regulate? i think it is an open and interesting question but that is one of the things judge williams focused on. >> we don't agree this is the first time this court has done this or the fcc has done this. title ii and common carrier rules have applied in competitive markets. in 1996, congress overhauled the telecommunication act and left in place the common carry protections that protect people from things like blocking or undue discrimination by their provider. there is a lack of competition and most people understand they don't have that many chances for broadband as compared to the number of websites they can visit. we have had these protections for wireless voice for two decades, and dsl for all of them at first and broadband offerings made by phone companies, and for a lot of rural dsl, smaller

telephone companies. we have had in place for business-grade broadband services. title two is neither new nor outdated. it is a long standing tradition and part of the law and we are glad the fcc returned to that understanding. >> turning to the majority opinion, what parts of that opinion would be used by, you know, the industry to further its arguments? what kind of holes can it try to poke in the argument? when it goes to appeal. >> i don't know it is going up further. what we usually see on appeals is the full circuit or supreme court is a split. the supreme court could make the choice but maybe not with only eight justices. if there is a question of law in play, i am sure companies will

be attempting to seek further review but we don't see them likely to get it and likely unable to win we see. >> you view the circuit split being a large barrier to get a review? >> it is not a guarantee but they don't have that to look to to suggest the supreme court must decide some kind of split between two appellate courts. >> fred, do you agree on that? >> to some extent. i think matt is pointing out part of what you have going on with review of a federal agency decision like this it will probably not come up again. you only have the opportunity for a split. so the court could decide to take it without respect to that. but matt is right. they don't have that to look to. you know, much of the opinion references the earlier court decision overturning the previous fcc net neutrality rules.

i can't remember if that was -- if they tried to appeal that to the supreme court. but in any event it didn't end up there. you know, supreme court review is not a given by any stretch. the one interesting issue i thought in the majority opinion that creates new law and/or was inconsistent with the existing law was the treatment of the first amendment question. it isn't entirely clear but that could pique the supreme court's if they want to take it on. what the court did, and i filled an amicus brief because i am interested in them, but the court said once you have a common carrier network the first amendment doesn't generally apply. but what is assumed in that analysis is the fcc can force broadband providers to be common carriers.

if the first amendment says you cannot force somebody to make their network available own a common carrier bases which was my argument with respect to certain internet services. it gets more complicated. then that part of the opinion doesn't hold up. it is implied in what the tort said was -- it is implied they were not clear -- broadband providers held out as common carriers and the court goes on to say if a broadband provider decides to curate the internet, the rules don't apply and it might violate the first amendment if the fcc tried to force the rules to apply. raises an interesting question. my first thought went to the facebook service that was, you know, banned in india on net neutrality grounds where

facebook made their social media services for free and they made the india broadband providers. as i understand it, india ruled against it because the broadband providers were getting paid by facebook. the question that is left open here is well it appears from reading of the court it is admissible in the u.s. that is an interesting issue the supreme court may want to look at. >> i think there were a lot of interesting questions here. india and their telecommunication laws we don't have time for. my understanding is facebook wasn't paying. but to say it was struck down is large description of waupd what happened there. the court is right in some respects leaving out the option

and possibility because the fcc left it open that curated, where they are taking away choices or offering them special choices, not requiring that company to be a common carrier would violate the first amendment but that company might have first amendment rights. if they were offering up edited internet services perhaps that would trigger the first amendment. the court left that for a later day. courts don't like to decide constitutional issues if they don't have to. by definition, the service may not be a broadband internet access service and that might trigger further first amendment review. i think the answer isn't clear how that would come out. >> can you think of any service that fits that mould today? and what rules could that be subject to? >> i cannot think of any. i think it is hard for an isp to get there. it is not generally what people want.

there are specialized services that allow you to create to a single source but we are talking more about an editorial choice. a family-friendly isp that offered access it the internet but not a single source. >> did they create a new category of internet service? >> i don't think it is likely to happen because it is risky for the isp. if they put themselves out there as the speaker and they lose liability protection and they say they are not libel for the speech of others. >> there are two providers out there doing this now and they are relatively small. it is far from clear a large provider has any interest in doing this. i am not trying to suggest that. but i wrote a law review article on if first amendment issues and did research. there is a small isp in new york city that markets itself as

those friendly to those in the jewish faith and doesn't allow any subscribers to opt out. it blocks consent it considers inconsistent with their faith. they provide a curated service. it is happening now. they are small, though. to matt's point on it not being clear. this is the kind of thing that can be brought up later on in what the court would call as applied challenge. a court can decide the rules don't violate constitutional rights or provisions but if the fcc were, for example, to take action against this isp for their editorial decisions, then they could say as this is being

applied to me it is violating my first amendment right. it is an issue that may or may not come up again. it is happening to some small extent out there. >> matt wood, how does the net neutrality rules encourage more competition? what is the connection? >> it encourages competition for services we can reach on the internet. the so-called edge providers to innovate without permission and that allows them to compete with broadband and offer voice and video and things broadband videos might have a lot on it allows them to come up with the next innovation no one can come up with today. everything we know of seems ordinary but social media and the power we see is a new thing within the last decade or two no one dreamed it up.

today it is such an important part of people's lives. so it allows for competition and innovation on the edge of the network without the gate keeper control. >> host: netflix put out a statement supporting this saying netflix will be able to reach consumers without isp interference. >> netflix does something where tay directly connect with the isp providers using facilities spread around the country and have their own delivery network. not owned by them but they lease it it. the larger providers like google does that. this is another thing judge williams brought up in the decent. if the concern is some companies could get an advantage, edge companies or the companies that

are not the last mile you subscribe to to get access to internet; large companies pay isps to get delivered there faster and higher and quality and that will harm the competition on the edge. judge williams pointed out the largest providers are getting a significant speed advantage by owning their own back facilities and paying for prime interconnection points that mall smalled providers can't afford or they are paying third party next works to provide the services. advantages are still going on. this was raised with the fcc. if you want to prevent these advantages you have to prevent the cache networks but the fcc said we will not look into that. it didn't want to address it. >> some of that is true. but i think netflix is an edge provider. they are on the other side of

the network from the user. a lot of people like to talk about net neutrality or anything in d.c. as a battle between companies with netflix on one side and comp comcast on other side. we are talking about comcast customer's rights with net neutrality and anything their service does interfering with the customers unable to reach web traffic to stream whatever they want or say whatever they want. netflix is an edge provider and not a legal determination. the fact their content might move quicker. despite net neutrality being an agreement with everything must move at the same speed. that is not true. people buy different speed tiers at home and that is not a violation of net neutrality. it is about whether or not there is unreasonable discrimination or roadblocks the cable company puts in the way.

doing something to improve the quality of your own stream, if netflix has more servers than i do, they can reach more people. >> let me use a different example than netflix to illustrate and potentially answer your question about how does net neutrality promote more competition. the fcc's theory is broadband service providers have an incentive and ability to block and charge to deliver traffic. the fcc says that will reduce the amount of edge freproviderso want to provide traffic and reduce demand for the internet and the isps will not use as much infrastructure. it is saying the isp is their own worst enemy and they will do things to hurt them in the long run.

this is what i meant by a para dime shift. that virtuous circle doesn't just apply to isp. who stands between a consumer and edge service? i put this in the fcc record and they didn't address it. but another thing is, you know, if you use the mobile internet and a lot of consumers are only using mobile devices to access the internet, you have to have a mobile operating system. there is only two which is google's android or apple's ios or iphone as we know it. both of them charge application developers to be able to be on that platform and they charge consumers for the phone, at least in apple's case. and if you want to have our phone, you have to be in our app store and they charge 30%. that is a 30% rate.

so the fcc says we are worried they are going to charge excessive prices and it will reduce the amount of edge providers when you go down the chain. the app space is exploding. 30% is about double what the fcc historically considered a reasonable rate of return under their statutory regulatory authority and that is not persuadeing the app designers. if this is the law, why doesn't it apply to others charging people upstream 30%? >> i want to come back to the mobile in a second. but before that, i want to ask about the implication the ruling will have for the legislation on net neutrality and there has been a lot of talk in the run up to this decision about whether or not republicans and democrats

can come together to write rules and legislation that would supersede the fcc's regulations. what does this court decision mean for that process? >> i think it means users have the right law in place and it is going to take a lot to convince me we can do better in congress. the fcc has leverage and open internet advocates. i think this sets what we have today and if we are going to improve upon that there are ways to talk about it but we will not allow these protections to be swept aside to make way for a compromise that would not protect people. i mind love to go back to the vur virtuous cycle and talk about it with the statute. there are calls to look at other gatekeepers and not just talk about the apples of the world but the social media giants and internet giants. that is an interesting question

but the virtuous idea was the only thing they could rely on and they swept that aside going back to title two and by treating isps as carriers. they said the only justification we have for net neutrality rules is this notion that somehow without good content online we will see a dip in broadband investment and less and less people taking up broadband service. what we have now is a law that says carriers are indeed different and some may disagree with that. they are the gatekeepers the fcc squarely charged with keeping in mind these protections that prevent the cable and phone companies from unreasonably interfering. that doesn't mean apple doesn't have a choice in what people are making online. apple does. but it does mean comcast can't say favor their own video to

prevent people from switching to something else: that would be the isp shooting themselves in the case but that is not the case because comcast can make a lot of money by keeping people paying for two services. so it would be in the isps benefit to have people keep paying for cable tv and comcast makes out well because they are receiving two revenue streams by keeping people tied to that cord. >> i want to disagree with one thing. the question i was pivoting is what is the difference between the isp impacting mobile? for any other gatekeeper, someone with a platform that you have to access to get consumers my point is i don't see a different. my point is the differences have been erased and most of the time

to answer i get when i raise this question is the fcc doesn't have jurisdiction over mobile operating systems and i don't think that is correct legally -- >> do you think the fcc has jurisdiction over mobile operating systems? >> i think they either have direct jurisdiction and even some years ago people who support net neutrality as a policy where the fcc didn't have jurisdiction to do it and they said use your title one authority. i find it interesting nobody is saying anything about the other gate keepers and they say the fcc doesn't have jurisdiction. no one wants to talk about it. >> we have seen chairman wheeler say clearly he has no intention of regulating edge providers, online services, using the net neutrality rules. could that change? do you see that changing? >> i don't think see. i think we see this in the

private context, too. fred is suggesting that distinction has been erased between the different gatekeepers but i think his argument may be they have been replicated. if we cannot prevent people's privacy from being used perhaps we should thought regulate what comcast and verizon do. i think it seems senlike it wou make sense to put them aside if they are not complete. we are interested in this. not through 706 and other things and luckily those have been swept away because the fcc turned to a common sense and solid understanding of the legal authority they have and winning this court case decisively. that doesn't mean we should sweep away other favorites we have.

>> matt wood of free press, what is the practical of this decision? >> the fcc is in control and doesn't have to come up with a fourth bite of the apple, having lost in court a couple times because they went back to the solid legal foundation congress wrote for them in 1996. and understanding broadband as an essential communication service rather than as something that is mysteriously intertwined with the content we get on the internet. we are happy the fcc has that authority. what they do with it is yes to be seen. there are questions that will come up that we cannot predict yet. that is not a scary thing because the fcc should be involved in that conversation. having the power to protect people from unreasonable discrimination and other kinds of interference that the isps could cause for their use of the internet. >> and fred campbell, same question.

