in orlando, we hear the same calls for stronger, better, tougher laws. the american people overwhelmingly support them, and nearly every time the gun industry and its powerful lobby do whatever they can do to block these bills to protect their own profits. it's the same cycle over and over again, someone with no business handling a powerfully deadly weapon of war has easy access to that weapon and then uses it to kill many people quickly. we have to make it harder for hateful, violent, radicalized people to get their hands on weapons of war. the only way to change this, the only way is if congress fulfills its responsibility to protect the american people and pass new laws that help keep us safe. now, mr. president, i have three amendments. they are new amendments that have not been voted on this session, and they are three amendments that actually could keep more americans free of gun

violence. the first is a law enforcement bill. it is a bipartisan gun trafficking amendment which would finally make gun trafficking a federal crime. we would assume bringing weapons up i-95 and selling them out of the back of your truck to a gang member in new york city would be illegal, that it would be a federal crime. it's not. it's not a federal crime to do that. this bill is called the pendleton naison gun trafficking prevention act. it's named after two teenage girls would lost their lives because of gun violence in their neighborhoods. they were doing -- playing with friend, minding their own business and a stray bullet shot them both down. naison was killed in brooklyn. hadea was killed in chicago. these are two young girls.

i met naison's parents. they don't understand why their daughter had to die. right now there is no federal law preventing someone from loading up a truck in georgia, driving it up i-95, and reselling those weapons in a parking lot in brooklyn to a gang member or other dangerous people who aren't eligible to buy guns anywhere else. this amendment would change that. it would give our law enforcement the tools they need to get illegal guns off the streets and to prosecute those who are trafficking guns the second amendment i'll introduce would require weapons dealers to keep physical inventories. this is something that law enforcement has asked for. without accurate inventory, it's impossible for law enforcement to know whether illegal gun sales are taking place or even if weapons have been stolen from that store. now, there is just a small

number, a very small number of bad gun dealers, but our law enforcement officials have a right to be able to find out who they are, why they're selling these weapons out of the back of their gun sale places, and then selling them directly to criminals who drive them up the i-95 and sell them to gang members in brooklyn or the bronx or in harlem or in buffalo. the third amendment is also a law enforcement amendment, something asked for by law enforcement. it would allow the a.t.f. to ban foreign imports of military-style weapons which tend to be used in crimes. right now many weapons with military-style features that are not intended for hunting, including those with high capacity magazines and laser sights are being dumped into the u.s. marketplace by foreign arms manufacturers. this amendment would help

prevent those dangerous military-style weapons from flooding our streets and ending up in the hands of criminals. no one in america should have to go through his or her daily life in fear of an angry radicalized system that can easily buy a weapon of war and use it on innocent americans. all of these amendments would help law enforcement do their jobs, be able to find criminals who are trafficking weapons, be able to find that small percent of bad gun dealers and shut them down, make sure foreign companies aren't flooding our market with illegal military weapons. these three changes would make a difference. they would help our law enforcement community keep our communities safe. i yield the floor. and i ask -- the presiding officer: under

the previous order, the senate the previous order, the senate >> lawmakers taking a break to attend weekly party caucus meetings. when the return, more work is expected on the commerce justice and science spending bill. both are possible this afternoon on an image. more live senate coverage when the gavel comes down right here on c-span2. white house spokesman josh earnest has scheduled a briefing today at 1 p.m. future. is expected to comment on the senate's failed to advance and legislation. we plan to take you there live when it gets under way here on c-span2. >> with the political primary season overcome see spend road to the white house takes you to this summer's political conventions. watch the republican national convention starting july 18 with live coverage from cleveland.

>> we'll be going into the convention no matter what happens and i think we're going to go in so strong. >> and watch the democratic national convention starting july 25 with live coverage from philadelphia. >> let's go forward, let's win the nomination, and in july let's return as a unified party. >> ended and we take our fight for social, economic, racial and environmental justice to philadelphia, pennsylvania. >> every minute of the republican and democratic party's national convention on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> i am pleased that the senate as the body has come to this conclusion. television and the senate will undoubtedly provide citizens with greater access and exposure to the actions of this body. this access will help all

americans to be better informed of the problems and issues which face this nation on a day by day basis. basis. >> during the election idea occasion of meeting a woman who had supported me in my campaign, and she decided to come to shake my hand and take a photograph, a wonderful woman. she wasn't asking for anything, and i was very grateful that she took the time to come by. it was an unexceptional moment except for the fact that she was born in 1894. her name was marguerite lewis, an african-american woman who had been born in louisiana, born in the shadow of slavery, born at a time when lynchings were commonplace, born at a time when african-americans and women could not vote. >> took our country from the time of its founding until the

mid 1980s to build up a national debt of $850 billion which was the size of this so-called stimulus package when it came over here. so we are talking about rio borrowed money. >> thirty years of coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span2. >> now when martin university of missouri in the president michael middleton. earlier he discussed the school's response to racial tensions and protest. he was appointed interim president of the human system after kimball resigned following his administration's response to racial incidents on campus. this is about one hour. >> good morning and welcome to the national press club. my name is thomas burr, the "washington post" but for "the salt lake tribune" and the 109th president of the national press club. i would like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences and remind you can

follow the action on twitter using hashtag npc live. it's time to introduce our head table. i would ask each of you stand briefly as your name is announced. please hold your applause until i finished introducing the entire table. from your right, medical reporter and board member. barbara, professo professor andr of university of missouri school of journalism washington program and the president of the national press club journalism institute. chuck, washington correspondent for the "st. louis post-dispatch." west, director emeritus at the washington program and professor of journalism americans at the university of missouri. angela, speakers committee vice chairwoman, bloomberg news white house correspondent, a pass press club president and a

mizzou alum. julie middleton, the better half of today's speaker. kind of like mizzou's first lady. lauren, senior policy adviser to the undersecretary at the department of education. joining us in the audience today, assistant vice presidents of the american council on education, center for policy and research. thank you all. [applause] >> the university of missouri flagship campus has long been known for its iconic columns, then the first land grant university west of the mississippi and for its world renowned journalism school the senators create anger at the national press world. but in the past two years the campus has been a loyal by racial tension has been international news for topics other than journalism and tiger athletics. our guest today, michael middleton was an interim

president of university of missouri system last fall. as result of his predecessor and bush doctrine to protest. the protests culminated in a hunger strike by graduate students jonathan butler who was one of the founding members of the group concerned student 1950, and in the references to your black students were first admitted to the university. middleton received his undergraduate and law degrees from the universiuniversi ty of missouri where he founded the legion of black legions in 1960. he had a career in the federal government in the justice department -- sorry, the then named departmedepartme nt of health education and welfare, now hhs. he also worked for equal employment opportunity commission before returning to mizzou in 1985. to join the law faculty. he retired after 17 years as deputy chancellor. he was called out of retirement less than two months later to take over the system.

