infrastructure intensive. it will require massive deployment of small cells. it will also opens up unprecedented opportunities for frequency you reuse in denser, more localized networks. the ability to ability to use this high-frequency spectrum of its much bigger chunks of spectrum. current blocks of licensed low band spectrum are usually five-10 megahertz in width. with 5g however, we're talking about spectrum that are at least 200 megahertz in width. width. this will allow the networks to carry much more traffic per user. gigabits in place of megabits of through part.

the key point here is that by opening up these higher frequency bands, we're making available more license spectrum for mobile then the accumulative history dating back to read hunt with the fcc has here to four made available. >> at this point of the program there's some audio issues with the microphones at the national press club. so we lost a moment or two of time wheelers comment. >> it be advantageous for the satellite mobile industries to come together to propose realistic ideas for their and to do so quickly. satellite and terrestrial stakeholders have suggested a range of sharing options in the draft spectrum frontiers order seeks to provide a balanced solution that addresses the needs of both parties. i'm confident that we'll adopt rules that will enable satellite, terrestrial, and federal operations to coexist and thrive.

to make sure that we had this connectivity with high print spectrum will require a lot more small cells which means a lot more antenna decisions by local governments. that is why it's important with the commission to strengthen our environmental and historic preservation rules and trained our lock for citing application reviews. america's local governments will play an important role in determining how we fulfill this national priority. in addition, all all the small cells need to be connected so we will need a lot more that -- that the challenge we will address in our daily services. with the kind a dedicated access that wireless providers need to connect cell towers. these a backhoe connections can be as much as 30% of the cost of operating a wireless network.

with the additional sites required to support the use of millimeter spectrum that percentage is likely to increase to as much as 50%. in many areas, competition in the supply of backoff remains limited. that can translate into higher prices for wireless networks than high prices for consumers. lack of competition doesn't just hurt the deployment of wireless networks today, it threatens as well the delay of the buildout of 5g that works with the demand for many, many more backoff dementias to many more antenna. before the end of this year, the commission will take up a reformed proposal supported by all the nations leading wireless carriers that will encourage innovation and investment and business data services while ensuring the lack of competition in some places cannot be used to

hold 5g hostage. as we build the next generation network, lesson learned from her previous previous experiences is that it must be secured. so this is the third leg of the process. new platforms, systems, software, and technologies will mean new vulnerabilities. cyber security issues must be addressed during the design phase of the entire 5g echo system including devices. this will place a premium on collaboration amongst all stakeholders. we continue to prefer an approach the emphasize that industry develop cyber security standards, just as we have done in the wired networks. but security is an essential components of where we go on networks and will have the ability to think about it first

as aforethought rather than an afterthought. so in conclusion in the spirit of the election season i thought i would close with these remarks. by referencing a campaign speech from the 60s, now a lot of my friends here think i'm going to be talking about the 1860s, but actually i'm talking about the 1960s because on july 15, 1960, john f. kennedy went to this podium at the los angeles coliseum to accept the democratic nomination for president. he's famously challenge the american people to be pioneers of a new frontier. he spoke of harnessing the power of technological revolution and exploring uncharted areas of science and space. jfk's visions charted the path that took us to the moon and laid out the foundation for the

internet. this july 14, 56 years less one day, from when jfk talked about the new frontier we will have the opportunity to take an historic steps open up another frontier that promises to propel our nation in the world forward. once again we are looking to the sky to unlock new discoveries and unleash american ingenuity. we are the pioneers of any spectrum frontier. working together we can write this next chapter in the mobile revolution. a revolution that is already transformed our lives and society. working together we can unleash new waves of innovation and

discovery that we have yet to imagine. thank you very much. [applause]. >> thank you mr. chairman, i will note that i will will use the wireless microphone you can use the other one. >> can the american sumer not in this room now, it may seem that 4g is just in its infancy. we just saw television and asked her about it, so why is 5g so urgently important? >> it's? >> it's a great question. it goes back, i had one line that really deserves further explanation. all of the things that powerful computing makes possible cannot

be done on the chip of the handset. they have to be moved to a centralized place that we have now come to call the cloud. so the work is done there in the cloud and it is connected to the less powerful computing power in our handsets, or are pill bottles are automatic watering systems. in that connection is what 5g is all about. it has to be fast, it it has to be latency free, and it has to be secure. if we can't move at high-speed's between that power and its use then we will not be able to bring that power into our hands and other places,. >> then that's the next question which you have talked about the club quite a bit how concerned are you about cyber terrorism