>> i think we will see the law continue to expand. the history of these types of things is once you set the precedent people will start to, for example, file complaints under the fcc's new rule of you cannot do anything to disadvantage the rule some claim is too vague. we will see people start filing complaints to test various models which gets the fcc more involved in sort of the way the internet is packaged and sold by isps. you do have, i think, a risk that some will try to expand this to other gatekeepers on the internet. there will be app developers who don't want to pay 30% and they have good aufrment arguments they are in the same position as the isp. i think over time it will develop more and maybe we will get a better sense of the real impact. >> and brian fung, what are you

going to be looking for next? >> i think everyone will be waiting to see how the internet industry responds and if they will escalate the case and if how. scombl brian fung, fred campbell, matt wood, thank you all very much. >> thanks. >> thank you. you realize this is something i would love to do and something i think could be different about the kind of books written about mccarthy in the past and a chance to think about who this person was, what his significance was, and what his virtues were and what were his flaws and the things that made him unpleasant and even hated be many. >> author author herman look at

general douglas mccarther in his book. >> mccarther saw the future more clearly than the present whether it was america's role in asia, the rise of china, the split between china and the soviet union which he foresaw, but also the fate of american domestic politics. >> sunday at 8 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, mark price with the economic policy institute joins us to discuss their new report looking at income inequality in all 50 states and how it has grown in recent decades. then presidential candidate and

formal congressman ron paul is on to offer his opinion on the state of the 2016 presidential campaign. and david rucker, senior writer for the examiner, will discuss the firing of trump's campaign manager and his recent story on campaign financing. >> earlier today the senate held procedural votes on four groel measures. two dealt with background checks and two dealt with the no-fly list. before voting, senators took the floor for their remarks >> the terrorist attack that claimed 49 innocent victims in

orlando left the country broken and the families shaken. it was a deliberate attack inspired by hateful ideology of isil and continued to remind us of the attacks here in the country. we know the way to prevent more of these terrorist attacks is to defeat isil where it trains and operates and prepares for attacks like in iraq and syria. the president at least appeared to recognize that this weekend when he said we are, and we will keep doing, everything in our power to stop these attacks and ultimately destroy isil. as the nation just learned from the cia director john brennan isis is a resilient and largely cohesive enemy. our efforts thus far have not

reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach. this is showing it is evidence the president's campaign to contain isil has not been sufficient to prevent this group or prevent more inspired attacks here at home. it needs to lead a campaign to accomplish this objective. or at least prepare the military and intelligence community to help the next president do that if we want. here in the senate, we should continue our efforts to fight terror beyond our borders and prevent attacks within them. these have been proiorities of republican senators for a long time and they continue to be at the forefront of our efforts. now, we offered proposals to help connect the dots with respect to terrorist communications, we offered proposals to help address the threat of lone wolf attacks like

the one we saw in orlando, and we offered proposals to help insure terrorist are not able to purchase weapons. we will consider two of them today along with two democratic alternatives. ... explosive or explosives to a suspected terrorist, and once probable cause is shown not only permanently block that sale but also allow the suspected terrorist to be arrested and detained. this would apply to anyone currently investigated as a terrorism suspect as well as anyone who was investigated within the last five years. unlike senator cornyn's proposal, the democratic alternative would not -- would not prevent a terrorist from buying explosives as >> it will not prevent a terrorist combine explosives as the alternative pertains only to the firearms. unlike the proposal the democratic proposal would not

notify state and local lawlaw en enforcement when a terrorist tries to buy a weapon. nor will the alternative even give authority for that terrace to be arrested. or detained. unlike senator would not protect our constitutional rights or insurance investigating the right people. the second proposal from senator grassley would approve the background check database by helping ensure all levels of government are actually submitted the necessary records, including mental health records. it would also allow for additional resources to improve the system further. unlike senator grassley's proposal the democratic alternative will not study the prev unlike senator grassley's proposals the the democratic alternative would not help prevent railgun walking

th furious. and unlike senator grassley's proposal democratic alternative will not allow the department of justice to explain my at has not been using the gun laws already on the books. to prosecute gun cases. we know that weapons -related convictions under the obama administration are down more than 30% compared to one decade ago. so look, no one wants a terrorist to be able to buy guns or explosives, no one. the study using this as anl opportunity of pushing partisan agenda or craft the next 32nd campaign avenue, senators are pursuing real solutions that can help make americans safer from the threat of terrorism. they are approaching this in a serious and constitutional way. they also understand that at ultimately the most important way to prevent tragedies at home

is by defeating terrorism overseas. serious solutions, that is what the american people know demand more than ever. that is where we should keep our focus. rei [inaudible] mr. president. >> democratic leader. >> the epidemic of gun violences is here and it's getting worse every day. last week's attack in a popular is was the deadliest in americanor. history.led,

forty-nine people were killed, dozens wounded. many of those wounded will suffer the rest of their lives. for paralysis, blindness, and other anomalies caused by the evil mr. mateen.ith sadly mass shootings occur in our country. let's just talk about the recent years. tucson, arizona.number 2011, six killed 11 injured. wonderful, wonderful human being, she was critically injured for good husband, the famous astronaut is doing everything he can to make her

life as normal as possible. carson city, nevada, 2011. for killed in a popular restaurant. to the dead were national guardsmen getting readd to do their duty, having a break after having breakfast and they were gunned down by a madman.ple in colorado, people were watching a popular movie in 2012. they were gunned down in a night of terror. in connecticut, 201,220 little kids, 20 babies, six educators, killed.

in washington d.c., 2013, 12 killed. las vegas nevada, 2014, couple of people would just left there is a domestic terror situation, i guess they did not get enough opportunity to do terrible things up there so they came toe las vegas, went to a restaurant where two police officers were sitting and having breakfast, two men with families, this man and woman walked up having went to the bundy enclave and shot them both in the head in front of everybody. they walked out when next door to walmart, killed another unsuspecting shopper. carson, south carolina one year

ago, nine killed in a church, praying which is what you should do in a church. and nine were killed.5; roseburg, idaho, i'm sorry, i'm sorry, roseburg, oregon, 2015, nine killed, at a community college. colorado springs, colorado, somo crazy person had been doing something online, stopping abortion, he killed three innocent people. nothing to do with abortion, just innocent people. see medina, california, a, california, a government facility, people for holiday celebration 14 were killed

people were maimed, by two domestic terrorists. kalamazoo, michigan, 2016, and who were driver, pick up a fair drive around town and kill another, he got six.no so you add these up, that is 100. i'm not counting the 49 that add were killed a week or so ago.h you had had that about the 90 that are killed nine every day, 90 every day with guns in america, that's a startling number. but after the murders i've outlined here, tucson, carson city, aurora, d.c., las vegas,

charleston, south carolina, roseburg, idaho, i said it again, roseburg, oregon, california, colorado springs, colorado, kalamazoo, michigan. after these murders people look to congress to stop them, noee more they say. the american people do not feel safe, they want to feel safe. they want the violence to stop them they wanted to end.ents s instead of getting help from elected officials or constituents see it will disturbing pattern of action. always the same. after each tragedy we try, we democrats try to pass, sensible gun safety measures, and our efforts are blocked by republicans in congress. who take their marching orders from the national rifle association. in 2013 just months after the bid shootings and aurora noon they wanted to expand background

checks, the man who went into the nightclub a week ago have an in an assault rifle that would hold a magazine of 30 shells. he could fire that every time you pull the trigger, it would take him about three or four seconds to empty it. he could reload in one or two seconds, he had we don't know for sure but at least two extraa clips. so so 90 bullets. does anyone think, does anyone think there is anything you hunt in america that requires 90 bullets? is there anyone that thinks that in america you need 30 bullets to go hunting? t for what? but the man in orlando, florida went hunting for people. we try we try to limit the size of thet

ammunition clips but the nra to not accept those proposals, none of them, so senate republicans do not accept them.ecembe and they filibustered and blocked everyone of them. it happened again last december. following this shooting in san bernardino senator feinstein wanted to close a loophole. his bill would have prevented suspected terrorists from legally purchasing firearms and explosives. keeping terrace from buying guns, that guns, that should be something which every member of the senate agrees. again the nra saidid no. republican said no and blocked senator feinstein's legislation. that.ee that is the pattern we see. beh we see it repeatedly. it does not matter how sensible the legislation or how terrible thef tragedy, republicans will behold the national rifle association,

the nra and not the people that elect them to come here and represent them. but today am afraid it was more the same. in two hours the senate will have the opportunity to stop the violence. certainly we can do something that 530 p.m., the senators will vote on the gun related amendments, to be democrats, two from republicans, to these amendments, the feinstein minutes are serious proposals to protect americans from gun violence. the murphy bookeron schumer woud close the background check system and ensure that firearms and explosives were kept out of the hands of terrorists and criminals and those who suffer from mental illness. senator feinstein mm it would close a terror loophole and shut out suspected terrorists from being able to purchase weapons and exclusives. these are both keeping with what america wants and what america

needs. n.r.a that 90% of americans favor expanded background checks. more than 80% of americans want to close the terror loophole. these are democrats, these are republicans and their independence. and i might say mr. president,tr the nra, all members of the nra do not feel the way that the leaders do, the leaders of the nra. 90% of americans favor extended background checks more than 80% want to close the loophole. again there checking the voice of the american people, instead the legislation would actually make it easier for someone that has a mental illness to get a gun.he instead the polls and legislation would actually make it more difficult for law enforcement to pull guns out ofa their hands of the dangerous.

the senator has proposed amendment that would make it easier for person with a severe mental list by god. that's what it says. republicans would make it easier for one who just gets out of psychiatric facility to walk out of a psychiatric facility and by firearms.ator the second republican amendment the senior senator from texas would allow the sale of firearms after brief 72 are waiting. which we compromise ongoing terrorism investigations. i'm sorry, counterterrorism investigations. the requirements are political stunts that are meaningless to stop gun violence. these these are amendments to evade attention from real legislations why? so republicans say hey look, we we try. now all the time there treated

and cheerleaders of the nra. the republicans are stuck in the same rut, the same work givingea into the demands of the nra. leaders always find a way to say no. democrats look at any reasonable proposal when it comes to gun safety. right now there are democrats like senator heinrich was working with republicans to find a solution, it doesn't matter if there their ideas, we need to keep guns and explosives away from suspected terrorist,a criminals and people with mental list. we know then or i would never would never support any oi those proposals, that's why we a stand against gun violence. as i stand here nra is sending a lot of direct mail saying we need more money. they're trying trying to take your guns away

from you. it's a fund-raising operation. but we need senate republicans to take a stand against violence against the nra for a change. if they don't, senate republicans continue down this path and we reject the amendments it will be the third time recently that we have walked away from sensible gun legislation. it it will be the third time they voted to get suspected terrace, criminals, and mentally ill access to firearms. it'll be the third time that say were protected. even their own constituents -- senator republicans should be in paris but they're not because the nra is happy. we need to put the life of innocent americans ahead of the nra. >> mr. president, a few days powerf

orlando, i received a very powerful letter from alan scott's. she is a young monster, like she was sickened and horrified by the senses act of hatred we saw in orlando. western out to me in the letter this eloquent, passionate,ined heartfelt letter, this woman is 15 years old. in. in the letter she explained that even at her age she has quote seen so many mass shootings that it is become harder and harder to face her. she she called on congress to act as she said quote it is time foror gun laws in our country were completely reformed, on quote ss

that violent and hate blacks will be prevented. and after i read her letter and i reread it several times. i sat down in my home in vermont and i try to draft a response and go through all the votes that have taken over the years. i started looking up all the hearings that i have convened on gun violence. all the bills that i've authored and cosponsored, those that i i moved to the judiciary committee, and even on this side of florida. but then i stopped, this is just a -- i decided the nature, the quality, the moving aspect of allen's letter deserved a e response here on the senate floor. because she has given voice to something urgent that many people in vermont and the country are feeling right now. so mr. president here is my

reply to ellen. dear ellen, thank you for your thoughtful letter. i've read it several times and i want you to know how powerful it is to speak up about issues as important as this one. some worry that many of your t ou involvement in the big issues of our day. but your letter gave me hope. you are right, it it is long past time for congress to reform the loss that allow mass gun violence to flourish in our country. you deserve to feel safe. you should not have to feel that guns desire for the battlefield will end up in the hands of terrorists or violent criminalsa and a majority of our fellow americans feel just as we do and they support those answers.

but you government has let you down. time, time, time, and time again, common sense remedies have been forwarded by obstruction. and powerful lobbies if only more people like you will stand up will we be able to change to this. i want you to know i've been working for years to find practical solutions that will stop the gun violence that continues to touch every corner of our country. o but i thought the last thing you would want is the list of all the bills i have written or voted for and not past. you want to know how we are going to overcome theos well-funded opposition the passage of laws that will reduce gun violence. so i continued my letter to her and i said, first we must remember the amazing men, women, and children who died from gun violence every day.

and these tragedies are not limited to mass shootings. t we need to pay attention to the loss of thousands of mothers and fathers, sons and daughters who greet because of a shooting that could have been prevented. secondly we knew voices like yours, we need you to hold us accountable, many more many more people to demand reform. so that we can finally overcome the well-funded opposition. the common to commonsense laws that keep guns out of the loss of criminals and terrorists. and i continue my letter i say i share your frustration and i beg you not to be numb to the hatred and violence.y.out i urge you to speak out in your community. speak out in our wonderful state of vermont. speak speak out on social media, demand accountability.

it often takes time, too long of time, but speaking out, sharing your ideas and views, contacting your elected representatives makes a difference. i hope the votes that i will cost on your behalf tonight demonstrates that i hear you. i agree that we must act to prevent the next orlando. ellen, thank you for doing that. for speaking out, for holding us accountable. i asked unanimous consent to put her full letter be included iny: the record. >> without objection. >> last week demanded democrats demanded this issue and this week will have a vote, i amve proud gun owner, and most vermonters know that we should do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists. in order to do that we must close the loophole that allows suspected

terrorists to pass the background checks conducted at gun stores. a senator feinstein the moment would give law-enforcement the discretion to actually stop the sale of a gun to a known or suspected terrace who presents his public safety threat. and his amendment been in law when that shooter wanted tont purchase his weapon, the fbi would had notice of what he was doing. they could've prevented the tragedy in orlando.nt. the problem with justice which includes the fbi, supports the amendment and i support this commonsense amendment. gun closing the terror gap is not enough. if a potential purchase is banned from buying a gun in the local store, we have to ensure that he cannot simply buy the same gun online without any sort of background check. are because background checks are not universal.