it was thrust into the national spotlight not only by the race related protest by the handling of the protests of the media coverage of them. in addition to the campus, the universe of missouri system has campuses in kansas city, st. louis. together serving of 80,000 students. since taking over the position he has been time trying to calm tensions and cope with the effects of declining enrollment and the reduction of the state's financial support. please join me in giving a national press club welcome to university of missouri intro president michael middleton. [applause] >> i don't get the gavel? well, thank you for that very kind introduction, and thank you to national press club for creating this opportunity fo foa national dialogue on these very

important issues. it's great to see so many mizzou folks in the room, a mizzou mufi is in the house as they say. so it's good to see you. and all the other guests, too. [laughter] so unfortunate as not to of been involved or connected with the university of missouri. as many of you are well aware, the university of missouri system primarily is flagship campus, mizzou, face a challenging times during the fall of 2015. after the resignation of then president tim wolf and the reassignment of been chancellor, i was asked to take the role as the new president of the system, as was said, three months after i retired and serving as deputy chancellor on the mizzou campus for 17 years. the universe of missouri and i

have a long history together. i attended in view is both an undergraduate and a law student and met my wife julie of 45 years there. and i'm happy that she's here with me today. after graduation in 1971 i got my dream job as an attorney in the civil rights division of the department of justice. went on to the lawyers committee, and then served in management capacities at the department of health, education, and welfare, the equal employment opportunity commission, and the department of education. so i feel pretty much at home back here in d.c. i return to my alma mater in 1985 as a law professor, then transition to the role of interim vice provost for minority affairs and faculty

development, and then deputy chancellor shortly thereafter. i have a strong love for the institution, and i made it very clear that under my tenure as president i want to see real change, both for the good of a great university that we have, but also so that i can get back to enjoying my much too short retirement. in full disclosure it's important to provide a little background on what caused what i have called the perfect storm at mizzou. in november there was a culmination of issues that arose that previous spring that challenged the leadership on the campus. lost in the media's near total focus on racial issues and action of the mu football team, there were several other factors that contributed to the turmoil.

there were concerns surround the prospect of graduate students suddenly losing their health benefits. they were very difficult and highly charged decisions regarding our hospitals relationship with planned parenthood. our been under faculty had expressed lack of comfort -- our been -- about academic freedom and leadership on the campus. and they were very controversial leadership changes at the mu health system in medical school. acknowledging these other factors simply provide the context for what we've recently experienced. it certainly does not diminish the importance nor less our desire to better understand and address the concerns that have been expressed our students of color, and other minority students. the problems our university faces in this area are real.

in fact, universities nationwide are facing the same problems, as is our nation as a whole. since november i've actively participate in the national dialogue surrounding campus race relations. i've met with leaders at the department of education, the american council on education, the association of governing boards, as well as the national association of system heads among others. this dialogue is crucial to the future of higher education and it must continue as we plan for our future generations. i find it very interesting that based on inside higher ed recent survey of university presidents so leaders and higher education don't feel that their campuses are faced with the same racial tensions. the survey shows 84% of presidents characterized race

relations on their respective campuses as excellent or good. at the same time only 24% described the state of race relations at colleges and universities nationwide as good. and none describe race relations at colleges nationwide as excellent. obviously, a large proportion of administrators feel the problems we have been facing at missouri could never happen on their campuses. while it's conceivable that may be true for some, what the university of missouri experienced most recently could be attributed, at least in part, to similar sentiments. the prevailing view was that race relations were good, maybe even excellent at mizzou. but the fact of the matter was that institutionally leaders

were not paying attention, and they got caught. our students were concerned with race relations on our campus and felt extremely marginalized. to put it into context, columbia, missouri, as you know is only 100 miles from ferguson, missouri, and inner ring suburb of st. louis. and many of our students are from the st. louis area. they were hurting and needed to be heard. institutionally we were not listening to these very intelligent students, passionate students, who were telling leaders to wake up. what happened at mu i hope provides an instructional experience, a learning moment, a wakeup call for all who lead universities. and the lesson is that leaders must continuously assess their

campus climate to ensure that race relations are, in fact, good or excellent. likely, they are not as good as you think. the problems we face are real and they need to be addressed, and that's exactly what we are doing at the university of missouri as we move forward from the turmoil we faced this fall. i've emphasized to the university community that we must come together and make decisions in the best interest of the university, all of its students, and the future development of our society. of course patience is a virtue in situations like this. it takes time to we build confidence and trust. just as these problems did not evolve overnight, real solutions will not come quickly. in the past seven months we have established mechanisms and put

processes in place to address the issues, specifically regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion issues that we are facing. those initiatives introduced by our board of curators in november include hiring the first ever system-level chief diversity equity and inclusion officer. doctor kevin mcdonald started on june 1, it just last week it was announced that he will have a dual appointment with mizzou s their interim vice chancellor for inclusion diversity and equity. in addition we have ensured that for the first time ever each of our four campuses has a chief diversity officer reporting directly to the chancellor. we've created a diversity conclusion and equity task force at system-level to develop short and long term strategies, plans

and metrics for the mu system based on inventory and audit of the programs, policies and practices. we are conducting an in depth audit working with a consulting group that will provide a comprehensive assessment and inventory of diversity, equity and inclusion policies, practices and programs, and procedures across the um system. the audit will include focus groups and interviews, surveys and other data collecting mechanisms that they were used to make recommendations to the chief diversity officer and board of curators that will help us to continue to affect positive change on all four of our campuses. we've provided additional support for students, faculty and staff who've experienced

discrimination and disparage treatment. and we have provided additional support for the hiring and retention of a diverse faculty and staff. as a part of our $2.5 million investment to date, towards these board initiatives, we've allocated 921,000 to conduct a campus climate survey, provide additional training for our campus and system administration as well as students, and to provide mental health support to our students. why we believe we have made significant progress since november there is much, much more work to be done. i'm optimistic about the progress that we have made, and will continue to make. and i'm hopeful that our students will have the patience to allow us to complete that work.

um has its challenges in terms of race relations. just as our nation as a whole has grappled with this cultural, persistent, pervasive problem for centuries. but the challenges we are facing present the university, all of us with large, with a unique opportunity -- with large. we have an opportunity to take the lead in developing mechanisms for combating racism and promoting diversity, equity and inclusion to change our culture to one that is more respectful and more inclusive. and what better institution than the university to take on the awesome task? a committee of scholars and a wide variety of disciplines, dedicated to the creation and dissemination of knowledge for

the advancement of society. our biggest flaw as a university is that we are notoriously slow in doing what we do. my hope is that we can accelerate our pace, and that the millennial generation will give us the time we need to develop a permanent solutions we so desperately need. as i have made, as i've met with other higher education leaders nationwide, i challenge them to really assess their current climate. i've encouraged him to pay attention to what the students are saying. while it could be that race relations on the individual campuses are indeed good or excellent, there is always room for improvement. i always assure them that their students and their campuses will be better for it.

the university of missouri refuses to be defined by the events that we faced in november, in the months following. the unfortunate circumstances that his captors so much attention from the world are certainly not a reflection of the whole of our great 177 year old university. but rather reflect a long-standing societal flaw. when we are faced with challenges we have three options. we can let those challenges defined us, we can let those challenges we went us, or we can let the challenges we face serve as learning opportunities for growth. while those challenges are part of our history, they also have presented us with unique opportunity that we've embraced, and that is the position the

university as a national leader in how we address the social issues of combating racism and promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion. the process will not be easy, and it certainly will not happen overnight. but we will be steady and productive in helping create a solution for all of higher education. i thank you for this opportunity, and i suppose we now have some time for questions. >> thank you, sir. we have quite a few questions. celesomebody start off, you mentioned location of columbia close to ferguson but why did this happen at the zoo and why not that any other number of schools with similar racial demographics mizzou?

