part of a coalition. One of our tasks will be to build capability. What we have learned in iraq is, yes, isil has significant capabilities and the combine terrorist attacks with traditional military tactics to have significant effects. Part of the problem also is that we have not seen as effective of a fighting force on behalf of the Iraqi Security forces as we need. And were going to have to focus on the capable units that are already there, bolster them, bolster the work that the peshmergas have done, and support them from their. Ultimately, we need a strong ground game. We will also need the sunni tribes in the area, we need them to recognize that their future is not the fanaticism that isil represents, so they start taking the fight isil as well. That will 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 Iraqi Government formation. Second stage was making sure that we were building on the intelligence assessments we have done, we were in a position to conduct limited airstrikes, protect our personnel and critical infrastructure, and engage in humanitarian activities. The third phase will allow us to take the fight to isil, broaden, the effort, and our goal is to act with urgency, but also to make sure were 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 efforton, diplomatic that is managing it, a strong Strategic Communications effort so that we are discouraging people from thinking that isil represents a state, much less a caliphate. So all those things will have to be combined. And, as i said, it will not happen overnight. But we are steadily moving in the right direction. And we are going to achieve our goals. Were going to degrade and ultimately defeat isil, the same way we have gone after al qaeda, the same way we have gone after the al qaeda affiliate in somalia, where we released today that we have in fact killed the leader of al shabaab in somalia and have worked to degrade their operations. We have been very systematic and methodical in going after these kinds of organizations that may threaten u. S. Personnel and the homeland. And that deliberation allows us to do it right. But have no doubt, we will continue. I will continue to do what is necessary to protect the american people. Isil poses a real threat. I am encouraged 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 is to destroy and degrade them. Are those the same things in your mind . Is the goal to ultimately secretary kerry said there is no containing them. Is the goal ultimately to annihilate them . You talked about the importance of expertise on the ground and building up the capacity on the ground. Dear think, since airstrikes will not do it here, if action is needed in syria, can you expect a Free Syrian Army to do what is needed on the ground to destroy, not just push back, isil . You cant contain an organization that is running roughshod through that much territory, causing that much havoc, displacing that many people, killing that many innocents, enslaving that many women. The goal has to be to dismantle them. And if you look at what happened with al qaeda, where the primary base was, you initially pushed them back, you systematically degrade their capabilities, you narrow their scope of action, you slowly shrink the territory that they may control. You take out their leadership, and over time, they are not able to conduct the same kinds of terrorist attacks that they once could. As i said in my last press conference, given the nature of these organizations, are there potentially remnants of an organization that is still running around and hiding and still potentially plotting . Absolutely. And we will continue to hunt them down the same way we are doing with remnants of al qaeda, or elements of alshabaab in somalia, or terrorists that 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 cannot do us harm. And that is going to be our objective. And as i said before, i am pleased to see there is unanimity among our friends and allies that that is a worthy goal and they are prepared to work with us to come pushed that goal. With respect to the situation on the ground in syria, we will not be placing u. S. Ground troops to try to control the areas that are part of the conflict inside of syria. I do not think that is necessary for us to accomplish our goal. Were going to have to find effective partners on the ground to push act against isil, and the moderate coalition there is one we can work with, we have experience working with many of them, they have been to some degree outgunned and outmanned, that is why it is important for us to work with our friends and allies to support them more effectively. But keep in mind 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 is 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 the 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. Ok . One last question. Colleen nelson. Wall street journal. Thank you, mr. President. Some Senate Democrats facing tough races in november have had difficulty with immigration. Have the concerns of other democrats influenced your thinking . And do you see any downside to delaying any action until after the election . I have to tell you 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 in following through on what is necessary to meet 21st century challenges. Jeh johnson and eric holder have begun to provide me their proposals and recommendations. I will be reviewing them, and 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 had bipartisan action in the senate. The House Republicans have sat on it for over a year. That has damaged the economy. It has held america back. It is a mistake. And in the absence of congressional action, i intend to take action to make sure that we are putting more resources on the border, that we are upgrading how we process these cases, and that we find a way to encourage Legal Immigration and give people some path so 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 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. I want to be very clear, my intention is 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 is the right thing to do for the country. All right . Thank you very much, people of wales. I had a wonderful time. On the next washington journal. The chief economic course pond it will discuss the latest job numbers. Read wilson of the Washington Post looks at other issues and the referendum in midterm elections. And the center for Strategic International studies on security information stored on computers in the cloud. As always, we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. Washington journal, live at 7 00 here are some highlights for this coming weekend. Saturday at 6 30 p. M. On the communicators, former f. C. C. Commissioners michael cox and robert mcdowell. Sunday at noon, debates between incumbent democratic senator kay hillis and from cashcarey. And neil saturday on book tv afterwards, he thinksles on how republicans can make gains with the hispanic vote. At noon on in depth, mary frances berry. Saturday on real america on building of the hoover dam. And sunday night at 8 00, the president gerald nixon. Pardon of richard