the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3044. sproy -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 3044, a bill to approve the transfer of yellow creek port properties in iuka, mississippi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas, mr. crawford, and the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. crawford: i ask unanimous condition sent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 3044. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. draw spord feather -- mr. crawford: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. crawford: the tennessee valley authority was created to provide electric power for

states in the tennessee valley rezwhrofpblee state of mississippi initiated development of yellow creek port in 1971 on 116 acres purchased from the t.v.a. high paying jobs, spinoff companies and increased traffic on the nation's waterways have occurred because of this development. i want to thank congressman nunnelee for introducing h.r. 3044 that will approve the transfer of this land to the city. the land being conveyed through this legislation will be used solely for industrial purposes and allow the state of mississippi to extend the yellow creek port to meet increasing demand. h.r. 3044 will execute the conveyance of the remaining 173 acres of property from t.v.a. to the state of mississippi and fulfill one of t.v.a.'s missions of improving economic opportunities in the t.v.a.

service area. i urge all members to support this bill and reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman, ms. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the -- ms. edwards: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. edwards: this bill will approve the prfer of land for economic and economic go the tennessee valley authority act withdrew lands to provide for future development of power plants, ports, and supporting infrastructure. of 971, at the confluence the tennessee river and another river the yellow creek port project was initiate the purpose of the quell low creek port project was to support economic development and local jobs in northeast mississippi. the t.v.a. and state of mississippi is -- has jointly supported the development and growth of the port.

t.v.a. initially transferred 289 acres of land to the yellow creek port to facilitate development back in 1971. h.r. 3044 would transfer an additional 173 acres of the land to the state of mississippi. the acreage includes industrial, highway, and railroad easements and 54 acres of undeveloped land. the t.v.a. has attempted to sell this land since 1984 with no interested buyers. mr. speaker, the t.v.a. act allows t.v.a. work appropriate congressional approval, to dispose of property for particular uses. according to t.v.a., the agency places reversionary interest clauses in transfers and sales to ensure that those uses specified by congress in the t.v.a. act are carried out. t.v.a. then retains the right to retake possession of the property if the use condition is breached. in february, the senate environment and public works

committee considered and passed s. 212 by a voice vote which supported the transfer of these same 173 acres. the congressional budget office has concluded that the net impact of the transfer would be insignificant and would not affect direct spending. t.v.a. has confirmed that the transferred lands would be used for industrial development. and again, if for some reason the lands are instead proposed for some nonindustrial purpose, the t.v.a. can legally have the lands returned to them. mr. speaker, i'm not aware of any opposition to h.r. 3044 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. crawford: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers and so if the gentleman is prepared to close? i am as well. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlewoman yields.

ms. edwards: i don't have any further requests for time and was heaf heard the construction of the yellow creek port initially -- initially involved 289 acres and so with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the passage of h.r. 3044 and mr. speaker, i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the cheer recognizes the gentleman from arkansas. mr. crawford: i thank the speaker, i thank the gentlelady from maryland for her support. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3044? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i move that the house suspend the rules and pass the bill s. 1086 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 108 of, an act to authorize and -- re-- to re-authorize the child care and development block grand of 2014 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota, mr. kline and the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on 86.10

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kline: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of s. 1086 the child care and development block grant of 2014. and yield myself such time as i may consume. countless men and women are trying to build a better life for their families. some are working more for less to make ends meet. some are seeking a degree or improving skills at a nearby community college. whether going to work or school, most parents face a difficult question -- who will take care of my child? is there a trusted child care provider who will keep my son or daughter safe? and if there is, can i afford it? for nearly two decades, the child care and development block grant program has helped answer these tough questions. the program funds state efforts to provide vulnerable family access to child care. parents receive assistance in the form of a voucher or

certificate to pay the provider of their choice. approximately 1.5 million children under the age of 13 are in a child care arrangement funded through the program, including over 25,000 children in my home state of minnesota. it is a vital safety net for moms and dads trying to lift their families out of poverty. at a hearing held earlier this year, one witness told the story of a woman named rita. speaking of the child care and development block grant, rita said, these federal investments were quite a serious lifeline for me. i know where i came from and i do not want to go back, close quote. rita's experience is shared by many americans, yet despite the importance of the program, it's been almost 20 years since congress reformed the law. as with any federal program left on auto pilot, problems will emerge and this program is no different. poor coordination across related services and a lack of information make it difficult for parents looking for the best

provider to know the full range of options. perhaps most trouble a patch work of state licensing, monitoring and related safety requirements means some children aren't protected like they should be. these families deserve better which is why i am proud to support this important legislation. the bill before us includes a number of common sense reforms that will strengthen the program and our support of these at-risk families. for example, the legislation requires all participating child care providers to undergo at a min pulmoan annual inspection to ensure compliance with health, safety and fire standards. the bill enhances existing training for providers and their workers so every child is under the care of a well-trained professional. the legislation also reins in the authority of the secretary of health and human services to prevent this and future administrations from writing onerous rules that would limit access to this important service. mr. speaker, we have a long way to go before every american

enjoys the opportunity and prosperity they and their families deserve. by supporting this bipartisan legislation, we have a chance to help these families succeed and set their children on the path to a bright future. before closing, i'd like to recognize a number of my colleagues to who helped make this legislative achievement possible, including senators harkin and lamar alexander, the chairman and senior republican committee, and the -- from the health and education committee, george miller. and senator mikulski laid the framework for the bipartisan legislation before us today. finally, mr. speaker, we would not be here today were it not for the hard work and dedication of our staff. i wish time permitted an opportunity to recognize each and every one of them. we are forever grateful for their service. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i rise in support of the legislation and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: i rise in support of the motion to pass s. 1086 as amended. this bill represents a bipartisan, bicameral agreement to re-authorize the child care nd development block grant, or ccdbg, the largest funding source for child care programs. it's been almost 0 years since the ccdbg was re-authorized and working families and young children shouldn't have to wait any longer this block grant provides federal resources to states to help low income families pay for child care while a parent works or is in educational or job training program. this program supports self-sufficiency and promotes work forest stability. just as important, this funding offers children vital early learning experiences that set them on the path toward success

in school, in the work forest, and the rest of their lives. however, the current law, besides being outdated, has some limitations in ensuring low income children access to this important program. for example, the law currently has very few specific requirements on the quality of child care and states have significant latitude to set quality standards. this results in a great deal of low quality child care being funded and recent research has found only about a third of children -- of child care programs funded by the block grant is actually of good quality. access is another concern. only one in six children eligible for the program are actually enrolled this re-authorization seeks to address these problems by improving child care access, making critical new investments, and helping to ensure the children are safe and receive quality care. for example, this bill increases the amount of funds that states must spend on activities to improve the quality of child

care, including care for infants and toddlers. it also requires states to conduct a state-wide assessment of their needs for quality improvement and to align their quality initiatives with the results of that assessment. the bill provides states with nearly a dozen proven initiatives that they can deploy to improve quality, ranging from training and development to quality rating systems and health and nutrition policies. the bill also adds state requirements on training and professional development for child care providers, for staff -- for child to staff ratios, annual inspections for providers that receive federal assistance, coordination with other federally funded early childhood programs, development and maintenance of early learning and development guidelines and background checks to keep violent and sexual offenders away from our nation's children. this bill expands requirements for health and safety and consumer education, including

funding for a toll free hotline and a website to report suspected child abuse or safety violations. it expands the eligibility for a year regardless of changes in income or work schedules or training or educational status. it prioritizes services with families with the lowest incomes. it eases enrollment requirements for homeless children. it helps families connect with quality programs and reduces expulsions from early childhood learning programs by training providers about positive behavior supports and interventions with young children. finally, it enhances transparency of the cost of care. this important legislative update to ccdbg is long overdue. the improvements made by this legislation are critical for millions of children and their families and to the future of

our nation. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kleine: i'm pleased to recognize the chairwoman of a member of our leadership team, the gentlewoman from washington, mrs. mcmorris rodgers, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. chairman, the ranking members and everyone on both sides for their tremendous work on this important legislation. right before the august recess, the republican women of the house joined together to highlight a family empowerment package of which this bill is a critical piece. i'm proud to stand here and say we are passing another bill in that agenda that empowers women and families. women now make up nearly half of our work force, and in many cases they're their primary breadwinners and the healed of their households, yet so many of our labor laws and workplace laws were written at a different time, at a time when very few women worked.