>> as i mentioned, there were a number of other difficult issues that the campus was facing at the same time that our african-american students primarily with their very much concerned about ferguson, their hometown, their home area. the graduate students were very, very upset about the loss of, the sudden loss. we had just admitted a number of graduate students, some of whom were pregnant women who learned that they would not have health insurance once they arrived. kind of a shock, people who need health care. our dean had written a letter calling for the departure of the chancellor.

our faculty was very much concerned about what they viewed as threats to the academic freedom. so the entire campus was in something of turmoil, when the african-american students began their protest. so it was a perfect storm, and i imagine that other campuses near ferguson, other campuses in the area simply did not experience that perfect storm. but i think you can tell from the way the concerns over inclusion, diversion and equity spread across the country to other campuses soon thereafter. it was under the surface all the time. we had a couple of, we had a president of our student body who was a gay black male,

elected by the entire student body, who had been called the n-word a couple of times during his presidency. he went public. he posted a description of the incident on facebook, and it went viral. so there were several things that happened that pretty much just boiled over and woke us up. his campaign was ignite mizzou, editing his second campaign was wakeup mizzou. so these young people knew what they were doing, and they did it well. >> speaking of that you're a former student activist yourself. what did you think of the tactics the students used at mizzou to force the ouster of your predecessor?

can you compare and contrast your time as a student in the 1960s with what we saw on campus last year? >> well, they were a bit more sophisticated than we were back in the day. we didn't have facebook and twitter and instagram and the social media. i think an explanation for how quickly and how successfully they managed their protest, you can attribute that to the social media. they communicate much more quickly and effectively than we did back in the '60s. the numbers at mizzou are much greater. we were, we were fairly successful at missouri in, in increasing access.

we, as most universities view diversity work as improving access, increasing admissions of students of color, and so by the time our situation exploded, we had a fairly decent number of students on campus, students of color on campus that we certainly did not have back in the mid '60s. so with numbers, with social media, and i think the time sensibly changed. this generation is much less willing to put up with the micro-aggressions, the indignities that people of color experienced in this world than we were in the '60s. and so i think that's why it happened. i think they executed the

principles of nonviolent protests very, very well. there was never any danger on campus. no one was hurt on campus. it was a fairly respectful demonstration of frustration with their lived experience on the campus, which is not unlike what we did back in the '60s. i think back in the '60s we probably occupied the few buildings and i think we locked the chancellor out of his office one day. but it was pretty much the same, same techniques. >> there were a few different techniques. what are your views on safe spaces and warnings for students on campus? are you concerned that speech is

being cover my? >> i don't think is being compromised on our campus. i understand the call for safe spaces and trigger warnings, but you know, i'm a missouri trained lawyer and i understand the first amendment, and we do have the world's first journalism school, and i cherish freedom of the press. so i, i think that we should all recognize the rights that we have, but we all should also understand how the exercise of those rights in every situation might make life uncomfortable for people in our community. and so i would like to get

beyond legalisms of the first amendment and those kinds of things, and talk about behavior in a civil society. you know, we had an event where one of our professors got fairly rough with a student member of the press about his attempt to violate the state space that our students claimed on the quadrangle. augusta our students did not have a right to claim that safe space, but that reporter i think could have avoided the incident that occurred, had he, like the rest of the press that was there, respected the students decided to have some privacy at that time. it's just the way you assert

your rights and exercise your rights is i think another level of discourse that we need to empower communities your it has you can come it doesn't mean you have to. if doing it causes too much controversy it might be wise to consider not doing it your but we are working on campus on some policies to try to better find the proper balance, and the draft that i've seen so far doesn't quite get it. it's a bit too legalistic. >> are you saying that you would support areas where journalists should not be allowed in some form? >> no. i would support folks who want privacy where they cannot get journalists voluntarily not to come in and cover it, to go somewhere else. when we form the legions of

black allegiance back in 1966, we made the decision that we simply would not have meetings on campus because we knew that you can't have a private meeting in a public space. so we would go and meet in someone's apartment. so i don't come i certainly don't want to deny the press or anyone else the right to attend functions in public places. i would ask that because i'm a student here and because this room is a university property, that i've got a club or group that would like to have some privacy as we do whatever we are doing today, would you please not come in. if the public or the press does not want to respect that request, then it sunday to go somewhere else.

i don't want to deny the press access to anything. >> so the public space, university campuses, is first amendment protected zone. go someplace else you say. >> yes. >> you mention melissa click spent i didn't mention her by name. >> i did. [laughter] >> the american association of university professors voted saturday to place the university of missouri, columbia on the organization sensualist due to the firing of ms. click who is i need muscle against reporters went viral. what is your reaction to this and did the university act properly in the firing click? >> that's a difficult question. the board of curators voted with a split vote to take that action. the board clearly has the

authority to govern the university, and so yes, the acted properly. i think it was necessary at the time to do something because the university was really in turmoil and it did not appear as if that turmoil would die down unless something were done with professor click. i think it was an unfortunate -- there are processes, existing processes in place for dealing with faculty irresponsibility, members of the board, some thought that those processes should be used before the board took direct action. but the board decided to do what it did.

the aup, i'm not surprised that they censored us. i don't think that what the university did had anything to do with doctor clicks academic freedom and the aaup couched their sanction in those terms. but they have a job to do themselves and they did it. we will have to live with it and work to get off this sensualist as soon as possible spent one more question on the subject dr. click was not a journalism professor but she did teach in the school. which her own reaction to her comments and actions during the protest? what does it say about what it say about wit what the universis taking and educating about the first amendment? >> i thought that dr. click lost

control in a very heated situation. she clearly was are supportive of what our students were doing. she sort of position herself as the protector of our protesting students, and as i recall she had been, earlier in the day when she tried to block a reporters camera, the reporter assaulted her, knocked her hand down. so she was rather upset, and i think she just lost control. it's unfortunate that she did. i don't think it has anything about what our journalism school is teaching about first amendment. i think our students and our faculty are all very committed to the first amendment and all the principles that are associated with it. i think it was a very, very hot, difficult situation, it was very

unfortunate that it occurred. >> what's your advice to other university leaders across the country on handling a crisis on campus such as this? >> handle it quickly. handled transparently. try to understand all perspectives on the issue. treat all other people with respect, you know, we are all in this together. on the university campus i like to think of us all as a family. we are all in it together and we we're all here to learn and grow. i think if we are all honest with each other and listen to each other and as transparent as we can be in discussing and find solutions to problems, we will all be a lot better off. >> the ad hoc committee on protest public spaces, free speech of the press recently

