[inaudible] >> across the capital senators address pending legislation than the protest occurring in the house. we'll hear from north carolina senator tom tillis, maine senators angus king and susan collins, amongst others. this others. this is just over 30 minutes. >> before i get started on what i really want to get talk about today which is the real threat facing our nation, want to reflect for a few minutes moments on the antics and theater that is going on in the house. mr. president, you and i were both speakers of the house and your great state of florida my great state of north carolina and i do not know about you, but the business of the house is more important than the antics that we see going on there and if it were my chamber he would be cleared and people would be arrested if that's what is necessary to get us back to the

task at hand. we have a number of things that we need to work on here. economic security, national security, homeland security, and while people would use the pulpit or the house floor or the house chamber to advance their political agenda, to advance their fundraiser, go to their political website and see how many of them is sent out an e-mail over the past couple of days or week exploiting a tragic situation in orlando for their political purposes. i think it is disgusting and i'm disappointed. i think think what we need to do is recognize, and i should say before we get started recognize that there are issues with handguns going into the hands of people who are mentally. no doubt about it. we it. we should have an open discussion to figure out how to fix that. we had just heard reported in german, some two dozen souls have lost their life and amass a shooting in the theater in germany. germany has some of the most stringent gun was in europe. it is very difficult to get a gun there, yet either

through terrorism or mental health, we see another tragic outcome in germany. let's continue to have a debate about how we keep the guns out of the hands of terrorists, out of balance, out of people with mental health, but recognize real threat to this nation is terror. and terrorism, and make no mistake about it, in about it, in orlando, on june 12, that was an act of terror. the perpetrator is either self radicalized or maybe was radicalized through some contact with terrorist organizations, but it is a death call that wants to destroy our way of life. it is actually a death call that particularly focuses on the lgbt community. they are murdering thousands of people in the middle east. many of them simply because they are gay. so we have to recognize that make no mistake while this attack occurred in orlando, it could happen anywhere in the united states. why is that so? the distinguished element from delaware delaware talked about progress we're making with isis. he says were having fewer foreign fighters, you know why? isis has figure out how to

radicalized people in the nations they live. we have seen it, and san san bernadino, in orlando, we've seen it at fort hood. how long do we have to take before we recognize that the fundamental threat to this nation is terror and isis spreading its tentacles into our own homeland. >> mr. president process a unanimous consent to meta-bennett intern in my office be granted the privileges on the floor just for today. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> mr. president, i first want to begin by reading the notes i got this morning from 7:00 o'clock. i think it speaks to the issues that we are discussing today in this body and frankly we should be discussing any other body. >> . . planning and development corporation annual meeting in sanford. that's a town in southern maine.

from the time i walked in the door through dinner and even walking back to my car, every single person i spoke with either wanted me to convey their thanks to senator king for his stand on -- quote -- doing something on gun control to asking me that he stand firm and do more. people who own guns and said so and those who don't. every single person expressed dismay that congress has not acted onstringent be given a vo. many wanted to know when the vote would b >> many wanted to know when the vote would be taken in the senate. people in maine, including responsible gunowners want more background checks and limitations on those who raise red flags. they want common-sense legislation. i was surprised at the focus on

this issue end quote. mr. president, we will have before us, i hope sometime today, an amendment which i consider a national security issue. since being in this body, i have been privileged to serve on the armed services and intelligence committee and have studied, worked on, listened to hearing after hearing on the terrorism threat to this country. something important has happened with regard to that threat over the last three or four years. we have moved into a new era of threats different from the threats we faced in 2011. in 2011, that plot was hatched

overseas and ignored foreigners who got to our shores and attacked our country. now we are facing attacks from people already here tat are radicalized online and isis tells them go out and do harm to americans. the difference now is the threat is here and not broad although it may be inspired, and in some cases directed from abroad. i call this terrorism 2.0. it raises a new national security issue for us and that is how do these terrorist obtain arms? isis in syria or iraq, if we are aware of an arm shipment or a cash of arms somewhere in the

territory we take it out. we send our fighter planes. we send any resources we have to keep them from getting those arms. that if an isis-inspired terrorist in the united states wants to obtain arms all they have to do is go to a gun store and buy them. we spend so much keeping weapons away from terrorist broad but nothing into the united states. that is why i am supporting this bill, led by susan collins of maine, a common-sense piece of legislation that will simply add to the list of those items when prohibit people from getting guns if you are on the no-fly list or the selective list and

are those that require additional stronging at the airport. this is -- screening -- as simple as it gets. to vote for this it is saying it is okay for the people on the no-fly list to get a gun. i cannot understand any argument that would justify that. the position senator collins developed with both sides of the aisle has due process protections for someone who may be on the list through a mistake or improperly. they have the opportunity to say i should not be on the list and they have an opportunity to make that case in a very limited period of time and to have their chance of obtaining full due process to protect their constitutional right. so this is a well-balanced, thoughtful, proposal. it is not taking anybody's guns.