as moms and dads are seeking their way to make their -- get back to where they were in this stagnant economic time, work and job training programs are so important. moms and dads across the country are still worried about paying their bills, affording the costs needed at home and securing their kids' future. they need help. that's what this bill does. it empowers and supports families who are seeking better lives for their families. it allows them a piece of mind of their children's safety and well-being while they're at work, allowing parents to focus on securing a better future. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from california, the ranking member of the committee on education and the work force, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. . miller: --

the speaker pro tempore: for two minutes. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of chairman kline's amendment to s. 1086. the childcare and development block grant, or ccdbg, is a resource for millions of children and families nationwide. this enables parents to send their kids to safe, high quality and affordable childcare so they can work or attend training programs to provide for their families. meanwhile, the program helps place children in the source of environment they need for healthy growth and development. however, it's been almost 20 years since last we updated this program. in that time we've learned what we -- that we need to do more to ensure that children are receiving high-quality care in safe settings. that's why this vote is so very important. that's why i'm so pleased to have reached the bipartisan, bicameral consensus on this legislation. i'd like to thank all of the organizations for their support -- for the support of this legislation.

in the process of finalizing this legislation, which has been done over the last several weeks. this bill is on suspension because it's not unimportant. it's on suspension because we recognize the urgency of getting this done this year and we also recognize the growing national bipartisan consensus about the value of children being placed in high-quality, safe environments during their early learning years. i'd like to include those letters from the following organizations -- save the children, childcare awareness of america, the national women's law center, the center of law and social policy, zero to 3, the early care and education consortium, the national association for the education of young children, the children's defense fund, the national education association, and the american federation for teachers. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield it's back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. speaker, now i want to yield to the chairman

of the early childhood, elementary and secondary education subcommittee, the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokita, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. rokita: i thank the chairman, and i thank the speaker for the recognition. thank you, chairman kline, for your leadership on this issue. i want to thank ranking member miller, ranking member loebsack, our colleagues across the rotunda and of course the staff who put so much effort into this pro-work, pro-family bill today. the re-authorization of the childcare and development block grant program is an example of what both parties and houses of congress can do when we're working together to find commonsense solutions to national issues. i came to congress to help all people build better lives for themselves and their families. and now here with this bill on this floor today we get a chance to do that. we work together to protect children's early development

and safety as well as their parent's employment by providing state control over a federal program that serves over a million and a half young americans. this agreement prevents the administration from imposing early learning guidelines on our states and prevents the collection of unnecessary data on our children. at the same time we strengthened oversight and accountability at multiple levels of government. early childhood care quality will improve because we're enhancing families' access to provider information. families can choose between public and private providers including religious providers. they can choose larger institutional settings or smaller or even in-home operations. as a member of congress and a parent, i know that parents, not the federal government, are best positioned to choose child kei providers. this -- childcare providers. make sure ill help

childcare professionals have the most up-to-date training. families will have better information to guide their decisions. mr. speaker, i certainly didn't learn about these improvements before working on the legislation from the ether. the day nursery in avon, indiana, was one of my first steps and we were able to incorporate a lot of it. thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. speaker. we were allowed to incorporate a lot of what we learned that day and every day after in our work and into this bill. so i thank those that i met with in the fourth district of indiana where commonsense solutions are part of everyday life for their help in getting this legislation and the content of it crafted. as chairman of the subcommittee on early childhood, elementary and sectary education, it's not

only my duty to vote for good legislation but for good results. mr. speaker, i'm simply here today to ask my colleagues to vote for this legislation because it will get results. it's one of the things that we can do around here in a bipartisan, bicameral way to show the american people that we're worth our paychecks. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. -- mr. scott: mr. speaker, i recognize the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. clark, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. clark: i held a forum in my district and when the audience was asked, how many of you have worried about the cost of childcare, nearly every hand shot up in the air. and while the skyrocketing cost of quality childcare in massachusetts is among the most

expensive in the country with an average annual cost above $16,000, the problem is not limited to my home state. across our country, millions of american families report childcare as their highest expense. higher than rent or a college education for their children. without a doubt, the cost of quality childcare is now one of the biggest barriers to economic success facing women and families. knowing how critical childcare is to american families, i am so heartened to see the house take action to re-authorize the childcare development block grant program that provides grants to states to offer quality childcare that is accessible to low and moderate income families. i am grateful that the quality childcare provisions of my bill, the infant and toddler care improvement act, have been

incorporated into this re-authorization. as a working mom of three, i understand that parents want nothing more that when their children are in childcare they are happy, learning, safe and healthy. millions of moms and dads across the country, however, are faced with impossible choices because of the lack of access to quality childcare. more than six million children under the age of 3 are in care of someone other than their parents each week. and 46% of the children under 3 live in low-income families. the childcare development block grant and the quality provisions of the infant and toddler care improvement act offer a vital lifeline and a path to the middle class for millions of families across the nation. it is a necessary step towards true economic equality for women and it gives our kids a

great start. today's compromised bill is a strong first step, and i look forward to working together to strengthen access to quality childcare. this vote is not controversial nor is it partisan. it is a win for american families. i urge my colleagues to support he childcare development and development block grant act, as amended, senate 1086, and i ask for unanimous consent to submit some support letters to the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. clark: i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from massachusetts yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i would advise my colleague i have no more speakers and i am prepared to close so i'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: before we close, i

want to thank my colleagues in both the house and senate for their hard work on this legislation. in the senate i'm particularly grateful to senator mikulski, senator burr and their staffs. i also want to thank ranking member miller and our committee staff members who've helped to steer the passage of this bill, particularly scott, meme, john and brian. i'd also like to thank chairman kline and his staff members who worked hard on this bill, including kristen, mandy and kathryn. i also want to thank the gentleman from illinois, congressman danny davis for his strong severts to -- efforts to reduce childhood expulsions and more the make advocates and stakeholders who weighed in on the legislation. mr. speaker, i'd ask at this point to enter into the record additional letters of support. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: finally, i'd like to thank all of the members of the house education and the work force committee and their staffs for their continued

commitment to the well-being of american families. mr. speaker, both chambers and both parties have come together in a bipartisan basis to improve the childcare and development block grant. this bill is a strong example of what congress can achieve by woing together. the critical updates in the program will give american families the more support that they need and better prepare our children for the future. thank you, speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleagues here on both sides of the aisle. it's not every day on this floor that we get to do that, but i thank them for their remarks, for the debate today. again, i want to reiterate my appreciation for the work done on the other side of the capitol. again, not something we get to talk about every day. but this is an example of a time when we saw a need, some