online, gun shows, everywhere else, then what's the point. senator murphy's amendment closes a major loophole by requiring background checks for every firearm sale, including gun show and internet sales. of support stronger background checks. they want to prevent terroristsa of all types from obtaining guns. when when i pick up a firearm in a gun store in vermont, even the person may have no mail his life, i have to have to go through a background check. that does not bother me a bit. but i don't want somebody who has got warrants outstanding against him were restraining orders from their spouse against them to be able to walk into a gun show and by the same weapon with no background check. so in the wake of mass gun

violence, were the victims and the members of the lgbt community, the african-american church, first-graders, first-graders in elementary school, college students or military service members, others in our community, we are called as americans to come together in solidarity. we need real solutions that might prevent further acts of senseless violence so to thens millions of americans who agree with ellen, i hope you're watching the senate today and i think alan for reminding us all that we cannot stand idly by and wait for the next tragedy and just simply offer our thoughts and prayers. now is the time, congress, congress has to act to pass commonsense measures. we could save american lives so i support the amendments offered by feinstein and murphy.

how my fellow senators will do the same. mr. president, yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> senator from maryland. >> thank you very much c mr. president. we are now debating the commerce justice appropriation bill. i i am the vice chair of that subcommittee. and i just wanted to make people aware that the pending bill funds the department of commerce , which hopefully works to create jobs in our country, the justice department, the national science foundation, the space agency, and my, all related to how do we build a strong economy and how we

protect our people. to build that i have worked on not only all euro long, but as someone who has worked on this bill for over 30 years. this bill, the subcommittee bill, when it moves will be my final subcommittee that will i will have been a major vice chairmanship role. so people would think she senator barb once to move this bill along and i sure do, i worked hands on with my colleagues, the the senator from alabama, senator shelby, we have a good bill. we have a bill that i will continue to advocate, but people would say then barb why would you support a filibuster. while i tell you why support a filibuster. guns, guns, guns, guns. when the anniversary of the assassination of those people at the charleston church, we had yet another mass murder scene

occur in orlando, florida. now, we organize the village of filibuster so we could get a vote to stop the terrorists als suspect from getting guns and also to extend back ground checks for all gun sales and extend that to the internet andd gun shows so that we could curb violence. i actually wanted to go further. i wanted to bring back the ban on assault weapons that expired, because assault weapon is no more than a weapon of war. to be used by military or those in defense of our country that had to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time by pulling

u.s. poland the trigger as possible. but we we knew we could not get that way so we number one, to extend, close the terrorist group home and the other to extend background checks. i supported and i see one on tho floor now, with the distinguished senator from connecticut, former attorney general who was in the senate when newtown happened, along with his junior colleague, senator chris murphy also of connecticut. senator brooker of new jersey, they led this fight. i am proud of what they did because what did they filibuster for? only to get to vote. we had to have a filibuster to get a vote on offering ideas on how we could curb gun violence in our country and protector of people. one is against terrace getting guns in the other is extending o

background checks to the internet sales and gun show sales.arts of now i come from a state with a proud heritage of hunting. it is part of our way of life in many parts of her estate. we respect that. but this would in no way impede anybody from being able to doe d that. and yet we had to filibuster to get a vote. not even a filibuster on the bill. so within just a matter of two hours from now, we will be voting on those two amendments. i hope those amendments pass. and the other side of the aisle also has alternatives to those, that is the american way.as we have presented an idea, they think they have an idea, well let's vote on who has the best

idea to curb violence and protect us against terrorism. mr. present, this isn't the first time that someone filledti with hate, armed with a high-powered weapon, has killed his fellow citizens. innocent americans have died time and time again, in a church like in charleston, in schools . like a new town, in a movie theater, or at work. the list goes on. also, the availability of guns occur in our cities, places like baltimore where we have a high homicide rate due to the drug fs trade. we would like to be able to address that today but instead we are focused on these two specific things, as i said i would've liked to dunmore, but this is a fantastic start and i salute those colleagues that led the filibuster. get

america wants us to take action. now let's go to closing the terrorist group poll. when when i get on an airplane they want to, i go through metal detector, i take my shoes off, i take my jacket off, there there is a time when they even looked at what i had my tube of lipstick so that it would not be a lethal weapon. i support that, i don't want to be blown up in the sky. i don't want anybody else on that plane, but why is it we would go through such incredible scrutiny to board an airplane, to protect me against terrorist and yet we have no scrutiny of the people on a terrorist watchlist to be able to buy a gun. now now you can be on a terrorist watchlist but one of the ways you are going to commit terry is to kill people once yos mass murder like the horrific 9/11 incident that still sears are memory and breaks her heart every time i o think about it.

but my gosh, if i'm going to get on an airplane and they are going to want to know what i go through what is in my tube of lipstick that it is not a lethal weapon, certainly why don't we try to curb lethal weapons? why don't we we curb lethal weapons? that is why i support the feinstein amendment. you can walk into a gun store now and in three days or less you can walk out with a high-powered rifle, a a high-capacity magazine, unless you have committed a crime.ent u you cannot get on an airplane, but you can buy an ar-15.os this is unbelievable. vot this is what senator feinstein's amendment would fix. i am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment and i am glad we are going to vote on it and i hope we can pass it. the distinguished senator from texas has an alternative, let him explain that and defend it.

i think the feinstein amendment is superior. i also hope we hope to pass that murphy amendment to close the gun show loophole. today, 40% of gun sales are unlicensed. they are sold online or at gun shows. it means that 40% of gun sales have no background check, given felons, abusers, domestic violence abusers, or terrorists they have easy access to guns. this amendment will help with two things, it will get all of the names of all people prohibited from buying guns intk the national criminal background check system which is the federal background check system run by the fbi. it would require background checks for this sale or transfer of all firearms by private sellers.

mr. president, background checks do work.kgroundec in 18 states where background checks are required for all handgun sales, 46%% fewer women are killed by domestic partners of 48% fewer law enforcement officers were killed with handguns. so, if you want to protect law enforcement, if you and violence abusers, you want to close this gun show loophole. it will not only deal with terrorists, but it will deal with people who are deeply, deeply troubled. i urge my troubled. i urge my colleagues to pass this amendment. i urge my colleagues to pass the murphy, blumenthal amendment. and i want to say something before i leave thect floor. to the senator from connecticut. you know senator, after new town i really thought we would do something. the massacre of 20 children, 20

elementary school children and six educators who literally put themselves in harm's way to save the children, six educators, 20 children, killed by by an assault weapon. itfter i thought we would do something, but we did not do it after new town, i didn't know when we would do it. and then there was aurora, there is charleston, and now there is orlando. but if we didn't do it after nea town, sir, i really hope that this is a new day new day thank you for standing up for those families and for all families in the country and i am honored and pleased to stand with you. i yelled for. >> mr. president? >> senator from new hampshire.

>> thank you mr. president. mr. president i rise today today to say to my colleagues who are here that i hope that we can stop the politics and really focus on a result that will make a difference for the american people. hearts are broken across this country, all of us as we woke up the sunday before last to the news of the horrific terrorist attack on the nightclub in fa 49 innocent people and 53 more were injured. i cannot imagine how their families feel and the faint paying their loved ones must be experiencing. our prayers are with them and to those who are wounded. and with our brave first responders who had to go there to address this horrible terrorist attack. this and it is an attack that sugar nation. it was an attack on our lgbt

community, in a place where people come together to enjoy themselves, to celebrate who they are, it was an act of terrorism, it wasn't a patriot, this wasn't a patriot, this was the worst terrorist attack on our soil since september 11. it is a sober reminderk, that unfortunately the terrace that committed this attack, someone who pledged allegiance to the leader of isis, someone whon unfortunately committed an actbe of terrorism and an active patron, it's a somber reminder that isis continues to plan and inspire attacks against us here at home and that we do have to take this fight to isis much more aggressively and make sure

they do not continue to have the capacity to inspire terrorist attacks against us, on our homeland, or against our allies around the world that we have seen in other places like paris and brussels. we have to defeat radical islamic terrors and we have to destroy isis so they can no longer spread hatred, violence, and death. unfortunately the terrace that n committed this horrible attack in orlando, he was investigated by our fbi and during that investigation he was placed on what was called the selectee list. that list is part of a larger list which is sometimes referred to as the terrorism watchlist. when an individual goes to purchase a firearm and they are

on the terror watchlist, the fba is notifying that purchases taking place and they have up to 72 hours to take some action or to further their investigation. but this individual, this horrible terrorist was taken off the list because the fbi closed their investigation. i hope we do not lose sight on this floor of the fact that wed better do everything we can toto understand any gaps in in our intelligence system about that investigation, understand why it was closed, and make sure that investigations like this do not get closed in the future and that we have a situation where the fbi has the resources and tools they need to follow up properly when they have someone in their site, like they had this terrorist.

but the reality is, had he been on the list like he had been previously, before the investigation was close, the fbi would have been notified of his firearm purchase. on the floor today we have proposals to address whether terrace should be allowed to purchase guns. make no mistake mr. president, gun control will not stop terrorism. however i i think that we can all agree that we do not want terrorists to purchase firearms, that to me would be a competing proposal on the floor that we do have a common ground that terrace should not be permitted to purchase firearms. unfortunately where we findl foo ourselves dessert typical

political football and i believe we should stop playing political football was something soel important. t as a member of the armed service committee i'm going to recommit myself and i hope everybody in this body will to do everything we can to defeat isis. close i also believe that we should to recommit ourselves to find out if there are gaps in our intelligence system that need to be addressed why this investigation was closed to make sure the fbi has the tools they need to prevent these attacks. i also believe we should work together to ensure that terrorist should not be allowed meas to buy firearms. we know what is going to happen. we're not going to find a solution to by sticking to two measures that fail before mostlw on party lines.ng so i have been working, working with senator collins, working with senator graham and others,s and talking to people on both sides of the aisle about coming

can pass this body and make surt that terrorists are not allowed to buy guns. if you're too dangerous to board a commercial plane, it stands to reason that you should not be able to buy a gun. it is as simple as that. people on both sides of the aisle i think it agree with that in principle. so why can't we act in good faith and figure out the best way to achieve that goal? this is a gravely serious issue thatio, a i requires a serious response. there is a solution here, and i am committed to finding it. but to find that solution we have to come together. instead of having competing thit proposals that have already, mostly failed in this chamber, we took these votes back in december, let's put aside the games and come together to get a proposal that will be effective and get a result of the americao

people. and il the center will be considering two proposals as i reference. both have failed, mostly on party lines. by all accounts, these proposals are likely to fail again. righto we will be right back where we started, no safer, no smarter, no more successful in protecting our citizens. there'll be more politicalo a blame, but we'll be no closer ta a solution to a result of something that matters to ensurt that we move forward to ensure that terrace to not have access to firearms.aham, a i'm here because i want to talk about a better way. during the past week, working together as i have mentioned with senator collins, graham, and others reaching out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we want to propose legislation that may actually pass the senate. but to get to that solution we have to move this debate forward.