it is not a ban on any kind of weapon. it simply says no guns for terrorists. it seems to me that is a basic colin sense amendment and i frankly can't understand why it has become so difficult to move it forward. we had a filibuster here last week. as a result of the filibuster, we ended up having several votes on this issue earlier this week and i hope and believe we will have one more today or early next week on the collins amendment. in the house of representatives however there is no note whatsoever. to the point where members had to take over the floor and say we are thought leaving until we get a vote. i guess i would call it the house version of a filibuster. i think it is important to emphasize those people in the

house are not saying we will stay here until we pass legislation. they are saying let's have a vote. that is our job here. if you ask any six grader what do senators and representatives do they will say they vote on things. that is wie why we are here. for the majority in the house to adjourn for a vacation for ten days without allowing debate on this issue i find inexplicable. my suspicion is many will get home and their constituents are to to say what gives? this thing about terrorists seems to make sense and why

didn't you get something done on this? i hope and believe that is what will happen. but to force the members of the house to take this extraordinary step which i understand only happened one or two other times in history. in order to get a vote on an issue that is top of the line concern to the people of the united states again it just doesn't make sense. it is one of the reasons we wonder why congress is held in so low esteem and it is because we are not doing our job.

hopefully we will get to the floor to have a vote. in the house they are not even allowing that to happen. i sense a significant change in terms of people's view on this issue. there was a poll showing 85-90 percent of the american people believe we should keep the guns out of the hands of the terrorist. no fly no buy. the highest people agreeing with that proposition was republicans. 90% of republicans responded to the cnn poll that terrorist

should be kept from getting guns and that is what this amendment we are considering is all about. it seems like this is a case where congress has an opportunity to do what it is that we are supposed to do, not to avoid, not to sweep under the rug, but to act. i cannot presusuppose the out come. i believe and hope the outcome is positive and we will take action on this common-sense amendment senator collins has developed but at least let's act. i hope the other body does the same thing. to have adjourned for the recess prematurely because they didn't want to discuss or confront this issue brings discredit on this entire institution and greatly to be regretted. gl i come from a state that

believes in the second amendment. i have insisted anything that limits people's ability to get guns they need to have due process and i believe that process should be there. it is there. the supreme court has affirmed over and over, even justice scalia, confirmed this is appropriate under the second amendment. i commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. that will persuade them to consider, discuss, debate and then vote on this issue that is

a vital concern to the american people. thank you, mr. president, i yield the floor and subject the absence of a quorem. >> where ri >> the amendment is pending. >> thank you, mr. president. >> mr. president, this amendment is unusual when we are debating the issues like terrorist watch lists and the appropriate restrictions that are needed desperately needed to insure that people who are suspected or known terrorists are not able to purchase fierrearmfirearms. how is it unusual? it is bipartisan, president. certainly on an issue of this

importance we should be able to come together and work for common-sense solutions. this bipartisan amendment is co-sponsored by senator heitkamp, ayote, graham, king, kirk, nelson, mansion, and baldwin. i want to sincerely thank each of the co-sponsors for their many contributions to our amendments and for their support in crafting what is a common sense proposal. our amendment has three basic provizs. first, it would block the purchase of firearms by individuals who are on the no-fly list -- provisions -- or on the selectee list.

essentially, mr. president, the premise of our amendment is that if you have been designated as too dangerous to fly on an airplane or you have been designated as someone who needs extra screening before you are allowed to board a plane you should not be able to buy a gun. second, our amendment would provide an immediate alert to the fbi and to local law enforcement if an individual who has been on the government's terrorist watch list at any time during the past five years purchases a firearm. the orlando shooting provides perhaps the clearest example of why this provision is so

important. the gunman was on the selectee list for ten months but then off the list when he purchased the two guns used to kill 50 people and injured scores more. if your amendment were enacted, the fbi would have been notified immediately when he purchased the first firearm in the weeks leading up to the shooting. and then the fbi would have been notified a second time that the former terrorism suspect who had watched videos of anwar-alawaki was seeking to purchase firearms in a short period of time. surely that would have caused e fbi to reopen their investigation of omar mateen.