could argue we're a little overdue since it's been 0 years since this was re-authorized, but as the ranking member, mr. miller, said this is on suspension calendar because we recognize that it needs to be done and because we have come together in a bipartisan, bicameral way to address this need. so i urge my colleagues to support s. 1086, as amended, the childcare and development block grant act of 2014, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1086, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . 2/3 twirtsdz, the rules have -- 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rule is suspended and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5108, to steabt law school clinic certification program of the united states patent and trademark office and for other purposes as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 435, h.r. 5108, a bill to establish the law school clinic certification program of the united states patent and trademark office and for other

purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, and the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chabot: i would ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on h.r. 5108, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 5108, a bill to establish the law school clinic certification program of the united states patent and trademark office. this bill has bipartisan support and i would like to thank congressman jeffries for his leadership on this issue and i know that he'll be speaking here on this matter shortly. it's my pleasure to be the principal republican co-sponsor of the bill which would make this successful pilot program available to law schools all

across the country. this program was first established by the patent and trademark office in 2008 and has allowed law students at 45 participating schools to practice patent or trademark law before the patent and trademark office, under the guysance of a supervisor. this practical experience is invaluable and a whorte while investment in our nation's -- worthwhile investment in our nation's attorneys. expanding this program will also benefit our nation's small businesses. through this program, inventors and entrepreneurs will gain access to quality legal services and protections that they otherwise often could not afford. additionally, establishing this program will improve the quality of applications submitted to the patent and trademark office, thereby hopefully streamlining the review process. i'm pleased to say that several universities from ohio, my home state, were already selected to

participate in the current pilot program. those are case western reserve university school of law and the university of akron school of law. the c.b.o. has examined and scored this bill, finding that the costs are quite reasonable. about $200,000 a year to operate in all 45 participating schools. so we're really getting our bang for the buck by this program. i look forward to following the success of this worthwhile program as it unfolds and i would urge my colleagues to support this legislation and i once again want to thank mr. jeffries for his leadership and the fact that this is a bipartisan bill and it's a good thing to see this type of thing move its way through the house and i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. jeff brantley thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such -- mr. jeffries: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i

may consume. this is legislation designed to enhance the education of law students interested in practicing patent and trademark law. while simultaneously helping small businesses, inventors and entrepreneurs secure patents and trademarks. i'm pleased to partner with my distinguished judiciary committee colleague, representative chabot, and thankful for his support and leadership as well as the support of chairman goodlatte and ranking member conyers on this meaningful, bipartisan legislation. this bill will permanently establish the law school clinic certification program at the united states patent and trademark office. currently this program exists only in pilot form. however, it has already helped budding intellectual property law students and attorneys in the innovation sector throughout the country. the pilot program began in 2008 with only six law schools. over time, it grew to

approximately 45. today more than 4,-- 1,400 law students have participated in this program. since the pilot began, law students under the supervision of a skilled and experienced faculty advisor have submitted 220 patent applications and approximately 650 trademark applications for clients on a pro bono basis. establishing this program in law will both ensure its continuation and permit law schools throughout the country that meet the p.t.o.'s qualifications to participate. intellectual property, of course, is a highly technical field. ordinarily students do not have the opportunity to submit patent and trademark applications until they become practicing attorneys. this program will provide real-world professional

training and expanding it will enable law students throughout the country to obtain invaluable, practical experience that will not only enhance their legal education, but give students that participate in these clinics an opportunity to more meaningfully engage the job market upon their graduation. beyond the advantage to law students, however, this program also provides significant benefits to inventors, entrepreneurs and small businesses that qualify for pro bono assistance. some of these inventors or small businesses may not be able to afford patent or trademark attorneys. and in the absence of this program, they may be forced to navigate complicated legal terrain without technical and professional assistance. the small inventor or startup company of today may very well

become the next major american business of tomorrow. in part due to the assistance of the student practitioners and their faculty advisors who participate in the p.t.o. law school clinic certification program. this legislation has the support of key stakeholders in the field, including the association of american universities, as well as the international trademark association. in conclusion let me thank mr. chabot for his leadership on this bipartisan legislation. h.r. 5108 will help student, small businesses, inventors, startups, law schools, as well as the innovation economy. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, meaningful legislation, and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. speaker. we have no further speakers on the legislation so we would at

this time yield back the balance of my time as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 5108, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- for what purpose does the gentleman from -- mr. chabot: mr. speaker, on that i'd ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for the zanse mr. chabot: yes -- the yeas and nays? mr. chabot: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this otion will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 438, h.r. 3006, a bill to authorize a land exchange involving the acquisition of private land adjacent to the

cibola national wildlife refuge in arizona for inclusion in the refuge and exchange for certain bureau of land management lands in riverside county, california, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. h.r. 3006 introduced by our colleague from california, mr. calvert, authorizes an equal value land exchange of private and federal property. the bill requires the secretary of interior to convey 80 acres of bureau of land management lands in california to river bottom farms. in exchange, river bottom farms would be required to donate a

40-acre parcel in arizona to the cibola national wildlife refuge. both land transfers will be subject to valid existing rights, right ofways and other governances on the land as to the date of the conveyance. the transaction will be executed as an equal-value exchange with the values determined by appraisals conducted in accordance with the uniform appraisal standards for federal land acquisition and the uniform standards of professional appraisal practice. in the event the exchange differences -- difference is a detriment to the united states, river bottom farms will be required to reimburse the federal government to ensure there's no cost to the american taxpayers. i urge its adoption and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. grijalva: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you.

h.r. 3006 is a commonsense legislation directed --, direct land exchange between the federal government and a private citizen. the land to be convened is 80 acres of b.l.m. land in riverside county, california, and has limited conservation value and is only suitable for farming. in return, the exchange will add two parcels of land next to the cibola national wildlife refuge that will improve the management firbletsy of that refuge -- efficiency of that refuge. the refuge lies in a flood plane of the lower colorado river and is the life line for thousands of species of animals, including the iconic bald eagle that calls the refuge its home. i'm pleased to see this bill come to the floor under suspension. this is a bill i worked on for many years when the refuge was in my district and i applaud mr. calvert for taking the lead and seeing it through. although the refuge is no longer in my district, the area

is still important to the people of arizona and my constituents. h.r. 3006 is supported by a bipartisan congressional coalition that does not always see eye-to-eye on many issues. but i am glad to see that we can all agree on this. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from california, mr. calvert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. calvert: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, the management of our vast amount of federal lands in our west is a complex challenge that requires constant attention by our federal agencies in congress. legislation before the house today, h.r. 3006, would transfer 40 acres of privately owned land to the cibola national wildlife refuge in arizona and in exchange the federal government would transfer 80 acres of isolated bureau of land management land into private ownership. the 80 acres of land being

transferred by the v.l.m. was identified for disposal in the 2010 resource management plan by the field office. both fish and wildlife service and the b.l.m., in addition to private landowners, support the change as proposed by my legislation. both land transfers will be subject to a valid existing ghts, rights of--- rights-of-way and other things on the land as of the date of conveyance. furthermore, the value of the lands to be exchanged will be equalized so the federal government will not incur any expenses resulting from this exchange. the legislation represents a net reduction of lands managed by the federal government. are the sponsor and three original co-sponsors include one republican, one democrat from california as well as one republican and one democrat from arizona. i'm pleased that the house will be taking on this bill, h.r.