that is why i will be voting today to advance both options before us. in order to provide opportunity for us to come together with a bipartisan compromise that will get a result for the american people. this is an opportunity in this debate. if we go go forward with this debate to get a result, unfortunately both bills on the floor are not the answer. we we know that, they both feel before. so i will be continuing to push a result, but what we're doing this afternoon with the political exercise we are t having, is going to be pushing for legislation that both sides know is going to fail. both senator feinstein and options both are well-intentioned. but each has has flaws that i'm concerned about.ld senator feinstein's approach is

very broad and it would include the entire terrorism database. and it could include instances where there have only been a derogatory allegation made about an american that has not been validated and there are real due process questions about that using the broader list. it is much broader than the phrase, notified no buy. i think we all understand that. no fly, no buy. no buy. this is much more broader. it is misleading to call the feinstein proposal thatop t proposal. if you cannot get on a plane,ul you should not be able to buy firearms. this measure does not require the government to show anything other than reasonable belief that you have been engaged in conduct relating to terrorism. it it doesn't necessarily mean that it has been validated. in december i supported senators

legislation because it was similar to senator feinstein's legislation but but it had additional, stronger due process protections. act however, senator cornyn's legislation requires the fbi to act in 72 hours to go to court within 72 hours to presentr probable cause. having better for murmur prosecutor myself, i'm concernet that is not enough time under the circumstances to take proper action and to be able to mount all of that before a court meet a probable cause standard. so i think there are some concerns that i have in terms of the timing with senator cornyn's legislation and and also theon fact that if you have probablehe cause you probably would have charge someone with a crime are ready. there is a better way mr. president, what we have come

together, these two pieces of legislation that i will be moving both to the debate floor, they are stark, but they are not an end, they are not an end until we get a commonsense result that ensure terrorists cannot buy guns, but that we protect the due process rights of american citizens. so our proposal is one that would ensure that if you were on the no-fly list, which by the c way roughly 800 americans are on the no-fly list, that would ensure that you could not go purchase a firearm. but if you believe you are being wrongfully to guide your right, you can challenge that in court and if the government is wrong, then they are going to have to pay or cost and attorney fees. ensure that individuals like the horrible terrace that committed

the attacks in orlando that are on us smaller sublist, this is a list that that is smaller than the overall terror watch list, there must be reasonable suspension suspicion that the additional meets additional heightened criteria for they have derogatory information above and beyond the criteria for that broader database thatei someone is engaged in terrorism, the orlando terrace who committed these horrific attacks was on this list. that group of individuals to purchase a firearm, but they too would have the opportunity to go to court to and to challenge that decision and if the government is wrong, to make sure that their costs are paid for. our proposal would also ensure that if you have been on this list for the last five years, that the fbi would notify ore l

would be notified if you went to purchase a firearm. why is that important? because unfortunately the terrace who committed these wearable attacks was taken off the list. we better find out why that happened, but we will make sure, this legislation t that if you were on the list, you go to purchase a firearm that at least the fbi is notified so they can follow up. and if they wanted to conduct an additional investigation surveillance like i hope they wouldut have done in this instae had they learned about this individual, that they have the h opportunity to do that. we believe this believe this is a fair, workable solution, it is a solution that makes sense. it is a a solution that when we thinkt about the overall terror database has about 1,000,000 people on it, the no-fly list has about 800 americans and if you can buy the list you're talking about less than 2500 americans. ab

being, if you are on that lis and you're being focused on in n an open investigation by the fbi, with you being engaged in terrorism or engaged with terrace, that you should not be able to buy a firearm.rotect mr. president, we have a responsibility to protect people's constitutional right. we need to make sure that there is due process for anything we do here, that is her basic responsibility. that is why our legislation make sure that terrace cannot buy guns and it also make sure that the due process rights of costs americans are protected. if the government is wrong, their costs and attorney fees will be paid for because the government should have that burden. it is my hope that as i suspect that these two proposals mayse o

fail tonight not because of anything i will do because i'mse going to be asking to get to this debate because i want a i result mr. president. i think we should stop playing political football with this and i think i would ask members of this body, these two proposals filled tonight, which i unfortunately think it is likelc to happen since it is almost groundhog day, again, since they're similar to proposals we voted on in december and we know what that result was, they both fail. fail. i hope we can come together. i have talked about a good faith, workable solution tonight that makes sense, and i hope that on both sides of the aisle we can work together to get a result to the american people and make sure that we get something done. to ensure that terrace cannotnsr atta mr. president, let's also make

sure that we continue to go after isis and defeat isis so they cannot inspire further attacks like this on our country.ntelli mr. president, let's also make sure that if there are gaps in our intelligence system because the fbi did not follow up or should have followed up, or they need more resources to follow these cases to their end, that we work together to address that a well.d it i because this was a horrific, horrific, active terrorism. we need to treat it accordingly. it is my hope that we can work together on bipartisan solutions that will help keep the american people say. thank you mr. president. o >> i appreciate the senator from texas. and madame a matter president, rice today to speakgn in support of the amendment to keep guns out of the hands of known or suspected terrace. the orlando attack, again exposed to dangerous loophole is our law. it allows known or suspected terrorist to legally purchase

guns through the national criminal instant background check system known as nick's. we call this loophole, the terror gap.eans.ar let me explain what that means. there are currently ten categories of people who are blocked from buying guns through the national instant criminal. background check known as nick's. here they are. they include those under felony indictment, fugitives from justice, drug users are at x, those committed to menstrual institutions, or adjudicated as mentally defective, foreign nationals, here unlawfully, foreign nationals, here unlawfully, or non- immigrant visas such as temporary workers, those are dishonorably discharged from the military,oca and those with a domestic violence restraining order. but, one but, one group that cannot

be blocked from buying guns are those who are known or suspecteh terrorists on the fbi's consolidated terrorist watchlist. they can buy guns. guns. but aliens can't come dishonorably discharged can't,a, people who are now citizen can't drug users can, fugitives from justice, felonies, et cetera. those are the ones that cannot. we know that individuals on the list have exploited this loophole. according to fbi data, over the past 11 years, the success rate for known or suspected terrorists who undergo background checks to buy guns is 91%. 91%. of over 2000 by gao study have been found to be able to purchase guns. so closing this dangerous loophole but first proposed by the justice department in 2007.

in fact, we derived the language in our amendment from that original bill. our amendment would give the attorney general the the authority to block a gun sale, to known or suspected terrorists. it also provides an appeal process, both administrative and judicial. let me just read thatc language because it is directlyd out of the 2007 justice department. the attorney general may deny the transfer of a firearm if the attorney general determines, based on the totality of circumstances that the transferee represents a threat to public safety based on a reasonable suspicion that the transferee is engaged, or has been engaged in conduct constituting or impressive duration of, and and eight of, or related to terrorism. or providing material support or

resources therefore,".in that is directly from that bill. in order to ensure that the fbi would be alerted with a case of an individual like omar mateen, our amendment also includes language proposed by senators leahy and nelson. this. this language would ensure that any suspected terrorists who tries to buy a gun within five years of being investigated for terrorism crimes would automatically trigger a notification to the justice department about the attempted purchase. so as you know, in 2013, 2014 the thousand 13, 2014 the fbi conducted two inquiries on the orlando gunman related to suspected terrorism.

even though the fbi was investigating him for possible terrorism and at one point placed him on the fbi terrorist watchlist, it had no power to prevent him from purchasing weapons at a gun store. that is the key thing. it had no power to prevent him from purchasing a gun at a gun r store. had this amendment been in place, it would have allowed the attorney general to know about the orlando shooters attempt to buy an assault rifle. and then investigate toau determine whether to deny the gun based off of this man's entire history. so let me now explain how a terrorist screening database also known as the consolidated terrorist watchlist works, under this amendment, the, the attorney general would look to this database to identify a known or suspected terrorist, to be included in this database the fbi must have reasonable

suspicion based on the totality of circumstances and objective facts that a person is a known or suspected terrace. and information is derived from intelligence and law-enforcement sources, at home and abroad to ensure that only individuals who pose a threat to national security are placed on this list. fbi director call me told the intelligence committee inusly february that information is thoroughly vetted. the fbi's process is also rigorously - audited to reduce the number of false positives. there are approximately, and here here it is, 1 million records in this database thatth less than half of 1% are u.s. persons. this is the terrorist screening database. this is is the product of the intelligence and

law-enforcement, it is scrutinized and if it is worthy it is placed on this database.ng 1 million records maintained by fbi's terrorist screening center, fewer than 5000 u.s. persons. that is one half of 1%. put so this is a targeted list that is carefully put together, it is focused on known or suspected terrorist believed to represent a risk to public safety. the amendment also includes, one thing i thing i want to say, and i will repeat this when i but many people confuse this list with the no-fly list. the

no-fly list is this dark blue center, it is 81,000 records, it is maintained by the fbi's terrorist screening center the fbi's terrorist screening center and it has fewer than 1000 persons. screeni then there is the selectee list. it is even smaller. it is 28000 records maintained by fbi's terrorist screening center, fewer than 1700 u.s. persons. but you can see if you are going to have an, the net has to be big enough and i'm to be big enough and i'm going tobo explain to you why in a moment, but our amendment also includes due process protections. it allows allows an individual who th a gun to learn the reason of the denial and to appeal that decision both administratively, with the justice department, and judicially. this is the same appeal process currently him place to anyone who believes they are wrongly denied a gun through the next database which i just through ao few minutes ago. wouldn'

now let me speak about two republican proposals and why i o think they would not work. i'm delighted the senator fromhs texas is on the floor. we both set on the judiciary committee. i've had the pleasure of working with him for a number of years. if his amendment requires the probable cause standard to be met.hat that is a very high standard. if that standard is met, there is already enough evidence to arrest the person, search the home and car, sees their property, and in the person. it is not practical to block a gun purchase and it would be just a small part of what is actually out there. the the proposal also says that somebody should also be entitled to a full-blown, contested hearing cl with counsel.

but if the hearing is not completed within 72 hour the gun sale go through. the hearing would require the filing of an emergency petition, the service of process, the opportunity for the individual to get a lawyer, to get a lawyer, then the actual, full-blown hearing.guag. this is nearly impossible to achieve within 72 hours. if itit isn't achieved, the terrace gets gone. senator gets a gun. senator collins has also circulated alternative language. now i consider myself a friend of hers, i have great respect for her, we serve on the intelligence committee together, but my view is that her alternative is not enough to close the loophole that creates this terror gap and allows terrorists to buy guns. this alternative would focus on narrow parts of the database. the no-fly list you can see how small itth is and the selectee

list which is here. the selectee list will talk about those who can fly but would have additional screeningi before boarding a plane. focusing so narrowly on these two smaller sets is important to listen to not. it is not enough and i would like to tell you why. it would lead leave out a huge number of known or suspected terrace, one as you can see and i have gone through that, i've gone through the no-fly list. so if we were to focus only on the no-fly list in the selectee list, we'll be leaving out 888 p

for nationals, names given to us by law enforcement, intelligence sources, both here and among our allies of who are on the terrace watchlist. at approximately 2300 u.s. persons determined by the fbi to be known or suspected terrace. focusing on the smaller list leaves out close to 90% of known or suspected terrorists covering both u.s. persons and foreigners. i need to remind my colleagues that you do not need to be a u.s. person to legally buy guns in this country. that makes it important tota understand how this list is larger. let me give you an example. go h program can legally buy guns. there are 20 million travelers in that program annually. more than 100,000 of them don't go home when they should. now now i would like to share just one example where a known or suspected terrace was on the fbi's radar that had not beenent

placed on the no-fly list.he over the weekend my staff went through 86 cases and pulled out some of them. i i have them here and i would like at this time just to mention one. nonoaud, a u.s. citizen was radicalized and became a devoted follower of isil. the fbi received a critical tip about him in april 2015. the tip included a detailed account of his radicalization in support of isil. this is all available in a 13 page criminal complaint. in maine he flew from new york city to jordan, he was a detained and later arrested by the fbi.

now here is someone who clearly met the definition of a known, or suspected terrorists. he was permitted was permitted to fly out of a major u.s. airport in the city where the 9/11 attacksy occurred.t this shows the danger of focusing only on narrow subsets of the terrace watchlist. to me, that does not make sense. there is broad support for amendment including more than 240 organization and communityu. leaders around the country.ffic madam president, i would ask that list be added to the congressional rescue record, directly following my remark. >> without objection. >> thank you madam president. >> the justice department of the white house supports assembly of its workable approach to help prevent terrorists from obtaining weapons. justice, we have worked with justice and justice made some additions tont our amendment, they released a statement of support. that may read it in part. this a moment

gives gives the justice department an important additional tool to prevent the sale of guns to suspected by lessons firearm dealers.ons firearm it ensures protection of the department's operational and it investigative sensitivities. 38 senators have cosponsored thelog amendment including republican senator mark kirk, making it bipartisan. now, causing the terror gap is an important step, but it is not enough. g let me tell you why. check today you can buy again at a gun show without a background check. as as a matter of fact, my chief of staff, woman was pursued at a gun show to buy a 50 caliber rifle which is a sniper rifle the bullets can go for a milee and go through a brick wall. you can buy a gun on the internet without a background check. you can you can buy a gun from an

individual on the private market without a background check. that's why we must also pass the amendment offered by senators murphy, schumer, booker, and blumenthal.nt this would ensure gun so that guns shows over the internet and from person to to background check. g if we don't make that change, known or suspected terrorists will still be able to buy guns at gun shows with no questions asked.tacks i now, with isil intent on perpetrating inspiring attacks in this country, there is increased urgency to make it harder for terrace. to me this is not a gun control issue. it is really a national security issue. if there is any doubt about that, i want to just share brieflyto with you a part of our

cia director, john brennan's remarks from last week's open hearing of the senate intelligence committee. he said, and i quote, we judge that isil is training and attempting to deployed operatives prefer their attacks. isil has a large cadre of western fighters who could potentially serve as operativeso for attacks in the west.f a variety of ways of infiltrating operatives to the west, including refugee flows,v. smuggling routes, and legitimatt methods of travel. further, as we have seen inizers orlando, san bernadino and elsewhere isil is attempting to inspire attacks by sympathizerss who have no direct links to the group. last month for example a seniors isil figure publicly urged

followers to conduct attacks on their home countries if they're unable to travel to syria and iraq. those are the words are the words of the most prominent intelligence agency. ladies and gentlemen, we should heed them. we know isolate hearings and sympathizers are already inside the united states. in in fact, just since march of 2014 federal prosecutors have charged 85 men and women around the country in connection with the islamic als state. thirty-three have been convicted. we also know that terrorists are well aware of just how weak oura gun laws are and they urged their followers to exploit them- in 2011 demand by the name of adam good done, and al qaedarged spokesman who is an american who went to syria urged terrorists

to take advantage of our weak amounts. the gun went out, this is a quote, america's absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. this bears repeating. terrorist groups like al qaeda, isil, and others know that our gun laws are weak and can be face exploited. so madam president, we cannot continue to do nothing in the face of this potential caree devastation. i've been fighting to reduce gun violence throughout my career since my days as a county supervisor and as mayor of sannd francisco. oppo make changes. the opposition is so extreme and opposes any measure to curtail gun violence. the

no matter what it is. so it is against all odds that the assault weapons legislationme passed in 1994. the gun lobby fought hard not only to defeat the amendment which succeeded but to defeat those in the house who supported. that started its own reign of terror. when the background check past in 1993, multiple motions on the bill failed before it ultimately passed with 63 votes. but that belted not cover sales at gun shows. private sales, or internet sales. and those that increase significantly. after the new town shooting, i thought weic would do something to stem the tide of these. >> the senator's time is up. >> i'm just about finished if you could just give me another minute or so.