and are we doing enough to prevent it as we move forward? >> so i think we have to recognize that networks have always been a pathway for attack. i don't care if they were roads or waterways, they have always been a path for attack. so the current networks are no different. and which places on those who build and operate the app networks and those who oversee that activity a special responsibility. under the leadership of admiral simpson, we have moved forward aggressively with the program that works with those who are running networks to meat agreed to performance standards if you will, as to how you secure those networks and then to have the ability to check that is happening and the ability from that experience to be able to

share with everybody else. we have been playing catch-up, the issue is, look at this my phone is ringing. [laughter] , this is the power of the connected network, the ever connected network. the issue is that we now with 5g know the threat and have an opportunity to address it from the get-go. >> we talked about how the united states is leaving when it comes to 5g, water other countries doing and how we maintain that leadership spot compared europe or somewhere else. >> so, the european union, china, japan, south korea have all signed a memorandum of understanding that they would all work together to develop 5g. the european european union has

put up 700 million euros to do 5g research. as i referenced in my remarks, we think that is the wrong way to go. we think that making the spectrum available and standing out of the way of technology development is far better to listen to rather wait until we decide what is going to do and then make the spectrum available, and then let's micromanage the technology process. that is not we were going to be approaching it. >> are there lessons to be learned from the rollout of 4g technology in the u.s. and elsewhere that will apply to the start of 5g? >> sure, sure, there are lots of them. not the least of which is the wireless network allows on base stations, they'll have more base

stations than ever before, the wireless network relies on wired connections which is why were moving on this business data services proceeding to make sure that those connections are charged for fairly and are competitive. the interesting thing about moving from 3g to 4g was kind of like during the switch. and okay were moving over here to the spectrum, there is a holy set of expectations as we said it's not going to be a one size fits all. it will be multiple technologies and they are constantly going to be evolving. i think that we can follow the 4g playbook in terms of how we get national leadership and that's why it is a national priority but the 5gx cake

execution on that playbook becomes one of constant innovation, constant improvement that america technology can lead the way. . . . . >> >> if we can exploit the

increase processing power. >> you are taking action in this summer but when will the spectrum be in consumers' devices? when will they notice this technology? >> id we will see some trials in 2017 to rollout into some markets in 2020 that will put us ahead of the world. >> you just referenced above moonshot talk about what excites you the most exciting thing of the opportunities to make this a five g network. >> as my friend knows, i am a huge history buff. i have actually had a hobby to study networks and there is one truth.

and it is never a the principal technological change that is transformational but the secondary effects and what i am trying to say that we have some ideas but when you take that incredible processing power and make it available on a mobile distributed basis down to the ultimate user, i did not envision lugar -- and i know there things we cannot envision now but i was in silicon valley last week and we hear a lot about the

connected car. all of the activity will happen up here in the cloud because my car will have to know where your car in a school bus is and all of this information will be processed with serious ability because you can just do it down here unless there is a huge computer in the trunk. the average household today uses about 50 gigs. i told that is connected car uses 50 gigs per day. and to handle that kind of power.

>> with the very small rural area how does that translate to areas that may not even have 40? >> the problem with the current distribution is the expenses with the cable or the fiber with a subsidy program that helps get over that there are significant areas wireless is helpful to get there and important but has lower speeds and can be more costly but verizon is talking quite seriously about using these focused high-speed broadband with shots into rural areas to be able to deliver the equivalent of a cyberto your

home for a price that is far more competitive and realistic. >> people that don't cover technology like myself wonder the question how can you create new rules for a technology that does not yet exist? >> that is the $64 question at the heart of what we're trying to do. we will open the spectrum to make sure the innovation driven by competition is protected and to say we're not to end the technology world. >> bomb last question. with the wireless industry went to a specialized service to ubiquitous every day life of consumers.

are we on the brink of something? >> i think that is a yes. >> if you have that mobil high-speed connectivity is always about for the applications and that is a boat load. the d.c. circuit court last week. >> i thought he would never get around to that. >>. >> debt held those rules and

then to be stepping down from the senate confirmation >> i think the reality is that ought to be confirmed standing on her own. and i understand it is tradition for the fcc chairman for the incoming president to have an opportunity to name the new fcc chairman and i have told the senate when i was asked the question that i understand the president and i respect the president and

let's see what happens. >> do you think they will revisit the decision not to regulate with net neutrality? >> we are very clear to say we are for bearing from the regulation and that is not changing. >> donald trump said he will reverse the neutrality regulation and menippe authority in what impact will that have on consumers? >> we have just been talking about the spectrum future future, connectivity future and how this country moves forward with national