3006 today, and i would encourage all my colleagues to support the commonsense measure. in closing, i want to thank the natural resources chairman doc hastings, rob bishop for their continued leadership on public lands issues that are especially critical to those from the west. i thank my friend from arizona for leading his side on this bill and look forward to this passage. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield it's back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: mr. speaker, we have no further speakers, and with that i yield back the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3006, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 476. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 476, an act to amend the chesapeake and ohio canal development act to extend to the chesapeake and ohio canal national historical park commission. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, s. 476 would extend the authorization of the chesapeake and ohio canal national

historical park commission for another 10 years. the commission advises the secretary of interior on matters related to the park which stretches 185 miles through three states and the district of columbia. the commission is intended to provide the diverse governmental jurisdictions a seat at the table on topics involving the canal. i urge passage and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my comment -- remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grijalva: s. 476 will amend the chesapeake and ohio canal development act to extend to the chesapeake and ohio canal national historical park commission. extension of the authorization date will allow the continued involvement of the park advisory commission and the decisions that affect the national historic park. this the advisory commission is

now more than 40 years old and serves as an important link between the adjacent communities and the national park service. s. 476 is a companion bill to h.r. 2255, introduced by representative van hollen, and supported by a bipartisan group of members. representative van hollen is to be commended for his leadership and dedication in seeing this bill through. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you. with that let me turn to the sponsor of the legislation, representative van hollen, for as much time as he wishes to consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend, mr. grijalva, for his assistance on this bill and his leadership on so many other important issues. i join my colleagues in rising in strong support of s. 476, a

bill to restore the authority of the c.n.o. national park commission. i join with congressman frank wolf and john delaney to introduce companion legislation in the house and appreciate the work of my friend, ben cardin, senator cardin in the senate, and chairman hastings and ranking member defazio of the natural resources committee in bringing this to the floor of the house today. the c.n.o. canal national historic park begins just a few miles from this capitol and follows the old c.n.o. canal and toe path for about 185 miles to reach cumberland maryland. along the way, as congressman hastings says, it passes through three states. it passes through the district of columbia and many cities and towns and rural areas. it is a treasure of the national park system, providing a place for visitors to learn about the history of the canal and enjoy the scenic views from the path. the c.n.o. canal national

historic park commission was established along with the park n 1971, an idea of my former boss, senator matthias of maryland, and former congressman gilbert goodie of maryland. they believe a park spanning so many diverse communities should have a formal channel through which park management could seek advice and input on park policy from its many neighbors. for years this model worked well, and then the authority for the commission expired in 2011. so, mr. speaker, the legislation before us today would re-establish the commission, allowing it to resume its critical service. while the commission would have no authority to make binding park policy, it would serve an important advisory role and strengthen the relationship between the park and its neighbors. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation today and thank the natural resources committee for bringing this to the floor in a bipartisan

basis. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i advise my friend from arizona i have no more requests for time and i am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. we have no further speakers on the legislation and we yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. hastings: thank you. i urge adoption of this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 476. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- haste mr. speaker, i ask for the -- mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests the yeas and nays. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 1603. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1603, an act to reaffirm that certain land has been taken into trust for the benefit of the band of pottawatomie indians and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on he bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: mr. hastings: this ratifies the secretary of the interior to acquire land and place it in trust for the gun lake tribe of michigan. the 147-acre parcel of land,

often called the bradley property, is located south of the city of grand rapids and within the district of our colleague from chairman -- chairman from michigan, the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mr. upton, who does support this legislation. the bradley property is . ighted by the gun lake tribe the bradley property must be held in federal trust for the tribe to operate its casino. this bill is necessary to confirm the trust status of the gun lake tribe's land because the united states supreme court ruling holding casts doubt on the lawlessness of the secretary's acquisition of the trust property. the gun lake tribe was recognized in 1999, but the secretary acquired land for the tribe pursuant to the indian reorganization act of 1934. this act was intended to benefit tribes recognized and

under federal jurisdiction in 1934. the bill passed the senate by unanimous consent and the department of interior supports the bill so i urge passage of s. 1603 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. grijalva: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the supreme court decision, the status of indian lands across the country, have been undermineded and there has been an uptick in the frivolous suits against tribal lands. one such lawsuit, has put a michigan's tribe trust land -- upon which its casino that supports approximately 1,000 much-needed jobs was constructed is very much in jeopardy. s. 1603 simply affirms that the

land taken into trust for the gun lake tribe in michigan is indian land and is rightfully held in trust by the united states for the tribe's benefit. the bill passed the senate by unanimous consent, and it passed the house committee markup without event. i fully support this legislation, as does the tribe, the entire michigan delegation and the administration. and i look forward to it passing the house and being signed into law. i'm glad this bill has passed through the legislative process so quickly. that said, i think unless and until we have a fix legislation enacted, these types of piecemeal bills will become routinely needed to protect tribal lands that are rightfully held in trust. i call upon all of my colleagues in this body and in the senate to work together to obtain that fix. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'd advise my colleague from arizona i have no more request for time and prepared to yield back if he is. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. we have no further speakers and we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i urge adoption of the legislation and yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass s. 1603. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman requests the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this otion will be postponed.

pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately >> the house will vote on four of the bills when they come back to him including dealing with reauthorizing medical services for children. we'll have live coverage at 6:30 eastern. we have coverage of the house rules committee at 7:15 -- the meeting to take up the consider theo continuing resolution legislation at seven: teen this evening. some tweets about that -- house ,entatively planned debate spilling into wednesday, passage could come then.

nbc says the majority leader came out of the meeting confident that the cr will pass likely on wednesday. christina marcos from the hill says the isis amendment could get as much as six hours of house floor debate. limitill" wrote that to obama's aid to syria and rebel forces -- house republicans plan to unveil legislation that would give president obama the authority to arm and train moderate syrian levels but with some limits on authority. the armed services committee is drafting the bill in consultation with the administration and is expected to take the form of an amendment to the stopgap spending bill that would keep the government funded through december 11, according to one senior aide. at rules committee coming up 7:15. look for coverage live at c-span.org and live on c-span3. the house went back for votes at six: 30 eastern.

we talked this morning about the president senior national security correspondent for "the daily beast." he says that the new war on isis may be illegal. thes start by laying out legal argument for the efforts in iraq and syria. president obama first authorized bombing in iraq for the first time since 2011, the authorization was that the constitution, first article, says that congress only declares war. by the second part says that the president is the commander-in-chief, and presidents before him have used article to to say that he is commander-in-chief and the president has the responsibility to keep american citizens and interests secure. he used that, as presidents before him have used those powers.

is, 1970 three, there was something called the war powers act, which was a reaction to using these authorities to wage a long, drawnout wars. thatlassic example is there was not a declaration of war against vietnam. it was seen as a police action, although what was our longest and worst war from the perspective of casualties -- the civil war, i'm sorry, would be the worst war in terms of casualties, but the 20th century. in 1970 three, congress passed the war powers act, which says that every 30 or 60 days the president needed to inform congress about those activities and try to narrow what would count as that. certainly a rescue operation in syria would count as something that could be covered under the war powers clause and the clause in the constitution. once you start getting beyond basic stuff like protecting u.s. interests and personnel, as the

bombing campaign in iraq quickly protect,hen became to for humanitarian reasons, a genocide. then it became protecting crucial iraq he impressed -- iraqi infrastructure, the mosul dam. preventing isis from actions that could permanently cripple iraq. , i believeexpanded that the white house was looking for another rationale for that. they get you something called the 2001 authorization for the use of military force, and that is the, three days after september 11, congress declares war on those responsible for september 11. that quickly became al qaeda, and was used by both bush and obama as the legal justification for airstrikes, indefinite tensions -- detentions of an alduals, not just

qaeda but associated forces of al qaeda as it became argued in the court's. >> and you say that this is where they got into she he -- shaky legal ground. a while isis does began as franchise of al qaeda, today it is a force that is really in competition and in some cases at war with al qaeda's franchise in syria. because the leader of isis right now has declared himself the iph of all the pious muslims in the world, he is a rival to them. they correspond publicly in various ways. thathave both acknowledged isis is no longer affiliated with al qaeda. up some legal scholars, who have since written on their own and in more detail.