>> without objection. >> thank you. we tried to really leave the ban on assault weapons, that failed. we try to expand the background check even through compromise offered by senator, that failed. i remembered when the vote on the background check failed, the new york daily news but the photos of the new town victims on the front cover, there were 20 young children age six and seven and there educators and the headline read, for shame. it is time for us to stand up. it is time to force elected representatives to take action.m we must expand background checks, we must make sure the government can stop the gun from being sold to a known or suspected terrorists. and that is not too much to ask.

i think you madam president, appreciate it, yield floor. >> madam president, the president, the two main amendments that we will hearpe tonight with the no-fly list in both instances we agree, terror should not have guns, the only difference is that once a gun purchase was stopped the bag i s walks away unlike the bombersse who use the makeshift bomb in massachusetts or some other device be able to go buy guns illegally or create some other weapon of mass destruction and commit terrorist acts. mine would make sure that the law-enforcement officials were notified on a timely basis and they would have up to three additional days to go to court, show probable cause to get a

wiretap, listen to phone conversations, execute search more and, get more information go before a judge. and not just deny access to the firearm, but to take the terrorists off the street. actually in many ways my friend from california cinnamon would but w is mine would be. restr we really should be focusing not on restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens under the second amendment without due process of law because that is what the feinstein amendment does.self if we ought to be asking ourselvesa if they are those in this chamber and the spotty who believe you can deny american citizens their constitutional rights without due process of law based on a secret list that the government maintains, i don't care who it is, whether it is the obama administration, the

former bush administration, i r don't think any american should sacrifice their constitutional rights without forcing the government to go to a magistratd or judge and be able to show sufficient evidence to convince the judge that they have the evidence to deny those constitutional rights. this is really surreal to me. our colleagues want to make this about gun control when what we should be making this about is the fight to eliminate the islamic extremism that is the cause for what happened in orlando. my colleagues in many ways want to treat the symptoms without fighting the disease. there's nothing in the feinstein amendment that would've prevented the orlando shooting

from occurring. invest conversely, under my amendment,e the fbi would be immediately notified if anybody who was or had been on a watchlist during the preceding five years, this this would obviously escalate tappo the fbi could go to court, get a search warrant, get a wiretap upon appropriate legal showing to get the evidence necessary to detain, the terrace rather thano just deny them access to the be firearm because of their too dangerous to buy a firearm, they are too dangerous to be loose on our streets. the boston marathon bombers i mentioned earlier, the the jihadists and attempted attacksi by isis inspired radicals are all examples of the fact that islamic extremists want the american people to trade our a liberties and values for fear and panic.he cia director make clear last week that this threat from isis, the the islamic state is not going away.ts

he said with the president just about every member of the administration has refused to acknowledge, that the ministrations efforts and i quote, have not reduce the groups the groups terrorism capability and global reach". and each time they want to make this about their gun control dea agenda. but we can have that debate, but talk like this as a a substitute for dealing with the threat of isis, either abroad or here at home to radicalization of american citizens using social media and the internet is just a diversion.t i think all we need to do is look at what the administration decided on the 9/11 transcripts from orlando. originally originally they said they were going to redact those weause transcripts.

i'm glad they had a chance to reconsider because this reveals was going on in that nightclub in orlando this reveals the motivation of those shooter and this just was not some street crime incident. this was a a premeditated terrorist attack on american soil. feeling to release the complete 911 tapes would have been in the front not only to the promise of open government which the administration said they're going to be the most open, transparent government in american history. it would not only be underminedr the premise of open government it would be an insult to the american people. you cannot redact away the hurtu the payment payment so many are feeling from the loss of loved ones and the loss of a sense of security. you cannot redact away the reality that he felt killer pledged his allegiance to a terrorist organization before abou

i still believe the administrations, 11 of their goals is to avoid any discussion about their failed strategy to combat the radical islamic terrorism either a broader here at home. instead, they decide to pivot to limit america's constitutional rights without due process of firs law.y if they could do that for the first amendment or second amendment, can they do it for the first? how about for the fourth amendment? of the fifth do amendment? how many more provisions of the bill of rights door democratic friends believe can be denied absent to process of law or forcing the government to go in front of an impartial judge and actually produce evidence? we are indeed facing serious threat from radical terrorism both overseas and at home. if we cannot be honest and clear eyed about who is attacking us, how in the world we have any chance to defeat them.

because, that needs to be our ultimate goal, to degrade and ultimately destroy isis. we all agree that tara should not be able to purchase a weapon, that is not up for debate. anybody who suggests that it is, simply misleading you. the question before us is whether we are going to do so in a way that is constitutional. the question is are we going to do it and why that would actually improve terrorism b investigations are not? my amendment is called the riot it was stopped terrace from buying guns while ensuring law-abiding citizens placed on a watchlist by mistake don't have their rights taken away because of some secret list created by the obama administration or by this government. it will also, this is important, it will also set up a process to to monitor, investigate, and detain terrorists while

warranted by evidence. in that way my proposal is far and away stronger than the senior senator from california's for several reasons. first, her amendment is unconstitutional. last week i mention the problems of the late senator tended kennedy had when his name came up on a watchlist by mistake. he was denied a ticket and airport one of his trips from washington to boston. after realizing the problem he had a lot of trouble getting it resolved. if you can bet teddy kennedy had trouble getting it resolved, what kind what kind of have? fairly he said as much, he said now that they had that kind of difficulty for member of congress, how the world are average americans going to get caught up in this kind of thing. how are. how are they going to be treated fairly and not have the right to be his? senator kennedy asked the

question we all need to be asking right now. a well-known, well-connected powerful public figure like ted kennedy had trouble getting his name removed from a watchlist, to have any confidence that the average americans won't have their constitutional rights denied with no legal process to woul it? friends across the aisle would not provide due process rely abiding citizens placed on a watchlist by mistake. lake like the late senator kennedy, like mine way. way. secondly, the feinstein mm and has another flaw. there are no additional tools for enforcement to investigated detain terrace. my proposal stops stops him from buying a gun,trr take them off the stree. the fbi director coming test to testify before the senate that legislation that merely blocks a firearm transfer to a person on a watchlist without more actually disrupted terrorism investigation. that's because if we automatically block a transferoe

it would tip the terrorists that the law-enforcement is watching them in building the case. andct then they would choose some some other weapon either illegal or manufactured.nc as this could have tragic consequences. as a terrace could take immediate steps to speed up their attack, obtain legal actions or thwarting law-enforcement surveillance. we need to be careful about enacting legislation that could the worse of the fbi director,th effectively blow a terrorism investigation. -- no matter how well-intentioned, i believe that would be the effect of senator feinstein's amendment. the truth is, under that amendment, motivated motivated terrace could buy a gun, be denied, and walk out of the gun shop and find another avenue to carry out a terrorist attack.my by letting a dangerous terrace rope regardless streets the proposal or democratic friends

would make us less safe, not my legislation and contrast would not only block that person from buying a firearm, becauseab the fbi would be immediately notified, they would not be able to take it with them, they would have to wait at least three days while the fbi conducted additional investigation. oty but it would allow the authorities to carry out that investigation followed by next bidet the court for hearing where a judge could block the sale and authorize the arrest of the terrace, if in fact there is evidence to prove that that was the case. if the judge deemed there is probable cause to block the sale of, the terrace can be immediately detained by law enforcement. i repeat i repeat myself, if you're dangerous enough not to own a firearm, aren't they also dangerous enough to be taken off the streets? but the senator from california's amendment would let the back i go. this way my proposal goes much further than our democratic

friends, we have to do more from preventing terrorist for buying guns we have to lock them up and stop them before they kill innocent americans. importantly, my amendment would apply to anyone who is previously under an investigation for suspicion of terrorism within the last five a years, like the orlando attacker. the orlando attacker was not even on a watchlist, so i do not know what our friend from california was try to propose bd saying if you are on a watchlist you should be denied a gun but i guess you're saying even if you are not on the watchlist you would be tonight a gun. w but we've set if you are on the watchlist for the last five years, than the fbi would be provided notice. >> senator would you you'll purchase one for,. >> i will yield to the senator after remarks. i'mn almost through when the

proposals were offered from the senior senator from california did not even get a majority of votes in this body. my related proposal back in december was bipartisan and garnered 55 votes, i'm glad the junior senator from indiana and from west virginia, both democrats supported that build then and i hope they will do so now. both made the decision to do most right instead of what j. was politically convenient. the due process clause of the united states constitution is more than just a convenience, it is after all, our constitution. something senators pledge allegiance to uphold and defend the constitution of the unitedit states, but then to vote for an amendment to deny constitutional rights without due process of law, it sure seems intention with that oath. st we must advance commonsense legislation that fences selves against islamic extremism and my amendment i believe is a good place to start. it is not the only idea, the the

senator from may, senator collins, senator from pennsylvania have interesting ideas that i know they would like to develop and have ado chance to have a vote on. in the meantime, we need to doey more to equip the fbi and the with the law-enforcement tools they need to gather information on terrace so they can lock they up. we have to be able to connectue the dots for we can connect the dots. i hope today my colleagues will for my amendment. it blocks terrace from buying guns, detains terrace, detains terrace if there is evidence to prove sufficient to status by that should be taken off the street and it upholds the second amendment to the constitution of the united states. gun again, the question before so should be clear. we are going to to vote on two proposals that postop terrace from buying guns. one is constitutional, one is not. amendme i would strongly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to is for the one that is

constitutional and that would be the shield back amendment. i will yield to the senator for question. >> it is my belief that our mens meant amendment does cover, senator leahy and senator nelson cemented to a set amendment which is incorporated, which jut does cover the orlando killer. i just wanted, just wanted you to know that.ifornia, thank you very much. >> i would say to my friend from california, the problem in this instances the shooter was aot licensed security guard. he was guarding the courthouse, he also had a firearms firearms license from the state of florida. there is nothing about her amendment that would havegh prevented him from purchasing a firearm. indeed the only thing that might've happened would be that the fbi would've been notified under the five-year look back provision. but the fbi had already

investigated this particular shooter and cleared him, notwithstanding notwithstanding all the troubling signals we see now in retrospect. so i still believe that there is nothing in the feinstein amendment that would've prevented this shooter fromns tn purchasing firearms because he had a firearms license already and previously been cleared by two fbi investigations and takef off the watchlist. th >> i want to express my unwavering support of those who were killed and wounded in orlando. and for those families, friends, friends, and loved ones and communityerrori members.tt repre this terrace attacks represents a great tragedy and our way of life and very existence as americans. i will do all i can as chairman of the judiciary committee to support give the fbi the tools they need to investigate the

circumstances of this attack by erratic role islamic terrace. all ameri . . . .ri nd even furious over the deadliest attack since the awful events of september 11. we should all be addressing the real problem of radical islamic terrorism, but the democratic leadership has taken their eyes off the ball and is trying to turn this tragedy into another debate about guns. well, we will gladly have that >> >> upon wednesday many misleading or incomplete statements have heard of to hear erroneous statements that

for those of commit terror for the would-be terrorists and i fully automatic weapons and they cannot buy those. buy even "the washington post" back checked the minority leader to a prior note -- to pinocchio's space can buy a fully automatic weapon without a background check. the gun used in orlando with semi-automatic not a fully automatic weapon. why they would lie about the law is not a reason toto change the law. the minority leader in the senator from connecticut tosm invoke the so called terror in the poll. the this is nonsense.ey no one convicted of terrorism can legally buy a

gun but the underside means and they say terror loophole is someone in the number of flawed terrorist watch list. but the editor side says they support the second commander writes we have every reason not to believe that. bear arm the terrorist watch list amendment that they now propose violates the second amendment to bear arms in a the fifth the amendments due process clause it violates the second amendment because of a fundamental constitutional right cannot be infringed upon without due process of law the other side is the feinstein sure, amendment with the same constitutional flaws that contained and it was first proposed. to be sure the bush