released a draft policy on how the university should regulate public spaces like were last year's protests took place. the student newspaper, the main leader, criticized the policy as today. what is your take on that proposal? >> well, the proposal is, i only read it once and it was very legalistic speech really this program that you can watch anytime on c-span.org and take you live to the white house news briefing with press secretary josh artist. >> a quick statement at the top before i get to your questions. it has now been 97 days since the president fulfilled his constitutional responsibly to present the american people with an exceptional nominee to the united states supreme court, chief judge merrick garland. today the nonpartisan american bar association agreed with that assessment. they released an evaluation of the chief judge in which they concluded that chief judge garland merrick -- merited their eyes rating. the review found that quote

lawyers and judges uniform praise the nominees integrity. most remarkably in interviews with hundreds of individuals from the legal profession and community the new judge garland weather for a few years or decades, not one person under a negative word about him, unquote. they found his quote judicial temperament is unassailable, unquote, and they wrote quote, the unanimous consensus of everyone we interviewed was that chief judge garland is superbly competent to serve on the united states supreme court. this significant point warrants repeating. all of the experienced, dedicated and knowledgeable sitting judges, several former solicitors general are both political parties, legal scholars from top law schools across the country, and lawyers who have worked with or against the nominee in private practice, government or within the judiciary described the nominee as outstanding in all respects and site-specific evidence in

support of that view. many describe judge garland professional competence as brilliant, exceptional, and phenomenal, unquote. the 88 of course is just the latest in a long line of a respected voices from across the political spectrum agree that chief judge garland has a record of judicial excellence -- aba. there is no question that doesn't has abdicated its responsibly under the united states constitution. since 1975 the average. of time for nomination by the president to confirmation for the green card naaman has been 67 days. we are now approaching a 100. it's long past time for u some republicans to either java consider chief judge garland nomination. so obviously the kind of memo we received from the aba today is glowing, everything does accurately reflect the universal assessment about chief judge garland integrity and competence

for such an important job. that's what it is such a shame has been treated so unfairly by the united states senate. but ultimately it's our democracy that has to do with the long-term consequences of this unprecedented partisan action by republicans in united states senate. so with that, kevin, let's go to questions. >> thank you, josh. fbi director james comey said recently he will not mention the orlando nightclub shooter's name in public. it doesn't appear you or the president have either. [inaudible] -- part of this concerted strategy a new strategy on the part of the administration? >> it's not a new strategy that i am aware of. i haven't mentioned this individual's name, but frankly it's because we believe the focus should be on creating with the victims and taking sure that

we are dealing head-on with the potential threat that exists. i know there are other generals have gotten attention for reaching a similar conclusion i do recall that after the shooting and aurora, colorado the president opportunity to visit with some of the victims in the hospital in aurora just days after the mass shooting incident occurred, and i know that in the context of those conversations the president had promised the families that he would not repeat the name of that assailant, the president does not make a habit of individuals who seek attention for themselves by resorting to violence like this. it frankly isn't ever to put the attention where it should be, which is on the victims and their families who are grieving your but also on a more significant problem that exists both as relates in this

situation to the availability of weapons of war and the risk that is posed by extremist organizations that seek to use social media to radicalize vulnerable members of the population and despise them to carry out acts of violence. we want to make sure we estimate a strategy to counter that. >> you spoke yesterday's vote in the senate and is a shameful display of cowardice. an earlier interview, democrats voted down a pair of republican led an immense, one that was designed to steer more money towards the federal background checks and another that provided -- due process for those who want to appeal being placed on the no fly list. i just wanted to ask him a did the white house support the gop amendments? and wouldn't that have resulted some progress in keeping guns out of hands of people who should not have been?

>> listen, i've expressed concerns about the court in a minute before when it was discussed last week it is apparent that we do very little to keep -- more than a minute. and as a practical matter in terms of the way that they would implement it if we do very little to enhance the security of the country. as relates to the been put forward by senator grassley, the other republicrepublic an amendment, even he acknowledges that would do nothing to close the gaping loophole in the background check system that currently exists. so the president believes it, since we would close loopholes that allow individuals to purchase guns without going through a background check or in some cases this is internet purchases in other places. senator murphy, senator from connecticut, to put forward a proposal to do that and we enthusiastically supported it

because it would close background check loopholes, make it harder for people who should not have guns to get their hands on them. it's a proposition that is strongly supported all across the country by democrats, republicans and owners, a majority of all of those groups support this kind of rule because it's a common central. it is a will that would make our communities safer without undermining the second amendment rights of law-abiding americans. and after spending the last week listening to republicans talk about radical islamic terrorism, this is a great textbook definition of cowardice, to talk tough in the hopes that we will ask you to do something. republicans were asked to do something there as to vote on a, this proposal to make our communities safer and to abdicate that responsibility. >> you do not concede that republican led an imminent would've led to some progress on

keeping guns from people who should have been? >> what is clear is that republicans cannot afford an amendment that would prevent terrorists from getting their hands on potential, people with ties to terrorism getting hands on guns. and they didn't put forward an idea for closing the significant loopholes that exist in our background checks as the democrats did. democrats overwhelmingly supported a proposal that day, but hardly in republicans did and that's why both of those comments and proposals that have strong support all across the country from richard of democrats, republicans and gun owners, but those proposals were defeated by republicans frankly after qwest of the nra, and that's unfortunate. [inaudible] there's a bit of disagreement

between the white house and the attorney general over whether to allow prisoners of guantánamo bay to plead guilty to charges via videoconference and thereby they would avoid having to step foot on u.s. soil. i was wondering if you could talk a bit about whether the white house planned to pursue this strategy even though there were some objections from the justice department, or plan to pursue a strategy you would support legislation or nothing of that nature even over objections from the justice department? and if not come audit any alternatives to video conferencing that could kind of avoid the issue of bringing these prisoners to the u.s.? >> let me start by saying that there is strong unanimity of opinion across the administration that closing the prison is a national security

party. every member supports that goal and believes that would enhance national security of our country to close the prison at guantánamo bay. what is also true is that the president believes that article iii courts have proved to be an effective way to bring terrorists to justice. attorney general lynch certainly believes that. she's got her own experience about. prior to becoming attorney general she was the u.s. attorney and eastern district of new york where she was involved in some of those terrorism cases. so she sort has to strong trekkers and she understands the importance of bringing terrorists to justice, protecting the country and doing so in a way that is consistent with our values. so beyond that i'm not going to get into the views that are expressed in private conversations.