did you was that you could not say that isis was an associated force of al qaeda, because they have formally kicked them out. argumentistration's is, it started as al qaeda in iraq, and gosh ernest, there is a live of him saying last week, if it walks like a terrorist and >> like a terrorist -- and quacks like a terrorist. i do not think that will pass legal muster, it is actually a competing or separate force that al qaeda. >> is that leaving it up to the terrorist groups themselves to define who they are related to or what groups they come from? houseument that the white has been making on capitol hill is that that should not be. isfirst oall, this independent entirely from whether or not the united states should be at war with al qaeda -- i'm sorry, isis. the problem is that even before his justification

prices, there were a number of people who were concerned that the original purpose of the war resolution, to get the people responsible for 9/11, had expanded to the point where i justified american airstrikes all over the muslim world. this raises that issue, which i've written about before. is this a recipe for a war without end, a permanent war? if you expand the definition of who was responsible for 9/11 -- and lot and is now dead, most of the senior leadership is in guantánamo or has been killed. outou continue to define it , and this becomes so elastic that it allows for a permanent war that lasts beyond the obama presidency, it might be the new normal. this is been a concern from not just a legal perspective but from a political perspective. i think the alternative could have been a new resolution that was narrow and against isis,

that would encompass everything that obama has said we have to accomplish. and i think that there were the political votes their. the republicans would've on for a, and a number of democrats as well based on what they have said. do not know, i do not know why they have not gone to congress but i can say that the congress,they went to similar things, airstrikes in syria about a year ago after assad violated the red line on them for weapons, the ended up not having those. >> that was on her for segment on "washington journal" this morning, should they have a vote before or after the election. is there a chance that this will happen before the election at this point? >> we have not seen house speaker banner that -- say that -- house speaker boehner say that he would hold about, -- reid.ote, or

perspective, if you have the guy in your sights in his in syria, would you not then take the shot if you knew you could get him because he did not have a formal authorization? and that is why they are saying that they do have the authority under the aumf. >> we are talking to eli from "the daily beast." if you have questions you can call. -- calls can call > (202) 737-0001, republicans can call (202) 737-0002, independents can call (202) 628-0205, and if you are outside the u.s. you can call (202) 628-0184. about warlking outside the u.s., john kerry was on "meet the press" talking

about it as a war. >> this week, you went to some links to say that you would not call this a war, and at the pentagon and the state department they were saying that we are at war with isis. are we at war? franklynk that there is a kind of torture debate going on about terminology. what i am focused on, obviously, is getting done what we need to get done to isil. if people need to find a place to land in terms of what we did in iraq, originally, this is not a war. this is not combat troops on the ground, hundreds of thousands of people. it is not that kind of mobilization. of al qaeda, which we have used the word war with, yeah. we went to war with al qaeda and its affiliates, and in the same context, if you want to use that, we are at war with isil in that sense. i think it is a waste of time to

focus on that, let's consider what we have to do to degrade and defeat isil, and that is what i am focused on. >> eli lake of the daily beast. him bringing up al qaeda and isis in the same sentence. it is a war because the united states will try to seize its assets, callous leaders, and take its territory. they will not do that, they say, with combat troops on the ground, although there are a thousand americans in iraq that have been sent since june. they will be using air power to do so. nobody at any point said that we qaeda. at war with al to hearlittle precious kerry say that. to me, it is interesting, because john kerry has been, i think, out front on saying that

the united states needs to stop and the feet isis. -- heled in the face called them the face of evil last month. the president has been the one dragging his feet. i think the president was the last holdout. kerry's main point was that there is not going to be an invasion like we saw with iraq and afghanistan, and i do not think there are republicans clamoring for that, either. it is a red herring. >> we are talking with eli lake. his recent eas -- piece from last week says that the war with isis may be illegal. we start with matthew on the line for republicans. >> thank you for taking my call. with my comment, i have heard it said, and i will try and do my best year. -- best here. i remember iraq from the sixth grade, we have been in that area for about 26 years now. if you are in the beltway and

you're listening to these people and seeing the way that they define the actions we are taking over there, it is starting not to pass the smell test. that do letting people not have the united states in their best interest define the way that we approach security issues. and given here from the way that the president tries to use print thesems to describe -- are the same people, if anything, that we were fighting in a chemist and -- in afghanistan. you can read history books on these topics, they are learning to fight us in a way that they can define the terms. and this is just from what i have noticed from the semantics that are only tours are using. r own leaders are using. they are tying themselves in knots. if they read some history, they would figure out who we are

fighting, and they are all the same people. >> there is an ideology, we can college jihad is him, islamic extremism. it is not the same as the religion of islam, we know that muslims are also -- often the first and worst victims of these barbarians. motivatedgy that osama bin laden is the same one that motivates isis. it is an ideology that seeks to bring back this caliphate. it would basically enslave all women. it would make it illegal to be anything but a muslim. if you are jewish or christian, you could pay a tax. it is gruesome stuff. i would think it is fair to say that is rejected by the people who have to live under it. we have seen that over and again. the only way they can enforce the ideology is through just

horrific and almost theatrical violence. it has also recruited a fringe s in the west who feel that this is an opportunity to have a kind of exciting -- to participate in a historical movement. it is true that the united states has been fighting this current for some time. i would say that 9/11 was the hinge point. the irony here is that the has, until really tried toe, obama has say, no, we are only at war with al qaeda central. we are only at war with the franchise in yemen. he has resisted the idea of talking about the enemy in this ideological sense, that there is this ideology. it is probably wrong to say it is political islam per se, but it is an extremist version of political islam. now he is facing that.

the great irony of the earlier point about the 2001 authorization for the use of military force is that by saying that justifies the war against isis, he is making that point implicitly, that this is all part of the same war. and even though isis is fighting al qaeda's formal franchise in syria, they're the fellow travelers of the same ideology. there was a revealing interview in "the atlantic" with hillary clinton, who has talked about needing a component to address the ideological component, saying it was similar to the war against totalitarian communism during the cold war. in that respect, i think it is correct. i think it is wrong to say that these are the same people because they share the faith of islam because there are so many muslims that fight against them. was a reporter, i spoke to several tribal sheiks who had come to reject al qaeda

even though they felt at first that they had reached a pragmatic deal with them. , alink that in those cases qaeda has an enemy for life, because they faced the brutality themselves. >> georgia is up next, davis is waiting on line for republicans. david, good morning. >> first of all, i would just like to say that all of this war is because of the lies from the george bush administration, dick cheney and rumsfeld. .ou had these guys on tv the "new york times" recently put out an article that the think tanks are taking money in order to influence what they say in the united states government. by thealso captured united states military in iraq. he was a part of the and wara wakening -- anwar awakening,