administration proposed an similar wrongheaded ideas that was before the supreme court recognized that the second amendment protects the individual rightsch dovecote gun ownership supporters are prominent voices against the terrorist watch list amendment for instance with an editorial below "l.a. times" asked and answered should people on the no-fly list be able to buy guns? yes. the editorial pointed out that people on the various no-fly listed terrorist watch list are not convicted of any kind of vast majority of the people on the list are foreigners already prohibited from buying guns. and the "l.a. times" accurately stated that since the second amendment is a

fundamental right to the reasonable suspicion standard with the feinstein sale amendment also faulted the amendment for only allowing a challenge to a gun sales after it was denied with no prior judicial involvement in also noted that the san bernadine a shooting should not have been stopped or would not had been stopped had the amendments been in place at the time it would not have done so in orlando either this past week iran in opinion piece by the law professor that noted that the shoe national riflehe attory association has raised objections to the feinstein amendment including that the attorney general can place people on the list based

only on suspicion and they can sue the department but only after the break is take denied but unlike many other n.s supporters a row we should take the criticism seriously. l and he also wrote his the attorney general believes there is a suspected terrorist they should have to go to the court first to offer evidence and to have probable cause should they approve the denial the suspect's right the aclu also opposes the feinstein amendment and to prohibit a

person from exercising the first amendment rights or the ability to have an abortion with the same absence without due process. and with a person tries to purchase a gallon with universal background checksed to show that there was less again crimean fewer homicides for the states that passed strict gun control laws. book on homicide rates are higher income netiquette and in many states and such as in my state of by a wall you need to do was look at

maryland to refuse the claim of the imposing gun-control reduces crime. to have that strange thing done reform murderers when merrill lynch or baltimore will increase dramatically the other side wants it both ways. the where crime falls regardless of laws and new where else that is because other states have the new laws "the post" recently published a study that showed no correlation at all much less causation. between homicide in state gun laws with that fact

checker gave this and thenn claimed. murders. similar the we hear it reenacted the assault weapons ban could stop mass murders her grow this policy has been tried and failed.ri even the justice department funded research found the effects of the ban on crime to be managed throughneous claid minimal and one sitting in "the washington post" fact check the democrats erroneous claim to give a three pinocchio's the senator from connecticut also has statement made about online purchases of at guns and would-be terrorist from amazon to show up at their door without a background check this is not the law either. a person is not allowed to take possession of gunsdi

ordered online out-of-state or from a licensed dealer without undergoing a background check. additionally the senator from connecticut it amendment would create a new federal felony for not attorney reporting a loss for stolen gun to local police and to the u.s. attorney general. this crime would apply only to lawful gun owners and not to criminals in america that we normally prohibit in criminal actions so it does so much less than the lot decriminalizes inaction for ordinary citizens this is very rare.hat the senator from connecticut and others invoked the gun show loophole anyone watching the senate floor would think that people who

buy a firearm madigan show are not subject to a background check. do but mr president bonds are the senator from connecticut was year, if you are an individual and want to sell guns to another you may do so assuming you have any reasonable cause to believe that person is prohibited from owning a gun just as there is no background check required in your driveway generally there is none colleage required when that private sale occurs at a gun show in to hear my colleague discuss it you would assume they were lawless and a free-for-all for a felon and for terrorist to obtain the newest legal weapon. >> i think all the staff and my colleagues for joining us here on the floor into the early hours and let's be

clear.s let's be clear that this body was going to ignore what happened in orlando last week with the largest mass shooting in the history of this country we will pretend like it didn't happen if not for the acts of myself and senator booker and 30 gathers we would be moving on with business that had nothing to do with keeping this nation safer. c i know people are skeptical but a least we will see where people stand the other pretty simple concept and if you are suspected of terrorism you should not be able to walk out of the gun store with a dangerous assault weapon and you pull today says 87 percent of americans support that and a greater percentage of five republicans and democrats. terrt why? because this country is under attack in the new weapon of choice is not a

plane or explosive device the assault weapon after september 11 we made a decision to stop terrorists from getting on a plane because they're using them to kill americans but to date terrorists recruiters are specifically instructing would-be terrorists to go into gunshots were shows and walk out with assault weapons becking killed 50 people in an instant so why would we applied the same careful protection to make sure people cannot get on a plane but also cannot get an assault weapon? what we make sure that the protection exist whether they walked into a gun storeic or a gun show? they suggested even a greater percentage of americans 90% support expanding background checks to prove you're not a criminal or a potential terrorist before you buy a weapon.

these two measures are not controversial anywhere else in the american public except for here. the amendments offered by senator grassley is not even a half measure senator grassley amendment would take people off the background check list those who are leaving a psychiatric institution allow them to buy a weapon the next day's the other bill you'd have to go to court they are just thee shield for members who don't want to stand up to do the right thing the reason il came down to the floor for 15 hours because i noted deep personal level what orlando was going through i don't with the families are a going through by now with the community is going through in my belief for all of the psychological harm that comes with losing a run

loved one or a neighbor more harm is piled on when you find out that people that they just don't care if heard something awful when you lose someone but it is worse when you're leaders are silent totally silent in the face of your personal horror. long after the moms and dads had left the firehouse at sandy hook after their boys and girls were lying dead there was one father left and would not leave andca could not leave he came to this congress to tell us his story and as we head into this and though i will leave you with his words. and speaking about his son son, a divorced dad with one son his best friend was dead before he died we talk about coming to washington sunday he wanted to go to the b washington monument lastd

year he said if we could meet the president because he believed in you he learned about you in school and he believed in you and i want to believe in you to provide no you cannot give me jesse back to read that you could i would ask for that but i want to believe he will think about what i told you here today the one to believe you will think about it and do something about it whenever you can do to make sure that no other father has to see what i have seen we need to have an answer for the adl other fathers every single day to join the ranks for those who know his pain i thank you for your time. i yield back. >> will now report the motion to invoke cloture -- gun cloture.

>> madam president first want to thank my colleague for decades of work to address gun violence and then i want to thank also sanders murphy and poker for standing on their feet for almost 15 hours to force the republican leadership to release allows some of the votes on gun safety. six months after rejoined the senate in 1993, there was a terrific impact of assault weapons when a deranged gunman and enter the law offices in know california killing eight people wounding six others madam president when you lose someone they love to gun violence it is hard to get that out of your soul in one of those killed was the attack of the law office was an assault weapon was one of

my son's best friends. and yes the soul of our family and his family and all of the and their families gunned down i willll f tell you the pain does not go away. it? i know we all feel that a the question is what are we going to do about it? if not now then when is the time to do something about it?, after orlando the worst mass shooting in american history i see my friend senator nelson who has been there and looked into the eyes of the families and he will never be the same this is a moment to do the right thing to take action is it going to stop everything in the san future? now. but it is a crisis so we

have to do what we can do we should have done it after california after sandy hook after santa barbara and aurora but we didn't so let's do it now. roughly ready and this year madame president 30,000 americans will have died from gun violence and in 10 years roughly 300,000 americans are killed by a gallon every 60t year 300,000. has lost nearly 60,000 after 10 years of vietnam they tore the nation apart but 300,000 americans from gun t

violence over 10 years and my republican friends do bottomn nothing that is the culture they claim they want to do something but when you look at the bottom line of their proposal they do nothing and the gun epidemic continues. how many times to be common to the senate floor descender thoughts and prayers to the family? and that was in the 1990's. now unfortunately i was just on the floor in december after a mass shooting at a holiday party that killed 14 people and wounded 17 others in san bernardino. i stood right here, and i begged for us to come together and pass sensible laws to prevent another community from the gut-wrenching

heartbreak my state was going through. through. to prevent another committee from the gut wrenching heartbreak my a state was going through. that was six months ago. we did nothing. to i was here on the floor after a mass shooting in santa barbara in 2014 with the pause that gives family and friends of the love ones to use a gun and dangerous way. and to do it legally no action. urge every when is a finely going to japanese to make sure peopleer

that buy again to get a bad deft project do we need to defeat isis? one of the most brutal and vicious groups that is why support the president's actions to take them now and i am glad to see the iraqis.. we need to make sure the al long wolf does not get hay guide precocious mentally unstable people have guns? but should that be allowed on our streets even the of

inventor of the assault style weapons and said he never meant it to be used on the streets those weapons have no business being in civilian hands. now today we had been news from the supreme court. they refuse to take up the case that challenged the assault weapons ban in connecticut and that is good news. and it follows the legal opinions we have seen from the courts. so yes there is a right to bear wen arms to have common senseon god modest that they are trusted get a weapon and those that are not are not and pass a background check. what happened in the's

overall? si dash minded as america. with the gun death we know that they save lives that germany tightened their losses in shooting deaths dropped in half from 106 iran from 2012 after the day drp from 35 in 2014.violence ended 56% drop in gun violence between 93 and 2010 according to the law center to prevent a gun violence.

and connecticut also sought a 40% drop in debt related murders in 10 years because they pass a 1995 law. now we cannot prevent every single tragedy with past with safety laws. and to buy firearms or explosives and requiring background checks for about its. there are 30,000 reasons to pass these amendments. to and those that could die in years and. in there is something i want to conclude with. here.

we are 100 senators. we had the honor and privilege leakages something about those per year. safe in with those measures it will take more time with, that with safe at school say fattish shopping mall in the movie theater. loo and a nightclub.ince and that we lose 300,000 americans over 10 years and had done nothing since the 90's.and i would and thanks to my colleague for her work on this legislation and the senator

blumenthal and i will reclaim my time for the debate on our side. >> to the senator from iowana before i speak i ask unanimous consent to speak for 20 minutes followed by senator nelson and murphy. >> without objection. would you please tell me when i use 70 minutes i will reserve three minutes for senator from pennsylvania to follow with his three minutes. >> the chair will do so. >> that want to express my unwavering support for thoseom killed and wounded in orlando. life and community members this terrorist attack represents the great tragedy with ann affront to our way of life

with the existence of americans will do all i can to give the fbi the tools they need to investigate the circumstances of this attackn the radical islamist d terrorist they have reason to be upset and even furious isc :september 11. the real problem of islamic terrorism but the leadership has taken their eyes off the ball and is trying to turn this tragedy into another debate about violence.. we will gladly have that debate but very soon with misleading or incomplete

statements occurred and we heard running statements to purchase those who would commit terrorism these s comments and with the fully automatic weapons about background check.uy they cannot buy those even with the fact check had theund minority leader to claims. and with a background check. with a semiautomatic with the radical islamic terrorist would lie about what is not a reason to change a lot. the minority leader in the senator from connecticut in his amendment is before us

is a terrible.ay t no one convicted of terrorism with the other side means and they say terror loophole is someone who might be space any number of watchlist. not to time and again the heather's side says they support the second amendment rights we have every reason not to believe that. and the amendment that they proposed violates the second amendment right to keep and bear arms and that this amendment due process clause because a fundamental constitutional rights cannotme be infringed upon with the due process of law.

with the same kind of constitutional was that it contained when first proposed so the bush administration proposedt similar wrongheaded ideas but that is before the supreme court recognized the second amendment protects the individual right of a gun ownership they are prominent voices against the terrorist watch list amendment and for instancepl in an editorial in the "l.a. times" asked and answered the question this way should people on the no-fly list be able to buy guns? yes. the editorial pointed out that they are not convicted of any crime the vastd "the losl majority of the people on

the list are foreigners already for inhibited from buying guns and the "l.a. times" stated that it is of only fundamental right in the feinstein amendment for only allowing a challenge after it was denied with no prior judicial involvement in the san bernadine a shooting would not have been stopped had the amendment been in place at the time. bueno have done so again orlando either. this past week then near times ran an opinion piece by ucla law professor at am winkler the professor noted that the nra has raised people n

objections to the feinsteinased amendment including the attorney general can be based only on and suspicion in to sue the department but only after the right is denied the professor winkler wrote we should take the nra criticism seriously and also roche if the attorney general believes a suspected terrorist should be added to the list they should have to go to court first and offer evidence. of only after concluding the attorney general has probable cause should the court to approve the denial of a suspect's right the

aclu also opposes theso feinstein amendment on civil bae liberties supporters of this amendment would not prohibit a person in this database from exercising the first pro and rights or the right to vote or the ability to have an abortion with the same when absence of due process. ter the fbi takes action now when a person in a terrorist to database tries to purchase a gun the senator from connecticut requires universal background checksho last week the senator from connecticut contended there is less gun crime and fewer s homicides in states that pass strict gun control laws like his state but homicide rates are higher in

connecticut than in many states that provide greater protection of gun rights such as mine state of iowa. you need to do is look at merrill lynch refused claim that imposing tougher gun murden control reduces crime. despite stringent gun control murders in maryland of russia have increased dramatically the other side wants it both ways. heads i win curtails orion's when the state laws are in stringent they say they work regardless of any were elsewhere cry rises they argue it is because othero states have lenient laws the "washington post" recently reported to have a study that found no correlation at

all much less causation between homicide in state gun laws and the same newspaper fact checker gave my colleague claims three pinocchio. been and reenacting the assault weapons ban to stop mass murder of his policy has been tried and failed even the justice department funded research found the effects of the ban and on crime to be known or minimal once again "the washington post" fact check that democrats are erroneous claim to give threee pinocchio the senator from connecticut also has statements made about all mine purchases of guns as a would-be terrorist could order one from amazon and it would show up at their door

without a background check. this is not though lot either. from a a person is not allowed to take possession of guns from ordered online out-of-state or from a licensed dealer without undergoing a background check additionally the senator from connecticut amendment would create a new federal felony for not reporting a loss to a stolen gun to local police or to the u.s. attorney general. it would apply only to lawful gun owners and not to criminals in america that we normally prohibit with criminal actions of thatiz gives the freedom it does so ra. much less that whatnv criminalizes is inaction for ordinary citizens this is very rare.