leadership there are three components. the spectrum must me fast, increase speeds speeds, access to spectrum must we fair to make sure in rural utah people are connected for those benefits into the open. because we cannot stand in a position for those that were deciding we are leading and will continue to lead because our networks are

open and will be made open to use without permission for consumers in any place they want to go on the web and with full transparency so they know just what they're getting. >> you did not talk about donald trump and all answering that. >> with the independent programmers as an alternative with that top box proposal to ditch the cable box is altogether while addressing the concerns that the content kennedy has raised are you open to compromise with the closer collaboration? >> it is absolutely terrific that the cable industry came

forward with this proposal i have been asking them to do this they indicated that a lot of the arguments that were put up against the set top box proposal fell by in the wayside up copyright can be protected consumer privacy can be protected and small that works can continue to thrive you don't have to rebuild the network so the approach that the fcc suggested that can be taken in one eye and interested in with constructive dialogue on the specifics of how do

you write the regulations to achieve that? there have been times in the past where the industry says they will do similar types of things so let's make it come to pass now. 99% of american consumers have no choice but to pay the monthly set top box be running an average of two and injured $30 per household per year. congress said there needs to be choice section 629 of the communications act says not may or think about it but they shall provide that there are competitive navigation devices for consumers and we will follow through on the statute. >> with this set top box the

of their big priority has been business services what are the problems and what will you do? >> is an arcane area that we tried to change it used to be called special access because it was the way in which a carrier would sell to another party normally another carrier, the specific quality guarantee delivery of service and the competition in that we follow the rule competition competition competition that increase is regulation should decrease but we are trying to look at the market to say how we play back -- apply the concept because it hasn't been revisited by the commission in a dozen years

a few things have changed and technology during that time so we will revisit that but as i said it is absolutely essential that we do this because it will be the wireless future moving on wired networks and that is not competitive or fairly priced spirit pay-tv are famous for their core customers that the senate will investigate it this week is there anything the sec or congress can do to force companies like comcast to respond to claims faster? >> i think it is great the senate will have the hearing on this with the complaints that we hear from consumers on this topic are legion as you look at the scope the

authority that congress has given us however it is limited in this area. >> before a move to you the final question i have the few announcements the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists we fight for free press worldwide for more information please visit press.org tomorrow the university of missouri interim president speak june 30th national transportation safety board will address the club in july 14 the director of the national security agency will speak at the press club luncheon i'd like to present our guests with the traditional national press club a mug.

[applause] [laughter] it is now wireless. i'm sorry but we have one last question it will be a tough one. public officials are supposed to deal with the public so can you telecine personal stories or nightmare encounters of customer service representatives with any of firm? >>. [laughter] >> is something a little stiffer? >> we hear from consumers all the time about this and yes public officials are

real people in the most recent experience was left with the customer service representative in more with my wife calling me saying the irs was after us because there had been a spoofing incident where what is happening increasingly is fraudulent people principally from a broader using the internet to connect over here and called random numbers and announce they are the irs and i need to be paid in this is where you send the check. so that happened to us and last week we started getting

threatening phone calls from an individual who himself was on the receiving end but the phone number was my phone number. okay? this is something that is a legitimate concern this is something that there are individuals that could be held responsible for this and one of the things we're actively doing right now is trying to figure out exactly the right way to go after this. but we will not sit around and say this as this goes on. [applause] >> thanks for being here and

to the staff we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]ficer:e

majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the terrorist attack that claimed 49 innocent

victims in orlando left families broken and our country shaken. it was a deliberately targeted attack inspired by a hateful ideology of isil, and it tragically reminded us of the continued direct and isil-inspired attacks right here in our country. we know that the way to prevent more of these terrorist attacks is to actually defeat isil where it trains, operates and prepares for attacks like in iraq and syria. the president at least appeared to recognize that this weekend when he said that we are and we will keep doing everything in our power to stop these kinds of attacks and to ultimately destroy isil. but as the nation just learned from c.i.a. director john brennan, isil remains a formidable, resilient and

largely cohesive enemy. our efforts thus far have not reduced the group's terrorism capability and global reach. this is brennan. and isil is training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks in the west. it's evident that the president's campaign to contain isil has not been sufficient to defeat this group abroad or prevent more isil-inspired attacks right here at home. he needs to finally lead a campaign to accomplish this objective or at least prepare the military and intelligence community to help the next president do that if he won't. here in the senate, we should continue our efforts to fight terror beyond our borders and prevent attacks within them. these have been priorities of republican senators for a long time. they continue to be at the forefront of our efforts now. we've offered proposals to help connect the dots with respect to