and perhaps, mr. president, if our proposal had been in effect perhaps that massacre would have been prevented. third, our amendment provides robust due process procedures to protect the second amendment rights of law-abiding americans. any american denied a purchase under this amendment would are have the opportunity to have their case heard before a federal district judge. the government would have the burden of proof in order to deny the sale and we would have to present its case within a short, but reasonable, period of time. if the government fails to make its case, if it turns out to be a terrible error they would have to pay attorney fee for the person who was denied the

purchase and the purchase of the firearm, of course, could go forward. there rumendments to make sure the applicant can have council present to make sure the government cannot take away a fundamental right without a legal advocate to protect their due process right. critics of our amendment have mistakingly claim this bill denies americans the right to keep and bear arms based merely on suspicion or a hunch. that is simply not true. we are not using the terrorist screening database which has one point one million people on it. we are using the carefully

defined, no fly and selectee list because those are the most carefully constructed subsets of all of the government's terrorist watch list. these two lists include the names of individuals who pose the greatest threat of committing an act of terrorism against aviation, against the homeland, against the u.s.' interests overseas. there are in fact only 109,000 individuals on this list of which only 27,000 are americans. mr. president -- >> the time for the majority has expired. the senator from virginia. >> mr. president, if i could rise to compliment my colleague and others for their leadership on this issue. i just want to point out something about the institution

and what we are about to do. monday night we had competing proposals from both parties to deal with this challenging issue of no guns for terrorist. not surprisingly the majority party wouldn't support the minority and vice versa and there wasn't enough votes to go forward. now there is a bipartisan version on the floor, where both parties worked together to do something common sense to stop the gun carnage. i am curious why one side wants to fight the bipartisan deal by putting up the motion for the table. that is what this s. it is important to point out when a bipartisan proposal is on the floor, when the sides are reaching together to do something good for our citizens, one side is trying to kill the were proposal and one side is

supporting it. >> senator from maryland. >> i rise to support the bipartisan compromise agreement drafted by the senator from maine, senator collins. i say it is a good first step and it a significant step forward in gun control and violence control. i can assure you when we want to control violence, this in no way will impinge against second amendment rights. we do want to curb violence in our country which is epidemic levels. i want to compliment senator collins and the people who jumped in to help work with her to fashion a compromise. she is known to come up with the best ideas to find common ground. we are doing something more than

finding common ground. we are trying to find higher ground and get against the muck that goes on in this institution where we inhibit a clear vote. and today with serious decisions taking place we are creating a procedure where nobody knows are you voting yes or know on collins? are you voting yes or no on johnson? the american people are fed up. i am fed up but i admire what the gentlelady did because her amendment puts us in the right direction. why should a person be able to buy a gun and kill people when they are on the no-fly list. if you are not allowed to fly

because there is fear you would blow up an airplane shouldn't there be fear if you are on a list they are worried about you blowing up an airplane that you will buy a gun and blow people out of wherever they are? my gosh. when are we going to man up in this institution? when are we going to do that. i am a champion of woman's right but don't we have the backbone to actually have straightforward debate? there is an amendment before us that has content. there is different views. i am saying i support the gentlelady what she is doing. the fbi would be notified by a person on the terrorist list any time in the last fives years to try to purchase a firearm. the collins amendment had been law we would have alerted the fbi that the orlando shooter wanted to by a gun and the

second amendment would be protected but most of all those people in that nightclub would be protected. when we take the oath it is to defend the constitution but it is always to defend the american people against all enemies, foreign and domestic. we meet the enemy and it is us. we won't act. we have to act. the effort offered by the gentlelady from maine is based on principle, it is what the people want. it has rigor and meets the constitutional test. i hope we support it and i hope we start giving up votes up and down and not hiding behind the fog of parliamentary procedure. i yield. >> mr. president? >> senator from north dakota. >> i would like to yield to the junior senator from arizona who

has been instrumental in this proposal. >> without objection. >> i want to thank all of those in this bipartisan coalition that came together and said let's put something on the floor that can be passed. not something that we use to beat the other party with. let's do something designed to work. this bipartisan proposal is all about that. it has been described what it does, and how it protects the due process provisions there. let me simply say i group in rural arizona. that is where my heart still is. i am a gun owner and always will be. i take my second amendment rights seriously. this amendment, the bipartisan amendment, is consistent with those rights. it also will have an impact. if somebody is dangerous enough

that we prohibit them from flying on a plane they should not be able to purchase a firearm. that is the bottom line. that is what the bipartisan amendment will actually solve. so i would encourage my colleagues to support it. if we don't, we will be back here. believe me. this issue will not go away. we will sigh why didn't we give the fbi notice that someone purchased a firearm. i appreciate the work that has been done on this and the hard work going into the bipartisan amendment. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. >> the gentlemen from maine.