the senator from connecticut and others invoked the gun show will pull anybodyck watching would think that people who buy a firearm is subject to a background your check about the senator from connecticut was year if your individual lunches all your gun to another individual you may do so assuming you n don't have a reasonable cause that a person is prohibited from owning a gun just as there is no background check required in your driveway there is thew. one required with a private pier to piers sale atta pinchot to hear my colleague discussed that you would assume that these gun shows were lawless free-for-all for a felon and terrorist to obtain the new was still

legal weapon you can have the rest of my time regardless of how much time it is. >> what to think the senator from i would yield a just want to take up a momente we'ret mr. president i want to express my deep frustration with what is about to happen on the senate floor becauseg. we have a system of a series of votes and we will g accomplish nothing that is a we're making sure of tonight and it doesn't have to be this way that is what is so maddening just one aspect briefly is the background check legislation we will vote on is the version that goes further than the bipartisan compromise that we worked out a couple years ago. what are the chances that would pass? pretty close to zero and we know that if we have a vote on background checks should be the only bill that i am not

aware of that has had bipartisan support in may not pass sanders than that at least has a chance that we will not even have that vote let's talk about the other big controversial issue that we already know the outcome of that is about terrorist and if they can buy guns and what do we do about this? so let's start with a simple lel goal number one terrorist should not be able to buy guns legally. that shouldn't be controversial. but it shouldn't be controversial that it is an innocent american who is denied his or her right to buy a gun they should have an opportunity to clear their name because governments make mistakes the federal government makes mistakes all the time the mere fact that they have a

list almost guarantee somebody is on the listereby pee longley that is not a reasonon to do nothing but to have a meaningful process whereby people could challenge their status. process the bills that we voted onk abot tonight have serious flaws. first the feinstein amendment there is no due process ought all. nothing to speak of the way it is designed by the way before we even have the or votes to it is failed overwhelmingly but the attorney general to put now allf anyone on the list no judicial review she can create the criteria the list and all of a sudden they're denied the opportunity to buy a gun. the b the proponents will argue there is an opportunity but the problem is that person has to go to court the

burden is on the buyer to prove his evidence -- genesis and can see the evidence talking to prove the evidence is flawed if you're not allowed to see it?n odyssey that is not aro serious attempt to give someone that is wrongfully placed the chance to clear the name.orney the cornyn approach is better than a we have no now because a has the new tool that the attorney general does not have that is a three day period during which it would have an opportunity to make the case i think that is difficult for the attorney general to do is adjust to this legislation is flawed because of bad better than what we have probably not enough in many circumstances which is why we shouldn't just be talking past each is other i have legislation senator collins is working

on legislation and to make sure that terrorists cannotth buy a gun the believe also make sure that the people on the list were put there properly if there is a litigate mistake by law-abiding american citizen has a reasonable opportunity to mitigate that against his server name off the list the attorney general can come up with the west but a summer is not on it with an emergency mechanism to block whh the sale if the attorney general says so than provide a reasonable and manageable amount of time during which this could be mitigated if the buyer says i am notli fully think i am i should not be denied my second her amendment rights under my approach and under senator collins that innocent american would have a chance to have his or her day in court that is denied undere

the feinstein approach me know the bill will fail they both will fail nobody disputes that. but why aren't we working on something that could get done? stopping them to buy gunsngfully and at the same time give all law-abiding and americanan to clear his name if wrongfully put on the list? i am not saying i have the only way to get this accomplished by adding senator collins legislation will be unveiled soon and i know she has been working on this constructively with the group of folks that one or the other approach needs to get a vote in this body because it is the only approach that really is a serious way to balance these two priorities and have a chance to earn bipartisan support i yield the floor.do

>> mr. president yes the senator from florida florida, orlando, mr. t presid ent this is the ar-15 the civilian version of the semiautomatic of the m-16 this is what the killer in orlando took in the same the caliber two to three collapsible stock. do we think that a person that is on the no-fly last ought to be able to buy one of these lethal killing on a

machines? i have been a hunter all my life i grew up on a ranch i alone in numbers of guns but my guns are for hunting these guns are for killing. just and that is exactly what that weapon ted to 49 people the little over a week ago. c so if we have a list that is approximately 1,000 american citizens or american people that are here legally both not americans that category is called american persons on the no-fly last, if they

can't get on a plane to fly, should they be able to go out to buy one of these? now there is another 1700 people better on a select t list and those are the ones that are close to credible evidence that they are a terrorist. 1700 that they are close to credible evidence that they are a terrorist and do we want them to go by this kind of weapon? watch and then there is another category that we call the terrorist watch list. and in this country that is about 5,000 people of

american persons that there is declaratory evidence that they are a terrorist. do we want them to purchase these weapons?n the feinstein go, that a group of 5,000 that is it. don'k berisha is many more that international's the 5,000 american persons on that list i don't think we want them to buy this. even if that had been the had law and senator feinstein included the bill that i had filed that would have caught him because it says if you

have been on the terrorist watch list, as he was in 2013 and 2014 and they did not have any prosecutable evidence so they close the case but if you have been on the watch list, and then when you purchased the gun the fbi would be notified so they could make the updated decision to go back to interview that person and if they had seen the he was purchasing these knowing he had been on the watch list they would have talked to him that is what is in front of us and it seems to me it is common sense. we hear words all this is

the nra blocking the votes to put the fear of god in our republican friends and colleagues on the next republican primary i am so brout proud of the senator from connecticut it and what he did for 15 hours to bring this to a head. >> your time has expired. >> thank you for listening to my plea and i yield the floor. >> thank you gentleman and i think the staff and my colleagues -- colleagues for joining us here on the floor wednesday night into the early hours of its be clear about the fact this body was going to ignore what happened in orlando last

week with the largest mass shooting in the history of the country and if not for myself and senator booker and 30 others we would bee moving on with business that have nothing to do with keeping this nation safer i know people are skeptical but at least we will see where people stand on simple concepts that if you are suspected of terrorism you should not be able to walk out of a gun store with a dangerous assault weapon and a new poll today shows as 87 percent of americans support that and guess what? a greater percentage of republicans and democrats. why? because this country is under attack and the new weapon of choice is therom gettn assault weapon after september 11 we made a decision to stop terrorist

from getting on the plane because they're using them to kill americans so today the recruiters are specifically instructingas would-be terrorists to go into the gun shows and walkout with assault weapons that can kill 50 people in an instant so why would we apply the same carefulher they i protection if they are suspected of terrorism cannot get on a plane or an assault weapon? one day have to exist if it is again show oregon store? it suggested a greater percentage support expanding background checks to prove you're not a criminal for a potential terrorist before you buy a weapon. these two measures are not controversial anywhere else in american public except

for hear those amendments offered by not even halfstitutid measures the amendment would take people off theay background checklist those leaving a psychiatric institution to buy a weapon the next day but the senator the workforce the justice to go to court before getting a weapon it is just a shield for members who don't want to stand up and do the right thing the reason i came to the floor on wednesday is because i know at a deep personal level what were linda was going toward don't know the families when with the community is and i believe for all of the psychological harm more harm is piled on if you are electing to run your country

hurts awful when you lose someone but it is worse when you're leaders are silent firehn silent, totally silent in the face of your personal horror. long after the moms and dads left sandy hook after their boys and girls were lying dead there was one father who would not or could not leave his name was kneale and he came to this congress to tell us his story as we head into this ago i will leave you with his words to speak about his son has a divorced dad with one son, his best friend his son was dead and said we used to talk about coming to washington sunday he wanted to go to the washington monument last year he asked if we could meet the president because he believed in you he learned about you in school and he

believed in you and i want to believe venue to i know you cannot give if him back to me and if i thought you could i would ask the island to believe he will think about what i told you today n that you will do something about it whenever you can do to make sure that no other father passed to see what i have seen my friends we need to have an answer. 80 other fathers joined the ranks for those who know his pain i urge the adoption of the murphy and feinstein's amendment i yield back. >> after debate the senate billeted on a procedural motion for those proposed in the wake of the mass shooting in orlando for the first of all, the changes to the national criminal backtrack -- background

check system the others were restricting access for individuals on the no-fly last requiring a 60 vote threshold of four failed to advance following a the votes democrats hold a press conference at the capitol. >> said republicans should be embarrassed but of course, they are not because the nra is happy. 90 percent of americans supported background checks it is 90 percent of americans not democrats republicans and independents 85% went to close the terrace loopholes that the nra says no so republicans

do nothing the junior senator from new hampshire said she will vote yes on everything she should make up her mind and not be a hypocrite. the junior senator from new hampshire such as voting against everything that is not logical but what she is doing the government is to stop siding with the gun extremist and listen to the common-sense proposals to make americans safer now they will talk to what they will do next it is my understanding that the amendment which is not having anything to do with those under trantwelve but anything bipartisan but the point is ayatollah the nra

doesn't support even that so i hope the republicans would understand they should produce a few votes to drum up a the 20 votes as a gesture in futility and with senator feinstein next since she became mayor as a result of the murder in san francisco we have heard that from bill nelson and chris murphy and befall cory booker and i will take a few questions. >> here we go again. and other mass shooting this time the largest in history 49 dead 53 injured another chance to take meaningful action another missed opportunity today we cannot even agree to prevent known and suspected terrorists

from buying guns the power of the gun lobby over certain members of the senate is boundless. the alternatives are to limit the new guns for terrorist legislation like the no-fly zone i believe that is a serious mistake to use a very narrow blast we're left with the bill that has no teeth and many individuals and should not be able to purchase guns after a few minutes of a brief review my staff came up with multiple examples of individuals charged with crimes related to terrorism to also flew on planes it is impossible to tell how many ties to terrorism would not be covered by the collins amendment if we focus only on the no-fly last we

ignored nearly 900,000 foreign nationals on the terrorist watch list who can legally purchase guns for example, 20 million on the visa waiver program alone can come from a european country with no visa into this country to buy a gun. also we ignore 2300 u.s. persons determined by the fbi to be known or suspected terrorists. . .

i find it really inexcusable, any individual at all, a filament, a domestic abuser, someone mentally ill, can buy a weapon online or in a run show with no scrutiny at all. the murphy amendment was such a good amendment, it sealed all of those loopholes and background checks. so, i am am hoping that one day the climate will change. my own view, very personal view is that we are going into an election season and mr. and mrsd up. you have to say, i am going to vote only for people who will do something to close the terror gap, to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally incompetent, who are criminals, and and who would use them illegally. maybe, just maybe this next

election can produce something. >> thank you diane for your leadership. i am mortified by today's votes, but i'm not surprised by. we learned in the months after sandy hook that the nra has a viselike grip on this place. even when 90% of the american public wants change. a new poll out today, a 90% of americans believe in expanded background checks, 87% americans think terrace should not be able to buy guns. 87% of americans, 90% of republicans of apple think that terror should not be able to buy guns. i do not think democracy allows for this congress to be so out of step with the american public for very long.

i am mortified by today's vote, but my spine is strengthened by the fact that we have 40 democrats on the floor demanding change. that over the course of this week we have millions of americans join our crusade to in this academic of gun violence. as republicans scramble, as we speak to try to find some way out of this mess, as we try to find some way to show that they understand that 90% of americans don't want terrace to get guns, we are closer than ever before to breaking the nra's grip on this place. let's be honest, terrace today are using assault weapons rather than ied's or airplanes to attack americans. after september eleventh, we decided we we're not going to allow terrace to get a hold of terror airplanes to kill

civilians. today, they have moved on to assault weapons. they specifically recruit lone wolf attackers to go to gun shows to buy assault weapons. we should take the same path. we are not giving up, the american people are not giving up. we will watch our negotiations play out over the next few days but i will tell you this, they're evident to to the fact that republicans know that they are on the wrong side of the electorate. democracy does not allow for this place to be this far out of step with 90% of americans for very long. with that, let me introduce my partner in all of this work, representing sandy hook and on the floor this week, senator blumenthal. >> thank you. first let me think senator murphy for his leadership and of course senator booker. part of the team that went to the floor, and all of our colleagues last week who joined us in a rare moment of history

that brought us here today for the republicans to say they have alternative proposals, there would be no debate let alone any amendment for proposals but for our forcing them to address this issue. my reaction to this vote today is exactly what i heard from the gallery three years ago when this body failed to adopt commonsense, sensible measures. shame on you. that is what was shouted from the gallery. shame on you. that is what the american people are shouting at the senate of the united states today. diane expressed the hope that

cooler heads may prevail, think what we need is more courageous heads, those heads will come when our republican colleagues not only look at themselves in the mirror but have to look at their constituents in the eye between now and november, and afterward. the political dynamic of this nation has changed. it is a siege change. the american people have turned to chapter because the terrorists have turned a chapter. this fight is no longer about the 30,000 individual people who are lost every year to gun violence, it is not about making america safe against her enemies like isis who would inspire and support extremist violence here. we need to take the fight to isis, but also harden our defense at home.