you will not be surprised if that the administration certainly is considered a wide range of options to bring to justice those individuals that are currently in the prison at guantánamo bay so that they can close that prison and that work is ongoing. the only reason we have not succeeded in getting that done is the obstacles have been directed by congress to prevent that from happening. that's unfortunate and that is something the president and every member of this team strongly disagrees with. >> going back to gun control, senator collins -- [inaudible] legislation today that there is a thought or legislation could make a difference on both sides of the aisle. have the white house at all reached out to senator collins or talked with her, her staff about actual compromise on this issue? >> let me start by saying that

we are quite disappointed that republicans voted down a proposal from senator feinstein just yesterday that would prevent everyone who is suspected of having ties to terrorists from being able to purchase a gun. it appears that senator collins is considering a proposal that would prevent some people who are suspected of ties to terrorism to be able to participate. so, frankly, i don't know why you would want to down a proposal that would prevent everyone suspect of having ties to terrorism from the apple to purchase a gun. but because republicans have blocked the proposal, that's what some senators have had to resort to. what, so what i can do is at the white house and attorneys at the department of justice are taking a look at the proposal that's been put forward, and if the

assessment is that this would enhance the ability of our law enforcement professionals to keep us safe, in to prevent suspected terrorists and purchasing a gun, then it's likely something we will be able to support. we are still working with the legislation to determine if that is actually the practical effect it would have. this certainly does not make up for the rejection by republicans of a commonsense proposal that would prevent people who are on the no fly list and/or otherwise expected of terrorism from being able to buy a gun. >> it was clear from the guinea pig before the votes were cast the democrats were not going to get what they wanted on these bills, so we did not have been better to vote for the republican bill? wouldn't that have been an incremental change and then go from there, maybe then the

collinsville next? wouldn't that have been better than nothing? >> well, i guess for the legislative strategy i would encourage you to check with the senators who conceived of the. i think part of it -- support of their thinking on sure is the fact that all of these proposals went down, provide an incentive for something like senator collins to try to step up and find common ground with democrats at least on something. it's unlikely that would've happened if republicans can if democrats had gone along with a do-nothing republican attempt like the grassley and cornyn amendment. >> what you into app though with is a very narrow amendment with this collins next spew we are assessing how narrow it is the narrow it is to determine what kind of impact it actually would have.

i think it's too early to say at this point whether or not the administration would support it because it's too early -- we've not yet accessed excitement about it would have been if it would have a positive impact and prevent some suspected terrorists from be able to buy a gun, this seems likely something good administration would be able to support, but we will take a look at the details of this, the details are quite important and to have an impact on whether or not this would enhance our national security. i guess i'm saying maybe it is too early as well, that's fine if that's your answer again, but when you're looking at what each of those original republican amendments would have done with a mental health fees, background checks and five years look at possible terrorist ties, we do not have ended up with a more with those two and amendments and discover must? >> i don't think so. again the corning and then we do for love to are the suspected

terrorists from buying a gun. very little. antifolates to the grassley peace, look how he also said he would not expand background checks. that has been a top legislator part of this administration for quite some time. senator grassley was pretty blunt about it. this is a bit of a hobby horse of mine but it is hard to take seriously claims from republicans that actually care about enhancing mental health care in this country. they have voted more than 50 times to repeal the affordable care act, which has done more than any other single piece of legislation in american history to expand health care coverage in this country. ..

and she agreed with chris murphy that republicans have decided to sell weapons to isis. you think that's a good line? >> well, i didn't see the tweet but what i would say about this is simply the situation that is created by republicans blocking the feinstein amendment is simply that individuals were suspected of having ties to terrorism are able to buy a gun with impunity. because republicans are protecting that loophole at the simple request of the nra. those are the facts of the situation. and again, i'll leave it to

republicans to try to defend that position. i don't think it's a position that many americans are going to have sympathy for. >> are you saying you agree with that sentiment that it essentially dying to sell weapons toisis? >> i'll let senator murphy and senator warren described the situation as they see it . as we see it, it is without question possible for suspected terrorists to buy guns because republicans are protecting their ability to do so. all right? jordan. >> thanks josh. just before the briefing, congressman john was convicted of federal charges and i'm wondering if the white house had any reaction to that conviction. >> i saw that report shortly before i walked out here so i don't have reaction to it at this point but we will take a look at and see if we can get your reaction. obviously i think this is pretty good evidence that the department of justice is faithful to their mandate to

pursue justice irrespective of political affiliations. hammersmith atoll is somebody that was a supporter of president obama's campaign . that's just a fact. but as it relates to this investigation, i don't have reaction at this point . >> another topic yesterday that we discussed, now that the department of justice reversed course and release the unedited transcript of the 911 call, are you willing to say that yesterday's position to release a redacted transcript was safe? >> i'm not going to be in the position of doing a backseat driving as they pursue this investigation so they are making decisions they believe are in the best interest of the investigation and of the broader community and i'll leave it to the investigators to make those decisions and comment on the wisdom of that. thanks josh.

in interview with rhodes, the president said they argued strongly against the intervention in libya and instead, my question was, tell me what happened? what happens after thecountry is integrated, what happens then? doesn't it become a petri dish for the growth of extremism . >> i think, i can't the views that were represented by anybody in the private conversation the president was having in the run-up to the decision about intervening in libya. you recall that the decision the president made was actually to work closely with our allies to carry out a military operation to try to protect tens of thousands of innocent libyans that were at risk of slaughter. now, the president has done now on a number of occasions

acknowledged that he made a mistake. he didn't carefully consider what would be the aftermath even of a successful military intervention. military intervention was successful to the extent that it did prevent the slaughter of tens ofthousands of innocent libyans . but the aftermath even of a successful intervention has led to a difficult security situation inside libya that hat does have consequences for our national security so the president gave a speech to the united nations that he acknowledged that he was in responsibility for that failure to think through the situation. and again, i'll leave it to the vice president to describe what advice he offered to the president in

advance of that situation but i think the president has spoken to this pretty bluntly. >> one more in libya. the president's choice to lead africa has reportedly told the senate armed services community that we need to have troops on the ground to airstrike targets. >> i haven't seen that testimony so let me take a look at it and will get back to you on that, okay? brock.>>. [inaudible question] i'm not aware of any additional meetings at this point. obviously the two judges available for meetings with republicans have changed their mind and decided we are able to do their job and have a conversation with him. he certainly merits that kind of consideration but unfortunately, too many republicans have refused to offer it to him what changes

will decide the outcome of the election in november? >> again, i think the only thing that can change the situation is republicans deciding they are actually willing to do their job in the senate. >> there is no consequence short of the outcome of an election, is that fair? >> well, it certainly ... i think it is reasonable to assume that there might be some voters out there who are interested in the position that their elected representatives have taken. they might be interested in the fact that their elected representative is refusing to do their job especially when it comes to something as important as a lifetime appointment to the supreme court so there could be consequences in that regard that will be up to individual voters to determine . i think much of the public data that we've seen out there does indicate that there is the potential downside for some republicans at least interms of their

standing with their constituents . >> and the president is willing to see this through to january, whatever the date is? >> the president strongly believe that chief judge garland is the best person to fill the vacancy in the supreme court. if anything, the presidents view has been strengthened based on the independent conclusions of the nonpartisan american bar association. >> could you confirm that in fact there was this proposal to have a videoconference session and solutions? was that something that was in fact? >> i did not confirm that. i'm not going to get into the internal deliberations. what i confirmed that there are in fact internal deliberations to consider a wide range of ideas for advancing the process and making progress against the goal of closing the prison in ideas might be. and. >> my last question was, but