-- awakening. a line calling and on and republicans, do you disagree with how the republicans are handling this? >> ron paul, i do not believe in this war and stuff. >> all right. >> let me -- >> ron paul is letting his lunatic addition -- lunatic opinions on foreign policy on the kremlin, he is taking a direct payment from a foreign government that just invaded and occupied the ukraine. second of all, you hear this a lot, and certainly politicians lie, there is dissembling, the intelligence immunity operates in secret. but the truth of the matter is that this president was untilrested in a war isis, which is a terrorist army, was able to dig over iraq's second-largest city. and then really got involved

when they threaten to wipe out a religious minority. and now that we have three gruesome videos of the beheading of westerners, and again has moved world opinion to the point where they realize that they cannot live in a world in which you have the equivalent to al qaeda in the middle of the middle east. those are just facts, that is what this group has done. the argument that you can leave them alone and they would leave us alone is clearly discredited by events. i would just leave it there. eli, a security correspondent for "the daily beast." how many times have you traveled overseas tour iraq and the region? >> i have been to iraq on three extended trips. i've been in the region several times, i've been to the sudan. i've been fortunate to travel a lot and my job. >> he is here to take your

questions and comments for the next 20 minutes or so. joseph on the line for independents. >> i want to thank you for taking my call. >> hello, joseph. >> i was listening to all the people complain about blah blah. as a military person, i served in vietnam and gulf war and bosnia. i served with a lot of different people, muslims, arabs, jews, what everyone to call them, roman catholics. my mom and my grandmother were concentration campers. they escaped because my dad helped them. this year is an illegal war against muslims, because not all muslims are the same as we think they are. inhave a group of people america, the ku klux klan, organized crime, the neo-nazis, we think him a fine -- we think, fine.

>> eli, i will let you jump in. >> it is a fair analogy to say that al qaeda and isis are to islam and muslims as the ku klux klan is to christianity. a perversion and a terrorist, violent frenc -- fringe. >> earnie on the line for independents. >> i have a few questions here. as far as isis and al qaeda, are they not one and the same? just a different terminology for isis. and two, as far as going into isia and iraq to bomb them, this just another roundabout way to go when and get -- go in and get assad out of power? bushird question is, the administration and the obama administration, neither one of them want to release the 28

pages on 9/11 and i was wondering why. >> i do not know why they will not release is 28 pages, i suspect it is because it implicates the saudi government. i think that is probably a. -- it. i do not think the airstrikes are a threat to the assad regime, although it is true that he has had an opportunistic relationship with the jihadist. he worked with them when they were funneling foreign fighters into iraq, he is fighting them in the civil war but not consistently. much moree after moderate in cap man's and has left isis positions untouched. i think he is intending to create a choice, either me or these lunatics. -- what was the first thing he said? >> the general relationship between isis and al qaeda.

>> isis began as an al qaeda franchise and they share an ideology, but they are very much competitors right now and certainly distinct. the key here is that both the leaders have said this themselves, the most important point, they have said that you are no longer a former affiliate of al qaeda. that, i think, is why you cannot say that they are the same organization. but they have the same ideology. >> one thing i wanted you to get about was that your latest column gotten attention, contractors ready to cash in on isis war. >> i want to point out that people with military contractors, and a lot of them have that long and important careers on the military, often at the tip of the spear. there's something wrong with going into the security contractor industry. i am not like jeremy, who thinks it is all suspect. the president has

said some things that are noteworthy. number one, this is going to take more than a few months. he was saying it was not going to be reached was going to be months, now you're saying it will be years, probably got his presidency. the length of the time is important. second, he has promised no combat boots on the ground, and when you have that, there are specialistsat are in training up local forces, similar to our green berets in the military. turning them into these fighting forces. it has been done by contractors for some time now. video is that it is probably going to be a lot of reliance -- the view is that it is probably going to be a lot of reliance on these contractors. blackwater wasat associated with the republican party, and joe biden himself in the first term promised to prosecute backwater -- blackwater.

the administration has tried to distance itself from the contractors, and i would say it is almost certain that the contractors that i interviewed say that this presents an opportunity for them and that obama will be relying on them for the new war. >> we're talking with eli lake about his columns. you can see them online, the daily beast.com. is there to answer questions or comments. al on our line for democrats. good morning. >> good morning. i would like to get something understood here. -- first ofat obama all, i do agree with what obama is doing. he has a hard job. i do not know of anybody that would want a job like that. seems liken is, it the talk is out now that he has to have the permission of congress to do things. why is it that, going back 20

some years or so, that president reagan did not have to have the permission, or i believe he did not have, maybe i am wrong, he did not have the permission from congress to send army troops into granada. i do not believe yet permission to send a thousand combat marines into , where over 400 men got killed. i wonder if you could answer that. constitution, at least legal scholars would say, has two views on it. one is that congress declares war and the other is that the president is the commander-in-chief of the military. modern presidents, including reagan, says that are -- say them thecle to his authority to do things like grenada. but grenada was a limited

operation, to say the medical students from a coup. isis is, by the president's own admission, a long war. it is not a couple of airstrikes and then we are out. that is one factor that plays in it -- i am not a lawyer, but i think that is an important difference. i think there is a broader point beyond the law, and that is that what we saw in the bush years is that despite even a resolution authorizing the iraq war, once therear went badly, once were no weapons of mass destruction found, it became a very partisan issue. when you can have a resolution that authorizes a war like this, it is a way of having a political buy-in so that you avoid having the war become a partisan issue. in my view, this should not be a democrat war or a republican war, it should be in american war. that is the benefit. >> robert is on the line for the

democrats, good morning. >> i served with the 82nd airborne, a couple of decades ago. ics not being able to squander our resources anymore. --n you have an iraq he army iraqi army that throws on his weapons and runs away after a decade of training, why are we the policeman of the world? why do we have to involve ourselves? we cannot afford this anymore. a well, i think that is viewpoint that has been getting a lot of supporters recently. certainly, this idea of america not being a policeman in the world -- this is the great irony. the 2000 republican convention, condoleezza rice, in her introduction to the mass media, gives a speech in which he says america is not the world's 911.

and then 9/11 happens. and we become more engaged in this long war, which president obama has tried to get us out of, and now he is dragged back in. so i think it is true that america should not be the only -- the nation of last resort, or engaged in nationbuilding. wass so frustrating, i there to see the on-the-job training in the last decade, where the american military men the iraq hentored military, and you see them third -- andr weapons in mosul i am not making excuses, because i think it does so the limits of american power -- show the limits of american power. i think one of the reasons that led to the failure is that the prime minister maliki governed in many ways like the shia saddam. he alienated the sunni

minorities and the kurds in his own country, and replace competent military leaders with cronies, and tried to consolidate his power the way a petty dictator would. and people do not want to fight for somebody like that or something like that. that is another factor. all these wars have a political component. i think we have not entirely seen that this is a matter of -- we failed and training them. -- in training them. failed as a maliki leader, and we failed to use her influence to stop him from doing what he was doing, which was tearing the country apart. >> marion, ohio, rich on the line for the democrats. you were on with eli lake. >> it is curious, people declare war on us and we just ignore it. before 9/11, they declared war on us and they were too small to cause trouble.

world war ii, pearl harbor, the attacked first and then declared war. why we kept all the ships together and did not pay attention is beyond me. we cannot be asleep at the switch. did the thing is we ought to look at 9/11, who was benefiting from shorting the market sent, what countries and what people, and find out if it was more than just an attack but a financial attack on our country to try and really set us back. >> lake, on being a s -- asleep at the switch. >> that is the way of things, the united states is attacked we are surprised, like 9/11. been anen, there has enormous amount of resources in the military intelligence community and trying to prevent another one of these attacks. we think that the united states is much better on fighting a war against terrorism after 9/11. >>