>> this is a national security measure. it is a national security measure. it is about protecting the country. the constitution which establishes the reason this country was founded and the reason the constitution was passed says the most solemn obligation we have is to insure domestic tranquility and provide for defense. that is keeping people safe. that is whauft this amendment is about. -- what this. sure it touches on guns but it is really about keeping the guns out of the hands of terrorist. it is straight forward, simple and easy to understand. there should be no controversy about this. it has due process built in. it has a provision built in that might have prevented the tragedy that occurred in orlando. many of our colleagues talk about being at war and in confli conflict. we in conflict. people want to do us harm and why we would want to facilitate

them with guns makes so sense. this amendment should go through this body and the other body in the next few days or we are failing our responsibility to the american people. i yield the floor. >> the senator from new mexico. >> i want to thank my colleagues especially heidi heitkamp and jeff flake and senator collins and everyone who worked hard to come out of the partisan chambers and do something. this isn't going to be a comfortable vote but it should be. it is the most non-partisan, straightforward, commonsense amendment i have seen in many years around here. it says if you are so dangerous

we cannot let you on an airplane then maybe you shouldn't be able to buy a gun no questions asked. i spent more time with firearms than most of the folks in this chamber. i have no reservations about this amendment. it will keep terrorist from buying firearms in this country. maybe it is too common sense for this body. >> thong. we have an amazing group of senators who have come together in a very bipartisan way to simply say that there is an opportunity to balance the important right that is presented in the second amendment and protect the security of the people in our country.

the vast majority of gun owners in this country would gladly give up those extra 14 days for safety and security of the american people. when you look at the balance and the second amendment to many people in my state is a critical and important individual right that has been recognized by the supreme court. we need to appreciate that is a right just as sacred as a fourth amendment right, a fif th th amendment right, a first ami amendment right. we are achieving a balance saying if you are too dangerous maybe we ought to take a second look. think about the process we have established. in a mere 14 days, direct access to a court. direct access and opportunity to secure your right. asking people just to delay for

an extra 14 days and as our collying colleague from south carolina said once the gun is in your hands there is nothing you can do about it. you cannot get it back from the hands of a terrorist. but you can always secure a second amind -- amendment right to an appropriate due process. we struck that balance. we worked hard to come up with a proposal that can achieve bipartisan support. i would ask everyone in the body to take a second look, think about the balance, and talk to the vast majority of gun owners in your state who would say we agree with this proposal. we agree with no fly no buy. let's protect the american people, the second amendment and do what we are supposeded to do here which is achieve a balance that protects the american people as well as our

constitutional liberties. i yield the floor. >> mr. president, how much time do we have? >> senator from maryland one minute. >> would the gentle lady from maine like one more minute? >> i yield such time. >> without objection. >> mr. president, this amendment is a commonsense approach to helping to make america safer. i think it is highly significant that we have just received a letter that is signed by a group of generals and admirals who have been on the frontlines --

front lines of fighting terror. people like petraeus are supporting this. let us not miss this opportunity to make a difference to get something done. let us listen to the heartbroken families in orlando, in san bernardino, in other terrorist attacks. this is commonsense. it does not infringe upon the second amendment rights of americans. all it says is if you are too dangerous to board an airplane you are too dangerous to buy a gun. i urge my colleagues to support our amendment. thank you, mr. president. >> i am pleased that the senate as a body has come to this conclusion.

television in the senate will undoubtly provide citizens with greater access and exposure to the access of this body. this access will help all americans to be better informed of the problems and the issues which face this nation on a day by day bases. >> during the election, i had the occasion of meeting a woman who had supported me in my campaign. she decided to come shake my hands and take a photograph. a wonderful woman. she wasn't asking for anything. i was very grateful she took the time to come by. it was an exceptional moment except she was born in 1894. her name was magerate lewis. an african-american woman who was born in louisiana, born in the shadow of slavery, born at a

time when lynchings were common place, born at a time when african-americans and women could not vote. it 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 the so-called stimulus package. we are talking about real, borr borrowed money. >> 30 years of coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span2. >> washington journal is live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. david hawkings will discuss the si sit-in on the house floor. and the reuters lawyer talks

about the supreme court decision made on immigration today. supreme court and immigration policy. pete williams says the ruling deals a blow to a white house that used executive measures to push forward immigration reform in the wake of congressional inaction and to obamacare who has sought to rewrite a legacy that are some in latino circles calling him the deporter in chief. president obama responded to the 4-4 decision in a news conference earlier today. let's watch. >> they are strong in their opinions earlier and -- [multiple conversations]