terrorist communications. we've offered proposals to help address the threat of lone wolf attacks like the one we saw in orlando. and we've offered proposals to help ensure terrorists are not able to purchase weapons. we'll consider two of them today along with two democratic alternatives. the first proposal from senator cornyn would immediately block the sale of a firearm or 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 the alternative pertains only to

firearms. unlike senator cornyn's proposal, the democratic alternative would not notify state and lowell law -- and locl law enforcement when a terrorist tries to buy a weapon nor would it give authority for that terrorist to be arrested or detained. unlike senator cornyn's proposal, the democratic alternative would not ensure due process, protect our constitutional rights or require the government to periodically review its procedures to ensure it's investigating the right people. the second proposal from senator grassley would improve the background check database by helping ensure all levels of government are actually submitting the necessary records including mental health records. it would also allow for additional resources to update and improve the system further. unlike senator grassley's proposal, the democratic alternative would not study the causes of mass shootings.

unlike senator grassley's proposal, the democratic alternative would not help prevent failed gun operations like fast and tpaours. unlike senator grassley's proposal it would not require the department of justice to explain why it has not been using gun laws on the books to prosecute cases. we know weapons convictions are down 30% compared to a decade ago. so look, no one wants terrorists to be able to buy guns or explosives. no one. instead of using this as an opportunity to push a partisan agenda or craft the next 30-second campaign ad, colleagues like senator cornyn and senator grassley are pursuing real solutions that can help keep americans safer from the threat of terrorism. they are approaching this serious topic in a serious and constitutional way.

they also understand that ultimately the most important way to prevent more terrorist tragedies at home is by defeating terrorism overseas. serious solutions, that's what the american people now demand more than ever. that's where we should keep our focus. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: we have an epidemic of gun violence. it's here. i wish it weren't, but it's here, and it's getting worse every day. last week's attack at a popular nightclub in orlando, florida, was the deadliest shooting in

modern american history. it was an act of hate, an act of terror. 49 people were killed, dozens wounded. many of those wounded are going to suffer the rest of their life. with paralysis, blindness, and other maladies caused by the evil mr. mateen. sadly, mass shootings occur with sickening regularity in our country. let's just talk about some of them in recent years. tucson, arizona, 2011, 6 killed, number injured, one of whom is gabby giffords. a wonderful, wonderful human being. she was critically injured.

her good husband and famous astronaut is doing everything he can to make her life as normal as possible. carson city, nevada, 2011, four killed in a popular city. three of the dead were national guardsmen getting ready to do their duty, having a break. in fact, they were having breakfast, but they were gunned down by a mad man. horror in colorado, people watching a popular movie in 2012, were gunned down in a night of terror. newtown, connecticut, 2012, 20 little kids, 20 babies, 6

educators killed. navy yard, washington, d.c., 2013, 12 killed. las vegas, nevada; 2014, a couple of people who just left the bundy domestic terror situation -- i guess they didn't get enough opportunity to do terrible things up there, so they came to las vegas, went to a restaurant where two police officers were sitting there having breakfast, two men with families. this man and woman walked up having left the bundy enclave and shot both of them in the head right in front of everybody, walked out, went next door to wal-mart, killed another

unsuspecting shopper. charleston, south carolina, one year ago; nine killed. they were in a church praying and singing. it's what you should do in a church. but a murderer was there and he killed nine of them. roseburg, idaho -- i'm sorry. roseburg, oregon, 2015; nine killed at a community college. colorado springs, colorado, some crazy person hellbent on doing something in his own mind, stopping abortion, killed three innocent people; nothing to do with abortion. just innocent people. san bernardino, california; a government facility, people there for a holiday celebration

were maimed, 14 killed by two domestic terrorists. kalamazoo, michigan, 2016, an uber driver, pick up a fare, drive around town, killed another one. got six. you add these up, that's 100, not counting the 49 that were killed a week or so ago. and you add to that about the 90 who are killed every day. 90 every day with guns in america. it's a pretty staggering number. but after the murderers i've outlined here, tucson, carson

city, aurora, newtown, d.c., las vegas, charleston, south carolina, roseburg, oregon; san bernardino, california; colorado springs, colorado; kalamazoo, michigan, after these murderers, the american people have looked to congress to stop them. no more, they say. the american people don't feel safe. they want to feel safe. they want the violence to stop. they want it to end. but instead of getting help from their elected officials, our constituents see a disturbing pattern of inaction. it's always the same. after each tragedy we try, we democrats try to pass sensible gun safety measures. sadly, our efforts are blocked by the republican congress who take their marching orders from the national rifle association. in april, 2013, just months after the shootings in aurora