-- caller: it is almost astonishing when i look at the level of deceit, particularly when it comes to the facts of the words existential threat. the only existential threat to the united states of america is the israeli government government. guest: make sure if you're watching this to look for the man in a white lab coat. he is only trying to help your recovery. i wish you luck with your mental illness. host: jim is in winston-salem, north carolina, on our line for republicans. caller: the problem with what we are having today is the same problem we've had with washington as a whole. republicans and democrats, we do the same thing in the same manner, expecting different results, and we never get that.

evidently, there are not enough people that realize we are not at war with isil. if we have a problem, let's take care of it quickly and be done with it. we are not at war with the whole muslim world. with this particular group, when there is a conflict, and who calls it a conflict? i have not heard anybody call it a war or a conflict. let's go take care of the problem. they killed two of our citizens. if we need to bomb them, let's bomb them. guest: that's what we are doing. i agree. we are not at war with all the muslims. it is an ideological component of it that you cannot win with just bombing and military action alone. host: do you want to talk about the coalition being built here? some headlines in the major papers today, arab nations building airpower in u.s. strikes against isis?

guest: it's been a harder slog than they had anticipated. this entire effort has cost the white house. the white house did not want to do this. they've been reluctant at every stage. every state has taken longer than they thought. i don't think it was a particularly fruitful meeting between kerry and former general al-sisi. i think america lacks the influence it had before. id, particularly -- that said, particularly for the for saudi, arabia and united arab emirates, they know that while they have been saying iran is the number one threat, they know that groups like isis are also a major threat. i think they have an interest in trying to defeat them.

they came two years ago to the united states, three years ago, when syria was devolving, and said we need to do something, and and obama pretty much declined. they might be saying too little, too late, but the u.s. has engaged and they will probably eventually end up helping. host: just a few minutes left with eli lake of the daily beast. from sioux falls, south dakota, on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i was listening to this guy here talk about what i was going to talk about. the fact is that barack obama, president barack obama, had to keep us out of the syrian mess, and people like mccain and probably guys like this guy here, when it first started, they wanted to put boots on the ground and things like that. we had to ukrainian deal. the president wasn't willing to

just jump in there and risk american troops' lives. he wanted to make sure he could get the coalition, just like with germany, germans, english, the surrounding nato countries, just like in the mideast. if the americans would have gone in there, like mccain and this guy here probably would have wanted, we would be sitting there with probably 100,000 troops and still have five to 10 years from now trying to get out. guest: i think that if they would have let 10,000 or 20,000 stay as a safety valve in iraq, i think there would have been more political influence. if there would have been more political influence to wield against maliki, save him from himself. a lot of this could have been

prevented. president obama has a point. he addressed this last month in a press conference before he left from martha's vineyard. if there were just all these troops there, it would have been worse. if there were troops there and those troops would bring with it some sense of seriousness -- and when there was an active ambassador -- if there was a policy that at the very top of the u.s. government, the u.s. was going to try to influence maliki and say, we will sell you the f-16's, but you have to make a deal with the kurds, you have to do this or that, and tried to use its influence with maliki, instead of giving the impression, we are out of here, we will treat you like any other nation, i think that could have saved a lot of heartache. maybe that is not a satisfying

answer, because i know there is one view that if we had just left troops, it would not have happened. i do think it could have been something done and it wouldn't have been just about leaving troops there. host: good morning. caller: by attacking these people, i think we are only legitimizing them. if they want to live in this theocratic state, it is the 21st century. blue jeans and rock 'n roll killed communism in a way. host: explain what you would do here. what do you think the united states should do? caller: i believe that their regime is going to fall flat on their face. if they want to fall flat on their face and they want to be left in the dirt -- they have this overwhelming fear that these people are going to come out of the woodwork and come and get us, but i believe we have a

lot more to worry about in america. the poor people in america are going to terrorize you faster than jihadists out there. guest: i disagree with that. i like the expression, it may make a good breakfast, but not a good dinner -- i respect that, but i disagree. this organization is pure evil. they will be a threat to our allies and eventually us. they have made it very clear that they intend to attack us. if you give them the resources of the state, they make $1 million per day. if they are able to consolidate their game, they will use that to threaten not just us, but all of our allies. we are going to do a good thing by trying to destroy them. host: on our line for independents, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i wanted to ask, nouri al-maliki -- if you had the opportunity to choose, to go back in time, what would be better for iraq? saddam hussein or nouri al-maliki? guest: put me on the spot, i think maliki is better than saddam. saddam hussein was a sunni, but he defined himself as a secular baathist. saddam was truly one of the most evil figures in the 21st century.20th he brutalized the iraqi people. he was a threat to his neighbors and to the united states. as bad as maliki was -- i use the phrase she is saddam because of the phrase shia saddam because of his

consolidation of power, but it did not reach the level of her barbarity of -- of pure barbarity of saddam. host: you can find his latest piece at thedailybeast.com. guest: thank you for having me. in in u.s. house gavels about 20 minutes or so. one vote, one of the four suspension votes on what they debated earlier. this one dealing with school certification programs. at 6:30 eastern, and after that the house will work on the remaining bills. we will have live coverage when they return at six: 30 eastern. at 7:15, the house rules committee will meet for the continuing resolution. this is a short-term stopgap measure,-- spending

funding the government to the 11th of december, and an amendment attached to that providing training and aid to moderate syrian rebel forces. that is coming up at 7:15. coverage at c-span3. until the house comes in, the atlantic council heard from .hilip breedlove he talked about current operations specifically involving the crisis in ukraine. we will show you as much of this as we can until the house comes in. thank you to the atlantic council for a lot of things. for this opportunity to speak to you, but most important before all the work that it has done through the years in helping and positionscies that take us forward in our relationships across the northern atlantic. it is about sharing values you

are mentioned, and those are the visions that we continue to hold the future, despite some of the challenges that we see out there today. stand in front of two of the greatest leaders, and they are grading me every day about whether i am doing it right or not. it is a privilege to be in such an august group and a group that has the expertise that this group has about the atlantic alliance and the relationships, and thanks to both of you as you all helped me as i moved in to one of the greatest jobs in the world. it is right now quite a challenging job and quite -- let's say -- there is not enough

hours in the day to get done everything we need to do. ourstability we see to south and now instability that we see in eastern europe and a place where we just would never have thought about it in the past, these are all challenges that not only in my givesuropean command had, us a lot of work to do, but certainly for the nato alliance. this is a challenge that comes already in a very busy time. you do not have to think very hard about the fact that we still have a lot of work to do thisghanistan, and getting change of mission, under fire isaf. this is nooks small matter. issues in our south, the northern africa area, that is clearly still very much

on the minds of our southern nato alliance. need a lot of things that to be addressed, and i will talk a little bit more about that in a minute, in our southern area. right now we have just come out of a summit that had a lot of of plates in the air, but one of the central plates in the air is how do we address this russia, how do we address this nation that has broken those world morals and is using force to change international boundaries? something that we thought was over maybe with what we saw in georgia, and now we see that is not the case. in mission remains the same nato, and we embrace that quite frankly at the summit, -- we

embraced that frankly at this summit, and we began to look at what is it that makes our where he forward so important, and it goes back to shared values, shared vision for europe at peace, and free, and that rings hollow because it is said that that is still a guiding position for what we want to see. i will say something that may be a little bit of -- a little bit controversial. i do not think we can arrive at a world -- a europe at peace without russia as a partner. for the last 12 years with the trying to make it a partner. we have been making facing decisions, force structure decisions, economic decisions on the fact that russia be a constructive part of the future of europe. now we see very different situation come and we have to address that.