the report that was set up there, the proposal with the various places, that was what, a couple months ago question mark has anything happened without all? >> know, other than pat roberts crumbling it up and throwing it in the trash can. i think that is a pretty good indication of the lack of seriousness on the part of senate republicans . it seems unbelievable that he's actually considered one of the serious ones. maybe after that display he's not anymore. >> how is gitmo going to be close? can you sketch out any scenario whereby you get past this number of 30 or not seen as prosecutable if that's a word. >> i think a couple of things. one, the one thing that we can do is continue to do the important diplomatic work of considering how to transfer individuals who are currently

now, it's a difficult c diplomatic work because we asked these other countries to impose significant security restriction against these individuals and ... >> were therediscussions going on ? >> obviously those kind of diplomatic conversations are rather sensitive but whenever there is a decision to move forward with a transfer that is always something we do publicly announced and we always disclosed the destination of that individual. but i'm notgoing to get into the thoughts in advance of those agreements being secured . >> obviously, khalid shaikh mohammed and the five, do you really think, does the president think that's going to be resolved on his watch? >> the president certainly hopes so and there are a variety of ways that dispensing with each of these cases in terms of making sure these individuals are brought

to justice and whether that is transferring them to another country or putting them through article 3 courts orhaving them go through military commission proceedings . there certainly is a way to deal with many of these cases. the question really is, some of these real legal proceedings could take quite some time and sometime longer. the question is, are they going to sit in the prison at taxpayers and serve as a recruiting tool for extremists? or are we going to do a commonsense thing like bring that individual to a secure facility where there are already terrorists, convicted terrorists being held in american facilities on american soil. that's not going to make the country less safe, in fact it's going to make us more safe because it will remove this recruiting element and it is a much more cost-effective way to deal with these dangerous individuals. >> gitmo, on garland, it seems the president has no leverage in congress to get

anything done. >> again, when you have republicans and the united states senate and house of representatives that are unwilling to do their jobs, that makes it hard to get brings through congress. that is an accurate observation. the present president certainly has given up on and the president is on the right side of these issues. the american people in general agree with the president's approach to these issues but thus far, we've seen a lot of obstruction from republicans and it's not because republicans are busy doing other things. they're up there doing nothing. okay? mark. >> can you say why the us does not allow a human detainee on torture by the name of wanda mendez to the facility at all? >> i don't know the access is granted by those who are in charge of running the defense can give you more

information about the access they provide. there is extensive access that is provided to the international committee for the red cross, for example to reach their own independent assessment of the conditions there so there's currently is an effort made by the department of defense to provide that type of access but as it relates to the individual you are referring to, i defer to the department of defense, i'm not familiar with the request is made for access . >> you have any information on the interception of a vehicle on the new jersey side of the holland tunnel filled with weapons that might have been some kind of a terrorist plot? white house was informed about it ... >> i've been briefed on some of these news reports. i understand these individuals were apprehended by local law enforcement. i would check with the fbi to determine what role they would play in this case and what role they could play in

any potential investigation. >> did the white house play any role in the reversal at justice to reverse on the reaction to that transcript? >> the decision to release the unredacted version of the transcript that was released yesterday was made independently and entirely by the department of justice. >> okay. that's it. >> sounds good. angela. >> following up on olivia's question on vice presidents comment in the charlie rose interview yesterday, one of the things he said was that it was quote, unlikely that there would be a political resolution in syria. it's not a change in administration policy but it's along the lines of what we've heard guarding optimism of political solutions there. can you elaborate on that a little bit? >> i think the vice president

has a reputation for calling it like he sees it and it is difficult to be optimistic with the situation in syria, there's no denying that. the united nations has worked very hard to try to bring all of the relevant parties to the table. the united states has played a central role in that effort. we have made progress in so far as we been able to bring the international community together in support of the concept of a political transition inside syria. even people like vladimir putin have knowledge that a political transition inside syria is required and is long overdue and is what will be necessary to bring an end to the violence in that country. we have succeeded on a number of occasions in helping you and the parties together to participate in what they described as proximity talks. but this is a very difficult process to get moving and we been frustrated that far too often, the russians and the

us on regime out not lived up to the commitments they made in the context of cessation of hostilities and that's been disappointing and the frame of the cessation of hostilities has had a negative impact on our ability to engage in those kinds of diplomatic, political negotiations so vice presidents are a pretty optimistic guy but the situation in syria is difficult . >> obviously the administration's decision is clear and articulated but there's two more days between now and when the vote. will we hear anything out of the president either in words or social media or any other way as he reiterates that his

position between now and thursday? >> i'm not aware of any plans to do that but if that changes we will let you know. the president has had an opportunity, rather high-profile opportunity earlier this to make his views known and i think it was apparent at that time that his view, that the united states benefits from having a, having the uk as a strong member of the eu was something that was good for the united states was considered rather newsworthy. it got a lot of attention. and the president felt it was important to share his view given the special relationship between our two countries but the presidents at the time and you heard me say on many occasion that it's up to the british people to decide and they should make that decision consistent with their own instincts and their own views about how their country is best served area but obviously the relationship between our two countries is such that the president felt like itwas appropriate to share his view . but we will see what is going to happen. okay?

karen. >> the president stated earlier today about the gun bills and he said the senate failed the american people. you think that republicans, did he express any frustration with democrats on the hill also? is he casting his blame on everybody? >> the institution of the senate as not function the way it should and the reason that bill didn't succeed is because about 95 percent of republicans want the test. and that's the reason the building passed. and so i think the president statement is a pretty blunt one. about how we are not going to see the kind of changes to our gun laws that both most americans would like to see. until we see some changes in congress and that's what

caused the president to assume this posture of being a single issue voter and only being willing to support democrats who share his commitment to common sense in facing legislation. >> you think that's what more people want to see from democrats? again, about 90, 95 percent of democrats voted the right way on this. so i think it's also pretty clear that the only way we're going to see the kind of changes in our gun laws is when we elect people to congress that are supporters of those commonsense measures and right now, it's an overwhelming majority of democrats who do support those kinds of changes and an overwhelming majority of republicans oppose them so i guess it's not just clear that we need changes in congress, it's pretty apparent what kinds of changes we need in order to pass on legislation. >> governor rick scott he's not happy that the government

is not getting $5 million as requested. medical care, counseling services and other services. why not approve that as an emergency fund? >> karen, i referred you to fema. since the request for disaster assistance are considered at fema, these are not decisions that are made by the white house. generally speaking, i can tell you that the stafford act under which this request was made is intended to provide emergency federal assistance when it is beyond the capacity of state and local authorities to protect immediate life and safety. this particular incident took place within a defined period of time, unlike the other major incidents that were ongoing and required additional support. that's why hurricanes are typically the kind of scenario where you would see

federal disaster assistance readily provided. in this case, it's obviously somewhat different but what is true, however is that there may be additional federal assistance that can be provided to the state of florida as they are dealing with what is admittedly a very difficult situation so let me just give you a couple examples. the first is obviously as has been well documented by allof you, the fbi has taken over the investigation so this investigation is going to require an already has required resources , these are obviously a difficult crime scene in which significant forensic work will be done. and so the fbi is using the resources to conduct that aspect of the investigation. the fbi has also indicated if they are going to commit significant resources to loan as much as they can about this individual and how he spent his time in the days and weeks leading up to the attack. >> discontinues online at

c-span.org. right now wetake you like to the capital where after four gun amendments failed yesterday in the us , a bipartisan group of senators is this afternoon releasing a proposal for gun legislation. it too would prevent people who are on the no-fly list from purchasing firearms under a proposal, those denied the ability to buy a firearm in appeal to a federal court. senators offering the compromise to include republican senator susan collins, senator scott and blake and ran on the democratic side supporting this compromise legislation. editors i can't, heinrich, gain and live coverage of the briefing getting underway here on c-span two with a reminder the senate gavels back in for more work on the justice and science spending bill at 2:15 eastern. we have applied as well. >>.

>> good afternoon. i'm senator susan collins of maine and i'm very pleased to be here with a strong bipartisan coalition of my colleagues who have worked hard to draft a compromise that would help keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. each of them has provided critical support for this effort. our goal is simple and straightforward. we want to make america safer. some of our group supported senator feinstein's amendment. others supported senator cornyn's approach. but all of us are united in our desire to getting

something significant done on this vital issue. surely, the terrorist attack in san bernardino and in orlando that took so many lives are call for compromise , a plea for bipartisan action. there are three major features of our amendment. first, individual listed on the no-fly list or the select the list would provide extensive extra screening but for an individual being allowed to abort a plane would be prohibited from buying a firearm. the total on this list, these lists is approximately 109,000 people.the vast majority of board are foreign

nationals. it essentially we believe that if you are too dangerous to fly on an airplane, you're too dangerous to buy a gun. second, americans and green card holders could appeal a denial to the courts and recover attorneys fees if they prevail. the burden of proof would be on the government area third, we include a look back provision that ensures a prompt alert to the fbi if anyone who has been listed on the broader terrorism screening database would then have five years purchases of firearms. this is similar to a provision that was included in senator feinstein's amendment area i want to especially thank senators high camp, ayotte, blake, kane, and our colleague from

florida, senator nelson for cosponsoring this initiative and for their many contributions to this very important effort. i would now like to call up on senator high camp for her comments. she has made many valuable contributions to the amendment. >> thank you senator collins and thank you so much foryour incredible leadership . many times with issues that are as contentious as this one, stepping out isn't always easy but it's absolutely essential if we are going to get something done. to actually come to the table, sit down and say what can work? we going through a series of votes. we've taken all these both before and the outcome hasn't changed. if we want to get something done, it has to be bipartisan. it has to be simple and it has to accomplish the purpose and so it's if the purpose is

no-fly, novi, we've accomplished this because if you are on the no-fly list and you attempt to purchase a weapon, you will not be able to secure that weapon. you will have the right to appeal as you should with the second amendment but you will not be able to purchase that weapon. if you've been on that no-fly list for that selectee list in the last five years and have come off like the orlando terrorist, then you have an opportunity in fact to have it pained and have notice and the one provision i especially believe is critical is that the fbi can't do this alone. we need the involvement of local law enforcement and the ability to notify local law enforcement is absolutely critical and so no-fly, novi is taken care of in this field. it's a great bipartisan proposal. i applaud all of my colleagues who have taken what can only be a pretty terrifying in some ways first step into trying to achieve

bipartisan consensus on an issue that today is one of the most contentious issues before the united states senate. these are people who want to get things done and we look forward to working with all the rest of our colleagues in explaining this proposal and moving this concept forward , hopefully to a vote as soon as we respond to that, hopefully getting a vote but actually getting something done. passing along which to me is a critical first step in having a broader discussion. thank you. i now like to recognize senator ayotte, a former attorney general who helped draft the appeals process. >> my first of all, i want to thank senator collins, heitkamp, all my colleagues here who worked very hard on this proposal. i also want to thank senator nelson as well.

this is, we had the votes yesterday on the floor. we knew what the result was going to be. and this is an opportunity for us to instead of having a political vote that we know are going to fail, to stop the politics of this issue and what you see behind you is a bipartisan group of senators. this is a common sense, bipartisan proposal to ensure that terrorists cannot purchase firearms. no-fly, novi and this is one where it ensures that americans have the due process protections that they need to challenge the finding if they believe it is wrong and if it is wrong, then they can recover their costs and attorney fees. there's no doubt that we all share the goals with the horrific terrorist attack in orlando that we have to do all that we can to defeat isis and radical islamist terrorists but this attack

also did highlight the urgent need to address the terrorist loophole and we are doing that today by ensuring that we introduce this bipartisan legislation that we hope will get a vote on the senate floor and get past and getting beyond politics, working together to make sure that those who are on the no-fly list or the selectee list, that terrorists cannot have access to guns and that is why i'm proud to stand here with my colleagues and i call on our leadership to have a vote on this and i look forward to having this proposal on the senate floor and i hope that it will garner the support that it deserves so that we can get a result to the american people here and quit focusing on the politics, let's focus on getting an important result which ensures that terrorists cannot have access to guns while also protecting the due

process rights of american citizens which is important to all of us as well. thank you. >> senator heinrich worked so hard on this bill. he and i must have exchanged at least 30 phone calls and text messages over the weekend and i want to thank him forhis very hard work . >> i want to thank susan collins for having the guts to stick her neck out and reach out to heidi heitkamp and myself and her colleagues and all these fine senators and say it's time to start putting progress in front of politics. this is a straightforward proposal . i think we're all heartsick at the kind of terrible groundhog day feeling we've had as we've seen shooting after shooting in this country. and it's very comfortable for us to sit in our respective corners and vote for something that we know is

going to change things. it's a lot more difficult to engage with members of the opposite party and try to find what can actually move forward. all the senators that you see up here today want to find that path forward. that's what this amendment is about. it should not not be complicated if you are on the no-fly list, if you are on the selectee list, you really shouldn't be buying a gun. i say that as a gun owner myself . these people should not be able to buy a gun, and of story. they will have to process rights, absolutely. and the five-year look back is absolutely critical because if you look at the omar mateen case, it had the potential to intervene when that most matter. thisis a common sense proposal and i just want to thank all the senators standing up here for being willing to stick their neck south . >> thank you mark.

senator blake was a stalwart supporter from the very beginning and also made important contributions to the appeals process. >> thank you susan and you all of you here standing here. this has been a good process. what you see here is an effort not to have a vote that will simply allow each party to use a cudgel to be the other party with rather to have something that will actually pass and that's what this effort is with the premise that if it's too dangerous to allow you to board a flight than it ought to be too dangerous to allow you to purchase a weapon and that's what this is about and i appeal to our leadership on both sides to allow a vote because we believe that this boat will pass. >> thank you. senator kane has made it clear that he wants to see progress on this issue and i

am delighted that he has joined us. thank you thank you to susan and all my colleagues. i'm pleased to be with this proposal that would take the existing law that prohibits nine categories of individuals from weapons in offense category. those that explain that support for three reasons. first reason is this. i'm sick of the shootings. i'm sick of the vigils. i'm sick of the homicide victim support groups, i'm sick of the claims that we will do something about it. i'm sick of the partisan rhetoric and i'm really sick of getting to the end of it and not doing something about it and seen that happen again and again and again. we suffered badly in virginia at the virginia tech shooting, we bought something would happen and there's been on friday after the next and this body has been impotent, weak, silent and a bystander to this carnage of gun violence in the united states. that's really supported. the second reason i support is it's bipartisan.

there's going to be no meaningful gun safety report done in this body is not bipartisan. we got essentially a 60 vote votingthreshold in the senate. i wish it would be otherwise the best we've all . there's a republican house. if we are waiting around for the democratic version and i supported both democratic bills but if we are waiting around for the democratic version to through or the republican person to sail through, all those victims were waiting for us to do something will wait for days, months, years, forever and you won't get anything done. we got to make progress and to make progress we've got to do it in bipartisan fashion. i believe this and we had 109,000 names to that, prohibited list, it will enable me to continue to make my case for universal background project. once we that is 109,008 to the list, and we tell people that frankly, these folks can still buy weapons, theservice can still weapons if we don't have good background record check system , malnourishment

for making argument goes up. the shooter virginia tech was far from having a weapon and the guy and killed 32 people because of weaknesses in the background check record system. if this passes, we will have more leverage to deal with, thank you thank you very much . senator graham helped write the look back provision that is so important to this bill and that originated i believe with senator nelson so senator graham, thank you for your support. >> thank you. reason i'm supporting it makes sense to me. and i listen to what susan had to say, i listened and it sort of makes sense to me. i own an ar 15. if you are on this list it doesn't bother me one bit that you can't buy one right away. there are 2700 americans on this list combine. and we are at war and joey first mentioned today there was a senator from iowa on

this list and that his name somehow not on this list and he couldn't fly. he was able to work it out. that surprised me that because you get on this list is pretty challenging to get on this list. let's just assume for a moment that a mistake has been made.here's what i'm willing to say people of south carolina.we are at war and i don't know how to protect our nation without really changing the way we do business in a fashion that makes sense. likelihood of someone being on this list and buying a gun to use in a terrorist act to me is far greater then the likelihood of an intended person be on this list but here's the tiebreaker. we can fix the problem with this person once the guys bought, you don't fix that. so if you don't like this idea, please tell me where we went wrong. because the person who is on the list or the wrong reasons

, may have a way to fix the problem. the people on the wrist for the right reason, this is just one more tool in the toolbox to make sure they can't hurt us and as the gun violence and terrorism, if gun control could prevent an attack by radical islam asked terrorists against the nation , france would be in great shape. i don't want to oversell this. if you think we solve the terrorism problem by passing this, if we do, we have not. but we have taken a step in the right direction in an area that makes sense to me. to my friends at the nra. i understand your concern about denying somebody the right to buy a gun that the constitutional rights but every right whether speech or buying weapon or any other constitutional right as boundaries on . we are talking about 27, 26, 2000 people. were talking about process where we can write a wrong if

an innocent person finds themselves on the wrong side of government action but i am far more concerned that the people on this list that by a gun and kill as many people as they could with it if a bond. so that's where i come out. i hope we can pass this. let's put it this way. if we can't passes, it truly is abroken system . >> thank you very much. senator kane, you always bring the main comments and intelligence to every issue. >> i'll tell you one story from the intelligence community that's not classified. susan and i are both on the committee and one day she was making comments and center leaned over to me and said is there something in the water main that gives people common sense? i thought that was a great company for both of us . i viewed this as a national security issue straight up. i don't intelligence and

armed services committee and have seen the threat of international terrorism develop and more into a new form of threat to our country. it's terrorism 2.0 september 11 was a plot hatched abroad and executed by people that came from foreign countries. what we have been hearing in our committees and what we've been hearing as we talked to the national security people and intelligence people is that the next phase of the tax is exactly what happened in san bernardino and in orlando. people already here, radicalized online, often acting as lone wolves and attacking americans. that is the national security threat that we now face. our constitution gives us a balance of a number of values but the fundamental values of why we have a constitution or indeed a government are embodied in the preamble and

in the midst of the preamble, the united states constitution are the following words. we the people, that's what it says on my time, we the people have established a government in order to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. there are other purposes as well but that the purpose of any government and if we are not providing for the common defense and ensuring domestic tranquility, we are telling in our most solemn responsibility in this body and we are failing with full knowledge of a terrorist threat. right now, our brave men and women are bombing and doing everything they can to destroy ice his arms. and arms cash, if there's a truckload of articling across the desert, we take them out . what sense does it make that isis can mobilize people in this country and they can walkinto a store and buy a gun .

why are we making huge efforts and spending millions of dollars to take arms away from our enemies abroad and allowing them to buy them here in the country?now, i believe that this amendment is absolutely appropriate and i think everybody has said a key using the wordbipartisan. i prefer nonpartisan . but this is not, i don't think this is a minor step. this is a major step this is a major gap in our protection and providing for the common defense and ensuring domestic tranquility. there is a gap however that we also need to address in a future iteration and that is the fact that even after we pass this, if someone goes, if a terrorist goes to a gun show, there's no check at all so we've got to close that loophole. that's another discussion for another day but this is an

important step, i believe in action absolutely the right direction. i voted for einstein's amendment and it didn't get enough votes but we have to do is find a middle way that we can lead this country to protect ourselves from what is, i think a serious threat, continuing threat and it may even be, i hope not but maybe an increasing threat and i commend senator collins for sticking your neck out and for taking the, for trying to find a rational, middle ground and i think it's a solid amendment and it's very simple to read if you are on theno-fly list for the selectee list, you don't get gun . to me, good old common sense. >> thank you. of all of us here today there is no one who has experienced the pain felt by the families of lost loved ones in

terrorism more than our colleague in florida, senator bill nelson. i'm really pleased that he could be with us today. thank you. >> i always to the people of orlando to try to get something done. >> i would not only oh it's not only to those families, the 49 but i always to those families of people still in the hospital, some of which may not make it. i always to those law-enforcement officers that stormed that nightclub and one of which i met as a star one inch long on his forehand that is kevlar helmets stopped that bullet.

and i know it's to those surgeons in the trauma center and of course you see the blood issues of one of those surgeons. i only two people who have come up to me as i have been on south orange avenue in the heat of summer and had just been in goal in tears as they harmed. >> bill nelson of florida at his support to this bipartisan measure released here by senators and by senator collins of maine that would prevent people who are on the no-fly list from purchasing firearms the measure coming day after two

democratic amendments and two republican amendments failed to forward in the u.s. senate. mitch mcconnell meeting with reporters during the party lunches saying that he is quote, working to make sure citizen collins will get a vote on her compromised gun-control amendment from alex bolton at the hill.we expect to hear more on that. we certainly will hear more debate coming up on the senate floor as they return on their party lunches and continued debate on the 2017 commerce justice and science spending bill. no votes are expected this afternoon. we take you live now to the senate floor here on c-span two. 120, h.r. 2578, an act making appropriations for the departments of commerce and justice, science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: is not senator from utah -- the senator from utah, the president pro tempore. mr. hatch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent toy be permitteo