that means commonsense sensible measures like keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists, with it really effective measures. irish our republican colleagues not just to talk tough, but to act tough. the corning proposal was described as a wolf in sheep's clothing. i think it was really a sheep in wolves clothing. it lacked the toughness and the wolf like toughness that we need in such a measure. so the republicans are now, indeed scrambling. they cannot figure out how to stay on the good side of the nra and still be credible with the american people. i can say with absolute certainty that i am determined

to seek commonsense solutions that reflect common ground, but they need to be effective and stop the kind of terrorists extremism and everyday gun violence on our streets, if it takes 30,000 people every year, every year, we are not giving up, we are not give going away, we will not relent in this effort. i like to introduce now a great partner from the state of new jersey, actually now that he has arrived, a great partner and friend from the state of florida, phil nelson. >> what am i going to tell 49 grieving families? what am i going to tell the families of those that are still in the hospital fighting for their lives? what am i going to tell the

trauma surgeon whose bloodstained shoes have been shown in a picture and summoning these programs, and he said he did not know in the midst of the screens and the cries if they were black, white, gay, or straight as they brought in over 40, all at one time into that trauma operating room. what am am i going to tell the community of orlando that is trying to come together in the healing? sadly what i'm going to have to tell them is that the nra one again. >> so, it is clear that we are

at war with terrorism. it is clear that there are people plotting against us every single day. it is clear there are folks who are seeking to inspire and radicalize, both here and abroad to attack this country. and given what we have seen from san bernardino, to orlando, of vote was just taken to make us safer and you saw senator after senator leave us with these gaping vulnerabilities. we are in a nation right now were someone on a visa waiver, let's say people like those who carried out the attacks in belgium, it's a visa waiver country can get on a plane and instead of doing their attack in belgium they can get on the united states, couldn't walk into a gun show, by, by a truckload of weapons, and carry

out the same attacks we have seen overseas right here in america. we live in in a nation right now, thanks to the vote that we just saw where some folks who are under fbi investigation, who are on the terrorist watchlist, who, who are on the no-fly list connected on a plane, but they can carry out unspeakable violence by going to a gun show, going on the internet going to school, church, mosque, a playground, playground, and carry out unspeakable violence. we now still live in a nation thanks to the vote that was just taken that someone can be a criminal, could have made terror threats, could have stocked their ex girlfriend, been arrested for that, it can still go to a gun show, still on the internet, get a weapon, and kill them.

our job is to protect this nation. protector citizenry. what happened today is so troubling and disturbing, and frustrating that when there are gaping hails, when literally our enemy is telling people to exploit these holes, to kill us, we have left these loopholes open. so today i am angry, i am frustrated, but i like my fellow senators standing with me now will not let this finite defeat are undermine our determination to close these gaping loopholes. we may have lost today, but we will not give up. my appeal is to the american people. the cousin ß are ready, we we have the overwhelming majority of folks with us.

it is time that we begin to demonstrate the truth of the power of the people is greater than the people in power. they cannot block sensible, sent commonsense legislation that will protect us from having this kind of grievous, bloodshed again, again, again, and again. if we do nothing more people in our country will likely die. so for all those folks who say time and again, we are at war with terror, but we have been doing by not closing this loophole is to aid in the bed those people who seek to get weapons to kill us. so i will not stop fighting. i will stand with my colleagues here and we will continue this effort and it is our hope that

folks will start lifting their voice, that we will not wait until the next mass shooting that seems to happen every two months, there is enough blood, there is enough death, there's enough killing going on, we have all the evidence we need that we need to do more. doing nothing is unacceptable. so the fight continues. >> i want to extend my personal appreciation to senator durbin, senator schumer who are here, and patty, and of course the statements made by senators who addressed you. we are going to take a few questions, i'm happy to do that. >> you have two democrats were voting against the measures like you are talking about, how do

you get everybody else on board? >> it is kind of interesting you would directed toward democrats. there is 46 of us in more than 90% boat with us every time. i think you should not focus on the one or two that voted against what we feel as good legislation, and you should keep your focus on the republicans. we're doing our job. democrats job. democrats are doing our job, so don't focus on that. >> well when you talk about all your people. >> there is a 46 of us. the whole point is this, i mentioned earlier, republicans are just as about as phony as everyone can be. all they care about us taking care of the nra. he gets him in a difficult situation like the senator from new hampshire, the junior senator from new hampshire, she is doing and if anything but yoga on the senate floor to justify what she's

doing. doing. you cannot explain what she's doing. i think the people of new hampshire will recognize that. >> you talk about what you think the collins amendment is really trying to do do you think there's a serious effort to legislate and you think the democrats can vote for question. >> i think susan collins of the serious legislator, but you know it's interesting, i don't know if any of my colleagues have seen it, maybe some have but i have not. i've not seen it it's been kind of secret. so i would hope that we can see that soon, however everybody, i am told and i left the floor couple minutes ago, mcconnell is having another piece of legislation on something different, and keep in mind what we have to do around here. let's let's get the big picture, let's look at the forest. he has filed closure and something tonight i think to divert attention away from the

terrible blow this took today. and we are going to be able to get that to that on wednesday. the corner major make it cornered if it does its 30 hours after that. so now were into thursday and we have not even done the bill that we are on. and, don't forget about zika, more than 1000 women are certainly concerned and we have had births of children in the united states with small brains, skulls that are not right, and we are doing nothing on that. we have waited forever to do something on puerto rico, where's that, we have paid default on that the first of the month. where something on opiates? people are dying every day with opiates. and we are waiting for a conference to go forward on that.

so everybody, where is the responsibility of the so-called majority here? >> i just want you to answer, susan collins is a serious legislator, she is always voted with us, it is nothing new that susan collins is trying to make a compromise and it's a good thing. but the key question is not whether susan collins will step forward to try to offer a compromise, but whether 20 republicans will finally join her so we can get something done. that is the key question. not whether susan collins is willing to compromise, shows has been. the will for the first time, with the world changing and terrorism will 20 republicans finally step up to the plate and pass the most modest of measures? that will stop terrorists from getting guns. >> at three times here today we have mention the fact that everybody likes susan and we know that if something is going to pass in these republican votes she is out there alone, all of the time. one more question.

>> why did the bill fall to the wayside if they only want the background check bill. >> that's a good one but it's easy to answer. we offered senator mcconnell that he could do that today, he refused to do it. we it. we told him he could do it. we would set aside one of ours that we had today and he said no. he's out doing something else. so that's the answer to that one. >> thank you everybody. [inaudible] >> with the political primary season over seas expands road to

the white house takes you to the summers political convention. watch the republican national convention starting july 18 with live coverage from cleveland. >> so we'll be going into the conventional matter what happens and i think we will go in so strong. >> and watch the democratic national convention starting july 25 with live coverage from philadelphia. >> let's go for, let's win the nomination and in july let's return to unified party. >> and then we take our fight for social, economic, racial, racial, and environmental justice to philadelphia, pennsylvania. >> every minute of the republican and democratic parties national convention on c-span, c-span radio, c-span.org.

>> ahead of the democratic national convention in july, philadelphia mayor jim kenney will talk about the planning process. he will be joined by the convention ceo and executive director, we'll take in their life tuesday there live tuesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three. >> federal communications chair, tom wheeler believes that the u.s. must lead the world in developing a 5g wireless stander. he talked about the applications of high band spectrum at the national press club in washington. one technical note, we lost audio for a very brief portion of this event. >> [applause]. tom wheeler became the chairman of federal communications commission on november four, 2013. for over three. for over three decades chairman reeler has been involved in the telecommunications and sector as

a policy expert, advocate and entrepreneur. he has been a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the wireless and cable industries. he served as president and ceo of both the national cable television association and the cellular television association known as the ctia. but as a journalist i found it more interesting that a lifetime lifetime ago the chairman work for syndicated columnist mark schiltz, friend of mine. he managed the managed the ohio state university distinguished speakers series, the version of the luncheon series that brings all of you here today. given that he used to be an industry lobbyist, his his record at the fcc is rather surprising. he introduced the commission strongest ever rule in that neutrality. he find at&t 100,000,000 dollars for capping speed on unlimited data plans. he increased competition among cable boxes and work to get more internet access options in rural areas. chairman reeler put the entire fixed and mobile broadband industry under stricter, revelatory regime.

he had done some things that have anchored his former employers at the ctia and they have sued the fcc during his tenure. he explains his actions by thing, i used to be an advocate for corporate interest, and i hope i was a good one. but today, my client is the american people and i want to be the best advocate for the american people that i can be. america is the leader in the wireless technology in an spectrum innovation occupy the top spot a worldwide sport 4g network. the 5g wireless networks will offer faster wireless broadband services. stakeholders around the world have begun shaping the new 5g landscape to benefit their national and commercial interests. today they will share the framework for they think their vision for 5g should be in a speech entitled, the future of wireless, vision for u.s. leadership in a 5g world. they do's do's and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming to the

press club, tom wheeler. >> mac. >> thank you very much, you have certainly proved your journalistic credentials with some of that research that you dug up there. it is an honor to be here at the national press club. and it's an honor to be with my colleagues who really are the ones that make the things happen that i am talking about. knapp was the head of our technology, john wilkins who is the head of our wireless spirit, and my colleague larry strictly who we work like this together with larry at nta in department of commerce on spectrum policy. there are so many familiar faces

and friends in the audience. and i'm going to make the terrible decision to call out a couple. first is is my good friend and former colleague ron who is a real pleasure to see you sit here, we have not seen each other for a long time. the other is hiding back in the back, the the man who started the spectrum with the fcc, former chairman chairman read hans. he was back in 1994 with this crazy idea of opening up more spectrum, creating more opportunity, building but we'll be talking about today. and that was under his leadership. what i am most what i am most please, and most surprised to find karen smith in the audience today karen had to change her name from karen wheeler. [laughter] but my sister from annapolis who

was no stranger to telecom issues herself, having been the executive director of tech work which was that great operation that followed through, remember net day? and then okay and then okay we have pulled all of the fiber through this tools, now what we do and karen organize volunteers throughout the country and i was always proud of her and what she did. [applause]. a few months ago i found myself in a situation that i never would have imagined when i became fcc chairman. i was in dallas texas. i was at the helm of an excavator, a big piece of heavy machinery, digging up dirt. and for those of you who want to picture that is seen in your mind, yes, i was wearing a suit.

i was also wearing a pair of virtual reality goggles. and i had not left the fcc. while i may have been in washington, physically, i can tell you i was at the excavation site in dallas, 1400 miles away. i sat in the mockup of the excavator and i had complete control sensitivity to the equipment, 1400 miles away. now granted picking up dirt in dallas probably is not high on the list of transformational advancements. that will define the 21st century. but i want you to think of something, why don't you replace the heavy machinery with a

scalpel so that a world-class surgeon can move from hospital to hospital without leaving her surgical suites. or how about students sitting in the classroom, taking a virtual tour inside the human body. that we have all heard of amazing things, stories like that in the past, but making these kinds of activities possible without effect cable leading to the virtual reality headset cannot be accomplished because of three limiting factors, one the speed of the wireless connection, we all know the difference in performance of a direct fiber connection compared to a wireless connection. the next generation of wireless

must be mobile fiber. ten - 100 times faster than what we are used to today. second limiting issue is responsiveness. , the surgeon scalpel needs to be immediately responsive. not a blank later. the technical folks call this latency, he currently averages about ten milliseconds, or 1100th of a second. now that may sound pretty fast to you and me, but it's a snail's pace in computing. latency needs to be less than one millisecond, less than 11000 of a a second to provide for real-time interaction. and the third limiting factor is

spectrum capacity, because if you're going to have that kind of high-speed latency, you have to have the ability for digital information to race down broad chunks of spectrum. multiples, of what we know today. so to overcome these challenges and to seize the opportunity before us, we need the next generation of wireless connectivity, fifth generation, or 5g. if the united states is going to continue to be a world leader in wireless, we need the speed the deployment of 5g here on our shores. the virtual-reality example that i gave is but one sample.