and newton, democrats proposed legislation that would expand background checks, reinstate the assault weapons ban, limit the size of ammunition clips. you know, mr. president, the man who went into the nightclub a week ago had an assault rifle that would hold a magazine of 30 shells. he could fire that every time he pulled the trigger. it would take him about three or four seconds to empty the 30 shells. he could reload in one or two seconds. he had -- we don't know for sure but at least two extra clips 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? for what? well, the man in orlando,

florida, went hunting for people. we tried to limit the size of the ammunition clips, prevent firearms trafficking, but the n.r.a. didn't accept those proposals, none of them, and so senate republicans didn't accept them, and they filibustered, blocked every one of them. it happened again last december. following the shooting at san bernadino, senator feinstein proposed legislation to close the so-called terror loophole. senator feinstein's bill would have prevented a suspected terrorist from illegal purchasing firearms and explosives. keeping terrorists from buying guns, that should be something upon which every member of the senate agree. again, though, the n.r.a. said no. the republicans said no. they blocked senator feinstein's legislation. that's a pattern we see. we see it repeatedly. it doesn't matter how sensible the legislation or how terrible the tragedy.

republicans are beholden to the national rifle association, the n.r.a., and not the people that elect them to come here and represent them. but today i'm afraid it's going to be more of the same. in about two hours, the united states senate will have the opportunity to stop the rampant gun violence that's plaguing our nation. stop it all, no, but certainly do something. so at 5:30, senators will vote for -- vote on four gun-related amendments, two from democrats, two from republicans. two of these amendments are serious proposals to protect americans from gun violence, the murphy and feinstein proposals. one would close loopholes in our background check system to ensure that firearms and explosives are kept out of the hands of terrorists and criminals and those who suffer from mental illness. senator feinstein's amendment would close the terror loophole which allows suspected terrorists to illegal purchase

weapons and explosives. both of these proposals are in keeping with what america wants and what america needs. about 90% of americans favor extended background checks and more than 80% of americans want to close the terror loophole. these are democrats, these are republicans and they are independents. and i might say, mr. president, the n.r.a., the national rifle association, all members of the n.r.a. don't feel the way that their leaders do, the leaders of the n.r.a. even though 90% of americans favor expanded background checks and more than 80% want to close the terror loophole, republicans will again, i am confident, reject the voice of the american people. instead, republicans are proposing legislation that would actually make it easier for someone that has mental illness to get a gun. instead, republicans are proposing legislation that would

actually make it more difficult for law enforcement to keep guns out of the hands of the dangerous. the first republican amendment, the senior senator from iowa has proposed an amendment that would make it easier for a person with severe mental illness to buy a gun. that's what it says. the republicans would make it easier for one who just gets out of a psychiatric facility to walk out of a psychiatric facility and go buy whatever they want in the way of firearms. the second republican amendment. the senior senator from texas proposed legislation that would allow the sale of firearms to terrorists after a brief 72-hour waiting period, which would compromise ongoing terrorism investigations. i'm sorry, counterterrorism investigations. the grassley amendment is political stunts that are meaningless to stop gun violence. these are amendments that divert attention from real legislation.

why? so republicans say hey look, we tried. and all the time they are cheerleaders of the bosses of the n.r.a. our republican colleagues are again stuck in the same rut, the same warp giving in to the demands of the n.r.a. government leaders always find an excuse to say no. democrats look at any reasonable proposal when it comes to gun safety. right now there are democrats like senator heinrich that are working with republicans to find a solution. provided the legislation really does keep guns and explosives away from suspected terrorists, criminals and people with mental illness. we know the n.r.a. will never support any of those proposals. that's why we need senate republicans to take a stand against gun violence and against the n.r.a. as i stand here, the n.r.a. is

sending a lot of direct mail. they are even getting better now and putting stuff on the internet, saying we need more money. they're trying to take your guns away from you. it's a fundraising operation. but we need senate republicans to take a stand against gun violence, against the n.r.a. for a change. if we don't, the senate republicans continue down this path and reject the murphy and feinstein amendments, it will be the third time recently they have walked away from sensible gun legislation. it will be the third time recently republicans have voted to give suspected terrorists, criminals and the mentally ill access to firearms. it will be the third time repeatedly the senate republicans have protected the gun lobby. even as our own constituents have been gunned down in cold blood, senate republicans should be embarrassed but they're not because the n.r.a. is happy. republicans need to put the lives of innocent americans ahead of the n.r 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