of course, what i would like to and about it about today, we will see where you pick up the pieces and we go, but i would like to talk about some of this very important results from the summit, the readiness action plan. our expectations going into the summit were measured. we knew we needed to make some change. we did not know how much change we could effect. i am happy to report we got just about everything we wanted to do. now we are able to implement the changes we made in the readiness action plan. i think we can reset this alliance for this new challenge that we see in eastern europe. and quite frankly, the changes we make will give us adaptations that will better position us for some of the problems we see in the south.

this is of importance to our southern allied members, that this is not just about the north and the east. it has to be addressing all of our alliance. responsiveness -- we had a magnificent nrf. it did all the things we asked it to do. we evaluated, we look at it hard, and it meets every expectation we set forward in the past will stop one of the things we try to make sure people understand is we are not disheartened by what the nrs did in the past. it met exactly what we asked it to meet. now it is inadequate for what we see as the future requirement on our forces and capabilities. that is why the readiness action plan will look at a series of

measures that will adapt that nrf. responsiveness, not readiness will stop the readiness is exactly what we asked of it will stop now we ask it to tweak its readiness but make major changes to responsiveness. i am often asked, are you trying to deter or assure? i give a second answer. we are trying to do both. we needed immediately to assure our allies when ukraine first kicked off with crimea, but certainly when the russian forces came across the borders into eastern ukraine. allow me as an airman to use an air force example. 14 hours from go to show, our aircraft left and landed in estonia and were flying caps 14 hours from go to show.

this is assurance, this is nato power, assuring our allies that we are there and we can be there rapidly if required. we brought assurance to those forward nations. we were tasked to build as the general mentioned a series of measures that are air, land, and sea, north, center, and south. the alliance did a magnificent job of doing that. the land elements and naval elements took a little more time, but they were quick and very visible and very assuring to our nation. i think we hit a 440-foot home run, assuring quickly our nato allies. do we deter? i will allow you to enter that debate, and if you want to talk

about in the q&a, i think it is a good question. clearly, when mr. putin and looks across the borders of these three northern nations, he sees a nato alliance represented by nato forces that are there exercising, preparing all of the things we need to do should we ever have to take actions. we have credible, persistent presence with capability that is very visible. we looked at nato and asked ourselves as we see this new situation where you have a nation that will assemble a large force, completely

equip that force, bring all the elements of enablers to the force that makes it credible, bring forth operational and strategic resupply for that force all in the name of an exercise and then, boom, the exercise goes across an internnationally respected border and annexes by force a portion of a sovereign nation. how do we react to that? how do we react to that same scenario in the future? we look at what a fighter pilot called a three-legged stool. it to make the point that a three-legged stool, if you take any leg away, what happens to it? it also over. these are interrelated, interconnected requirements. the first leg of that stool is we need to change the responsiveness of the nrf. the nrf does what we ask it to do.

what we ask it to do is inadequate to the task we see from the scenario i described of this nation not respecting borders and changing borders by force. some portion of the nrf will become much more rapidly available for use. how much? that is the discussion we are working on. we put forward some ideas of 48 hours and five days for some of that force, and now we will begin to look at the details of will that work. i have other sports analogy. i talk about the goalposts. whatever we do with this force, it has to go to the goalposts of being affordable and sustainable. if it is not affordable and

sustainable, it is not credible for the long run. we can afford something that looks good and then falls apart. it has to be something that remains with us. the first leg is changing the responsiveness of a portion of the nrf, and i'm happy to talk about some of the particulars on that. the second these is it sounds a tiny bit irresponsible, but for 12 years we have been treating russia as a partner. on a day-to-day basis, we don't have what i would call operational or tactical-level headquarters in nato thinking about article five, thinking about collective defense, the ability to defend an ally. clearly in my headquarters, we are thinking about it, but we are not a tactical-level headquarters. we need a headquarters element of ability at the core level that will be focused every day, 365 days out of the year on collective defense,

article five responsibilities for the alliance. this is primarily aimed at the north and east, and i will talk about the rest of the alliance in a minute. the second leg of this three-legged stool is a headquarters that feels responsible to the alliance for article five collective defense all day, every day. that is their mission. it won't be their only mission, but it will be their primary mission. that's the second part of the stool -- command and control capability at speed with tagteam collective defense, article five. the third piece is the more controversial piece. that is some forward presence in these nations that does multiple

missions for us. in peacetime that prepares the battlefield, looks at where we can accept forces, and allow us to put it into fight if required. day-to-day exercises with the local nation to bring up those processes which makes nato much quicker to react if required, works to preposition materials, works to establish local understanding that would allow a nato force that had to rapidly respond to quickly come to mission. then in that worst-case scenario where we needed it, this headquarters would be the backbone on which rapidly reacting forces from the new nrf structure would fall in on

. how do we define this forward presence? how do we define its missions and roles? how do we finance forward positioning equipment, etc., etc. if you think about this three-legged stool i talked about, a rapidly available nrf, command and control structure that is at ready, and a receiving force that on day today is exercising and setting the stage for rapid acceptance of combat power that comes from that newly structured nrf, if constituted to combat power in a forward area. these are the three legs of the stool and details that we will begin to work out. we have already written a paper for the chiefs offense to

consider as they come to vilnius next week to begin to shape these concrete pieces. again, the three legs require each other. some would argue can we do it without this or that? and the answer is, sure, but it may not work. i think we require all three legs of the stool. very encouraged by what happens at wales, very encouraged by the solidarity i saw in the alliance, and i would hate to overcharacterize because i don't want to sound too positive, but what we thought was going to be the ceiling of what we were going to get at wales became the floor of what we can expect. we can truly embrace the change

and hit the goalposts were a sustainable future. that is the end of my prepared remarks. now we enter into the more fun part of today's conversation. i will ask for help in choosing who will get to grill me first. [applause] >> i am happy to stand as well. we will see how well we have constructed the stage. first of all, i want to thank you for taking this time. i think we have all been impressed by your voice in this moment in history and the clarity of your op-ed in "the wall street journal" was great. the one thing be three-legged

stool did not address is, what does nato do and what does the alliance do for what we would call gray areas? let me ask this in two parts. give us our assessment of what the situation is on the ground in the moment in ukraine? what are you seeing during the cease-fire? if you could take it beyond ukraine to a general question of are we drawing in europe, or can we avoid them? >> many of you have served with me. i see many faces in the crowd of people i have worked with in my life and i hope those who have served with me would say breedlove is almost always an optimist, because i am.

i am well over a glass half full on all manner of things about nato, about the progress we made at wales, about the solidarity we see in our alliance -- absolutely rock steady commitment to our article 5 defense of nato allies. some things are incredibly positive and well over half full. i would tell you in that vein, i am a glass less than half full on what is happening in ukraine. rather than get into a long discussion of what we understand what russia's actions have been, they have were a series of days been reducing their force presence but they have left behind some very capable and tailored force that allows them to bring continued pressure on president poroshenko in the leadership of ukraine and what that pressure allows them to doo is completely shake the

geostrat of eastern ukraine. i've been quoted as saying and i will say it again the ceasefire while it has done many good wings like stop the loss of life, it's allowing the situation to be built in eastern ukraine that could easily slip into another conflict. that worries me greatly in eastern ukraine. >> we will leave this now and take you back to the house floor. business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from ohio to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5108 as amended on which the the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 435, h.r. 5108, a bill to establish the law school clinic certification program of the united states patent and trademark office and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules p