freightous.: sen. cantwell: ok, i know that you have a super truck program, so how do you think that some of these tools will help the transportation center on deliveries? seenmonje: i think we have exciting technology. mr. davis: i think that mr. monje described a couple, to be what about technology and trucks that enables us to understand how they are being driven and able to provide feedback to the driver about how he or she could drive more efficiently. we have seen the supplemented in some large firms already and they think it is pretty impressive and they see those improvements in full efficiency. -- fuel efficiency. and we see technologies that allow us to cost-effectively identify the location and conditions of valued freight, so

we know where it is and the conditions it is being subjected to. and then to be able to use a time this technologies, to be a do it and if i containers coming in on a ship, where trucks are located, to be able to synchronize the way they are offloaded to take advantage of the trucks or the traffic conditions, to move the material effectively. so we are seeing interesting early stage technologies, the challenge is how we make that more and more common across all of the applications to move to scale. sen. cantwell: i think we learned in airtight -- air transportation, that there is a cell lot. there has been an increase in freight traffic and we want the u.s. to make things, sell things, move them, but the congestion level of the ports is so great, so a strategy that could more easily ease the traffic in there and move it any

more systematic way would be huge savings and it would help us with our competitive miss - competitiveness in manufacturing. thank you. sen. booker: thank you. things leads to the internet of threats, because obviously every device that has the internet built into it is subject to hacking. >> that is the bottom line. you have to deal with the tale of two technologies, the best of technologies, the worst of technologies, simultaneously. if you do not deal with the threats, then all you are doing is ignoring the inevitable problems that will be created. aretoday new powers -- computers on wheels. that is what they have become. in 2013 and last year senator

blumenthal and i asked 20 lawmakers -- 20 automakers what they are doing to protect computers on wheels and here is what we learned. thieves no longer need a crowbar to break into a car, maybe just in iphone. last year we witnessed how easily cars can be act, we watched-- hacked, we them remotely to take control of breaks of a jeep cherokee. chrysler had to recall 1.4 million vehicles to fix of this security problem. but in this new internet of things era, cyber security cannot be an afterthought, rather than addressing separate security problems after a hack has occurred, we need to ensure robust seven security protections are built in to these technologies from the beginning. and that means we need enforceable rules of the road to protect driver privacy and security.

that is why i introduced legislation which senator blumenthal -- with senator blumenthal, the spy car act, that directs the highway traffic safety demonstration and the federal trade commission to establish federal standards to secure our cars and protect our drivers. ,o, for all of the panelists please answer yes or no. do you believe that cars should have mandatory cyber security standards, including hacking protections that protect all access points in the car, data security measures that prevent unwanted access for collected information, and hacking litigation technologies that can attemptst can report in real-time? mr. edelstein: definitely yes. mr. davis: definitely yes. the one thing i would add, i think it is important to define

what we need to accomplish to address the things you described, but also to allow technology to evolve quickly. evolves but it is still not installed, we should mandate it is installed. mr. davis: we should define requirements to make your that things are secure. mr. kass: we need the appropriate controls, but i agree we need to do it any very balanced way that does not kill innovation, innovation is like a waccamaw, it will pop up someplace else, so we need a way of ensuring to mention that there are controls in place, it is not setting innovation, but rather helping it. >> but having it over the years, people can get away with out protections against privacy, it saves money. whack a bad person.

mr. kass: it is innovation. somebody is going to innovate and it needs to be us. >> at the same time, we then have to tell people who do not want to install the safety protections that they have to do it. mr. kass: fair enough. >> thank you. that is all i am saying. ms. reynolds? ms. reynolds: certainly, yes. there is a role for smart and for structure as well, one of the few benefits of having started are connected signal in the 1980's, it is virtually on high couple, there will be a role for every structure to prevent just -- not just the hacking, but those software technologies that are out there. , thank you so much. , but we want good the technology to evolve a little bit more. so we will use those seatbelts

and hacking protections in the spirit -- protections. hon. monje: seven security will be a continuous challenge for the rest of the century. and on behalf of safety, certainly from the manufacturers , and we are doing everything we can. we have established standards and a system for the technology to ensure that the information can be shared safely, we will continue to work with the industry, and experts to make sure that we continue to fight this threat. dr. edelstein, do you believe that we should make on is explicitly aware of collection transmissions, retention and use of driving data and provide owners the right to say no to data collection and retention without losing access to key navigation and other features? mr. edelstein: yes. mr. davis: yes.

mr. kass: yes and generally speaking, with all the information that will be available the concept of opting out is important. >> thank you. ms. reynolds: yes. hon. monje: it is very important to only collect information you need and make sure that consumers know what you are sharing. >> thank you. that is a great balance. like any other technology, there is good and bad and we need to make sure that we build in protections at the same time that we build the opportunities, and if we do that i think that are responsibly as policymakers will be the build. thank you chairwoman and senators. sen. fischer: thinking. dr. edelstein, in your written testimony you discussed several innovative transportation projects that you are currently working on, for example you mentioned that employees monitor the brooklyn bridge for

temperature, what is the impact of real-time data monitoring on our nations critical transportation and for structure assets -- infrastructure assets, especially as it relates to public spending on minas? -- maintenance? mr. edelstein: we are not monitoring the brooklyn bridge, that is a case example that other people are doing. controly vision for the centers of the future, i really think getting into moving people and cargo more efficiently, but also access management in real-time. -- assets management in real-time. we can monitor bridges, smart regardgs, or is -- with to energy systems. we can put sensors on water systems to see if there are any leaks. what we are looking at is a control center, again it could be a virtual control center, it

does not need to be one massive building. the control center would monitor all of the assets that the agencies own, operate and maintain. and i think by doing that you will get more efficiency and i feel like it will dovetail very nicely with the smart city concept. i think there are platforms that they will be using allow everything's -- everything to be interconnected, but there needs to be a control center that monitors all of these in real-time. to gain more efficiency of the system. sen. fischer: and as you have a control center that is monitoring, i would assume in a more timely and more accurate manner, how do you see that affecting safety in the future and also looking at the reliability of the infrastructure, using the example of the vertebrate -- of the brooklyn bridge? mr. edelstein: with regard to

safety, there was an incident with i-35 in minnesota. hopefully by having the sensors on the bridge we could be more proactive in detecting if there is something wrong the bridge ahead of time, so we can make corrections before you have a catastrophe, something like that. reliability and other forms of safety, the management centers are already doing that. they are able to detect a lane closure or an accident a lot faster than the way it used to do it without the technology to the systems. for example, we have been working on a project in miami for the last 10 years, operating their control center. when we first got it, it's about 50 minutes for a server -- it took about 15 minutes for a sensor to see a lane blockage, now it is about half that time.

it translates to safety benefits and time reliability. in terms of safety benefits, for every minute that we save in a lane blocking event and clearing it that much faster, translates to about 3% of a probability of a second accident happening. so if you take a 15 minute lane blocking event, taking a lane blocking event and you can clear it 15 minutes after coming were talking about increasing or improving the improbability that you will not have a secondary action by about 40%. in terms of liability, for every minute you save translates to four minutes of saving. so you have a 15 minute clearance improvement and that translates to about an hour back of delay that you are saving. i think it all ties together with the management traffic and safety. sen. fischer: do you see cities and states and also private

businesses stepping forward and willing to embrace these new technologies? is there enthusiasm on their part or is it balanced with i guess reality and looking at the cost? mr. edelstein: it is the latter, there is definitely enthusiasm, no doubt. but any city struggling, just ngin day-to-day bills -- payiu day-to-day bills, they need to deal with potholed and infrastructure improvements that could increase capacity in some of the roadway systems, said technology is nice and they are looking at that as a long-term solution, but balancing the firefighting issues that they deal with on a day-to-day basis and the budget and the evolution of technology as it comes, it is tricky. i would have to say that most

cities and states are very enthusiastic about technology innovations. but again, it is so much money to go around. sen. fischer: thinking. senator booker. sen. booker: -- asked is she could go next. sen. fischer: senator. >> i am the ranking member on this bill that we passed last year on sex trafficking. i want to thank all of you for coming out, but i want to take ass, with his 22 years of experience in freight logistics. as you may know, the is robinson robinsoned -- c.h. has evolved into a major provider for logistics, the largest network of carrier capacity in north america with gross revenues of $13.5 billion in 2015 and one of 17 fortune

500 companies in my state, so we are proud of the work they do and what they can bring to the discussion. mr. kass, can you talk about how you leverage the internet of things at your coming to increase the efficiency of multimodal shipments? mr. kass: sure. when you think about our company, it's focus is on developing technology platforms and services that connect automated and optimized supply chains. what the internet of things have done is allow us to create algorithms that quickly and easily select the most optimal mode of transportation. many shippers today cannot respond in the time, they do not have resources, maybe not the expertise to look at the freight network and what it looks like in real-time. and frankly ship from a truck

loaded to a multimodal shipments, which poses significant in damages. multimodal will reduce carbon footprints, it will lower the overall cost and it will take capacity off of the road and put it into a safer environment. >> very good, thank you very much. one of the things we have learned in our state, which i guess we share with all three members, nor asked new jersey, wisconsin --new jersey, wisconsin -- you know that if we have snow, the trains cannot go. another the department of transportation applied for a grant through the advanced -- management technologies deployment program, quite a mouthful. that is used to prove -- to improve the effectiveness of snowplows. it is no small thing and our

state, we're proud of how quickly we are the roads that clear the roads, but -- cleasr there is the technology -- the roads but analogy can always make it better. in washington dc -- how will the new communications opportunities improve public safety and the delivery of government services with things like snowplowing? lookdelstein: well, if you -- let's talk about the end-user, the end-user wants their street snow piled within a certain timeframe. they want to know when the street will be plowed. by having the internet of things, this can provide communication between the individual and the agency responsible for the plowing, so you open up communications. also, you are opening up the potential to optimize where you have snowplows, with roads deserve the highest priority and

you can monitor it in real time, so you do not do multiple runs of a street because the snow is coming down, you have potential to use the fact that a to optimize the snowplows, assuming they have automated vehicle location devices. or sensors. >> that is a great example. i really am stunned by how long it takes. my daughter went from public schools in minnesota where she had no snow days for several years, then when she got to the arlington public schools, she had two weeks off in her first year. so, i do think that there needs to be a better way to do that and i understand that there could be more snow affected by it. my last question along the same lines, the need to have vastband installation and broadband to make this work. one thing we have now would actually require the focus to be -- when you have highway

project that you want to put the internet in at the same time to make it more efficient and obviously many people on this committee are working on expanding access to broadband in rural areas. any comments about the need to have wi-fi to make all this work? mr. edelstein: it is outside my expertise. >> can you assume that we need wi-fi? mr. edelstein: yes. >> ok, thank you. want to finish up on the questioning i was doing before, the other countries and what they are doing that is better than the united states, what we should be learning so that we can become the global x or -- local expert on planet earth. didn't know if you want to add some more. >> one example, great technology enabler for the internet of things will be wireless

researcher. mr. davis: we see a number of countries moving very quickly there, testbeds, creating opportunity to do trials. we will see it not only in fixed infrastructure that needs to go back to the cloud, but mobile and researcher, what we see in germany, they are running trials on the autobahn to learn how to maintain high data rate connectivity when a car is moving very fast down the freeway. we see around the winter olympics and the summer olympics coming up in the future in south korea and japan, by doing early pilot testbeds, the more we can do to foster those -- sen. booker: where we not doing that here? with 5g there are so many innovations, you have a more predictable market for innovation and patents in europe that you would not necessarily do here, is that the reason? mr. davis: it is about creating

opportunities, use the big event like the olympics, that is the focal point for that country to say, let's put a lot of resources into it. sen. booker: so maybe we are not creating sandboxes where people can -- mr. davis: we want to look for more opportunities where we can say, let's go all in and create a solution to really kind of force the technology to get deployed, let's understand where we need to do more optimization, looking for those opportunities. sen. booker: thank you. and jordan, first of all, i want to echo because you put in your comments something i feel very strongly about, we have a ridiculously bad tax environment to incentivize companies here and i see it in biotech with a lot of new jersey firms in ready nowbecause -- inverting because of the bad obama, so please do not think i have not gone to that point -- inverting

now because of the bad environment, so please do not think i've not gone to that point. so what are other places doing? mr. kass: thank you for reading my mind my that was going to be how i answer the question. secondary -- second, when i look at our global base of allen and the diversity of it, there is something that has happened where we are not developing massive technologies the way that other countries are. i think that is core to engineering and i think it is core to where the internet of things is going. do not get me wrong, we have talent, but we -- if we are not developing at this need and -- speed and pace the other countries are -- sen. booker: we are out of the top 10, other countries are realizing that this new technology will necessitate having -- and america is falling

behind. mr. kass: and there is a bias to it. we need to figure that out as well. sen. booker: dr. edelstein, anything to add, especially about the port efficiencies and technology i have talked about, in the northeast people are choosing canadian ports because they are more efficient than ours are. are there any other countries are doing something with freight logistics that we could be learning from here and catching up on? mr. edelstein: other countries, freight, um. sen. booker: let me try to get in my last question. if you have a government dollar, if we were investing, where would you focus the government dollar on to get the biggest return? mr. davis: creating partnerships to really move technology ford, from -- forward, from the

private sector and academia. mr. kass: infrastructure. sen. booker: be more specific. mr. kass: specifically the road infrastructure. if i painted a picture of the united date -- state and i showed you traffic flow around the united states you would see were those arteries are unbelievably constricted, in major cities. and there is a kind of urbanization that clear. there were 10 megacities over 10 million in population and now there are 23. people are moving into cities because they need access to products and that trend is clear, and if we do not fix the and researcher, what we do with the internet of things, it will expose the fact that we cannot move goods properly. sen. booker: i really like you, mr. kass. [laughter] thank you.

>> thank you very much. thank you for your help and your service. i will ask one quick question. positive train control, what can we do to achieve it more quickly and implement it around the country? >> i will start. thank you, senator. we have been pushing positive train control and they give your leadership on this issue, i think that we are very excited that we have $199 million to spend, thanks to the act to help commuter rails get on board. still significant challenges across the rail industry to implementing this, including equipment issues. we are doing everything we can, working with the fcc, working with class ones, doing everything we can to hold their feet to the fire and to make sure that we get this technology deployed quickly and safely.

we know that the technology would have prevented the crash in front of -- in philadelphia. and the opportunities for safety are substantial and we are dedicated to this technology. >> any other thoughts? how about sensors at railroad crossings? real safetyactical, measures -- rail safety measures that will save lives. mr. edelstein: it is an idea, but it takes about a good model for a train to slow down to get to the point at that railroad crossing, where that person i might be in the crossing would avoid getting hit. i live in florida, we just had an incident like that last week, a family of four was at the railroad crossing, three of them got out but one of them got hit by the train.

communications needs to be with the driver of the train to bring it back to the control center, it would not give you enough time to react. in urban areas where you have about 3-4rossings, per mile, it becomes a tricky situation. with the internet of things this could be managed more efficiently than the way we are used to doing it. i think there is a lot of upside potential in addressing these issues with railroad crossings. senator: thank you, all. [indiscernible] sen. fischer: thank you for being here today. -- in two weeks. upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to cement written answers the committee -- to submit written answers to the committee as soon as possible. with that the meeting is adjourned.

[chatter]

>> south carolina republican commerce men talks about the benghazi committee. they held a news conference to talk about their final report. you can see that tonight on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. the heart-five 2016 primary season is over with historic conventions to follow this summer. >> florida, ohio, texas. nominationsider the thet the first woman, and first non-politician and the first non-politician in several decades. live onve on c-span, that c-span radio app, or at the website www.c-span.org. you have a front row seat to both conventions on c-span, all

beginning monday, july 18. host: our first guest of the morning is elizabeth wydra of the constitutional accountability center. she served as the president. good morning. guest: good morning. host: can you tell us about the center? what do you do? guest: cac is a nonprofit public interest law firm and think tank and action center that is dedicated to showing that the constitution promotes progressive values and outcomes. we use the text and history of the constitution to argue for greater quality, greater inclusion, stronger democracy, criminal justice, environmental reforms all across the board. we look at the text and history of the constitution and use that methodology to serve progressive outcomes. host: so the constitution in your view does show that there are progressive things that can come out of it, especially written so long ago? guest: absolutely. we look at the whole constitution. we do not stop at the 18th

century and we look at the amendments that we the people have added over time, particularly the reconstruction amendments. the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that remove the stain of slavery from 18th-century documents and wrote the quality -- equality and justice and liberty that we espoused in the declaration of independence directly into the text of the constitution. we look at the constitution and take it very seriously. in many ways, it allows us to find common cause across the ideological spectrum. we are progressive, but we are a nonpartisan organization. we like to find common cause with libertarians and even conservatives, we filed briefs in some cases with the supreme , court we have been able to do that. host: in your point of view, what did you make of the decision concerning the texas abortion law? guest: my organization filed a brief in that case and we , brought together the jurisprudence of justice kennedy, linking his marriage equality ruling, talking about the importance of being able to

live the liberty in the marriage context, but here in the context of determining whether or not to have a child. we married that, no pun intended, to justice ginsburg's jurisprudence on abortion rights itself, which she roots not just in the due process clause, but the idea of equal citizenship in the 14th amendment, and the idea that you cannot be a full and equal citizen unless you as a woman are able to determine whether or not you can bear a child. far as the arguments on the other side, they brought up state's rights. you may have to explain what that is and you have to think about that argument of whether this is a states rights issue. guest: the casey decision reaffirmed roe. its said that there is this constitutional right to have an abortion, but it said that states could regulate abortion

to a certain extent at different times of the pregnancy, etc., but there cannot be an undue burden. that is the language that they used -- an undue burden placed on the woman's constitutional right to have an abortion. what we have been doing ever since then is litigating with state regulations to constitute an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. the texas rule struck down yesterday were considered to be an unconstitutional undue burden. host: if you want to talk to our guest about these issues stemming from the supreme court yesterday, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and for independents, (202) 748-8002. elizabeth wydra our guest is a , supervising attorney and teaching fellow at georgetown university and a lawyer for a local law firm here. she is here to talk about the decisions made in the case she , also served as the chief counsel and from the supreme court if i understand it. guest: yes, for the

constitutional accountability center. host: when it comes to the undue burden, make the argument that having doctors with practices at other hospitals and conditions of the centers themselves -- why is that unreasonable? why is that undue burden? guest: the court looks at the effects of those regulations, which would have closed down nearly all of the clinics that provide abortion services in texas. i think they might've been perhaps a little less than 10 that would've remained open. texas is a very large state. you would've had women who have had to travel hundreds of miles in order to access care. within those clinics, there would be enormous problems of traffic. there would be over-demand for that particular clinic because there would be so few of them. when you take all that into account, the burden on women who would be seeking to exercise their choice about whether or not to have an abortion is a

substantial obstacle to exercising that right. then the court looked at the justification for those regulations. while they were reported to be for the health of women, that was not what the medical science said. we had gynecologists, doctors coming in to say these regulations are not necessary in order to make sure these proceedings are very safe. the justices noted in their opinions that there was incontrovertible evidence that these procedures, when they are done in clinics, are very safe. they are regular procedures like colonoscopies or liposuction, which are generally more dangerous, but are not subjected to these regulations. it seems that targeted regulations at shutting down abortion clinics, not regulations that were focused on health and safety. host: when it comes to the similar states that have these

types of laws on the books, does the decision yesterday make it easier for states to overturn those laws, or their other hurdles that have to be jumped? guest: it really asks a strong question on those other states laws. maybe they can justify them and maybe they have better reasons than texas was able to put forth. i'm skeptical about that, but they can certainly try. you can see states decide in light of this very strong and fair ruling from the court to try to walk back those regulations if they think they are covered by this decision, and they probably are. or we might have to see proceed, and i'm sure that the clinics will fight back very strongly with this encouragement from the supreme court. with justice kennedy joining justice breyer and kagan, about these thinly veiled attempt to limit the right to abortion through these regulations will not be tolerated very host: elizabeth wydra of the constitutional accountability

center we have calls lined up , for you. the first one is from plano, texas. this is matt on the line for democrats. you are on with our guest. caller: thank you, pedro. good morning elizabeth. , i want to say that i am impressed by your organization. often, conservatives think they have ownership of the u.s. constitution. their view is that they are the only ones defending it. i'm just glad to hear that there is somebody on the progressive side who has a different view. i wanted to quickly ask you about your organization's view on the second amendment. obviously that has been in the news a lot lately. can we actually have -- people can have their right to bear arms and have sensible gun regulation. i just want to get your take on your organization's view on the second amendment. thank you for that question and your kind words

about the constitutional accountability center. i think it's a great organization and i feel very blessed to work there. absolutely the constitution is a , progressive document. the progress of our nation is literally written across our constitution through the amendments. i think your question is interesting and it's something that academics have been grappling with, academics who take seriously the text and history of the constitution. one case that the court took up heller rulingus about the second amendment was the mcdonald case out of chicago, about the 14th amendment. my organization filed a brief with perhaps the most left on the ideological spectrum along with the most right on the ideological spectrum of scholars who wrote about the clause not known very much, because it was strangled and its crew in reconstruction. that was a very progressive part of the constitution that would have protected a lot of individual rights. what is interesting is that there was discussion by the

drafters of the 14th amendment that it was important for individuals to be able to defend themselves in their homes. they were in particular concerned about newly freed african-americans in the south who could not rely on the protection of mostly white, generally slave-power sympathetic militias to protect them. there is this idea in the constitution, although i would not say it is the second amendment at all. it is a 14th amendment that gives the flavor of the home protection of self-defense that you can have these big assault rifles out in public. i think that is what the constitution and text history shows through the 14th imminent. absolutely there can be sensible regulation of that right. we thought at the time that the 14th amendment was drafted they were having these discussions. there is a wonderful book by adam winkler that goes through this. i recommend it.

adam was a client on a brief that we filed in the supreme court and the mcdonald case. i think we have a nuanced view of this, saying the constitution 1000% protects any gun right you want without any regulation -- that is wrong. at the same time, saying there is zero constitutional interest in some way of having a gun to defend your family in that context of the south of having southern militias who were not going to protect newly freed slaves who want to protect themselves and their family and their property, that is in the constitution as history. i think it is best if we can have a conversation, but absolutely the constitution allows for sensible gun restrictions and gun regulations. i think the supreme court, even frankly with antonin scalia on it, would've held regulations. host: we talked about domestic abusers and having their ability

to own guns themselves. guest: it was the first time justice thomas asked a question in 10 years, so it's clearly something important. that's a very interesting conversation for justice thomas to engage in. he himself is very interested in the text and history of the constitution. i'm always interested, even when i disagree with him, when he weighs in on these issues. host: from maryland, carl, you're up next. caller: i have a quick comment and a question. my comment is that i agreed that a woman should have a right to choose. my question is does the father of that child have a right to choose whether to financially support that child from the next 18-22 years or to not support the child? guest: that is a good question. i think it might be a little bit beyond my expertise in the world of abortion rights that i study when it comes to the constitution. i cannot recall a case in the supreme court on that.

there might have been one and i just do not remember at this early hour. host: susan in connecticut on the republican line, go ahead. caller: hi, my name is susan. i am a republican. i believe in pro-choice. i have been pregnant three times in my life. the first time, 30, ok, let's see if this will work. second time, absolutely, let's keep those baby clothes recycling. the third time at age 46, we used birth control. this was not with my husband, i am like, are you kidding me? do you really think that age 46 i'm going to carry something to term?

i can't stand the father. i don't know. i wish the republicans would understand pro-choice. this is what i've spoken to my sons about. use birth control and it is choice. guest: i think that's an interesting comment because we know that abortion is a fairly common procedure that is done in the united states. and a lot of women have had them for many reasons. i think what we have seen in previous supreme court opinions is the sort of idea that even justice kennedy wrote that there was regret and what was seen by some in a fairly paternalistic way. its a very common procedure done for many reasons. what is interesting about the

opinion that we had yesterday is that it kind of treats abortion as this medical procedure that women choose to undertake for their health or other reasons. it's a decision that they choose to take that is safe and common. i think that is a little bit of a different shift from this very almost dramatic morally-fraught writing that we have seen from the court in the past. in some ways it is very justice breyer, who is sometimes criticized, but people saw and that dryness of victory, the idea that abortion is something that is a choice that many women make that is safe and common. host: talk about the role that justice kennedy plays now, especially with eight people on the court. now when decisions are not deadlocked, it seems like the court takes a more liberal swing now. do you see that?

guest: it certainly has seemed like justice kennedy has been swinging more to the left this term. even last term a little bit. kennedy and the majority in the abortion case, but also the affirmative action case. that was a big step for justice kennedy because he is previously never found an affirmative action program that he liked. the fact that he what he wrote uphold in university of texas was a big deal. we have seen more liberal justices, very strongly, which i obviously like, and that works well with kennedy. one thing that has been interesting is within this eight justice court, we have not seen the chief step up as much as we might think. i personally thought that the immigration case, the chief

would try to come up with a compromise position so we would not come up 4-4. that was a terrible case in which the court was not able to do its job because it was not only staffed read because of that you have millions of american families who have to live with a cloud of uncertainty who deserved to get their case decided upon by the supreme court. instead, the court was unable to decide. you have a ruling set in place that will have nationwide consequences. the constitution determines what the law is, that when you come to court your lot -- rights will be vindicated or not, but you have a ruling. having the court not be able to decide an issue of such national importance, for the families affected by this, that is a disgrace. host: the law, or executive action that was used but that into place?

guest: a good question but we do not know and that is part of the frustration. we do not know how they felt on the smaller issues. a question of whether texas should have been in court in the first place to challenge the program. for many of us, we thought that given his past writings, justice roberts might say that texas has snow standing. he was very critical, you might recall from a few years ago, in the climate change regulations case, massachusetts versus the epa. many people thought he might be critical of texas. we do not know how that broke down. we just do not know and there are no recent analyses and no dissents or concurrences, and no back-and-forth. we just do not know.

when that single line came out, i was there at the plaza, and to hear the children were crying and concerned their parents would get deported in the middle of the night, it was heartbreaking and they deserved a ruling even if they lost, no matter how you feel. the court should have been able to issue a ruling. host: let's hear next from natasha. indiana, hello. caller: hello, how are you? i just wanted to say a few things. i am sitting here holding my rosary and praying i will be able to speak the words that i need to say to get my point across. it sounds like the litigation is just a front for constitutional rights instead of defending the weak and hopeless. unborn children have feelings. thou shalt not murder is one of the great commandments and the

law of the land. there are two good points that need to be thought about as far as life is concerned. host: thank you. guest: thank you. it is a right that our constitution has set forth, that the supreme court has interpreted as providing women the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. it is a serious decision for women to make this but under our constitution's grants of liberty and equal citizenship, it is a decision for women themselves in consultation with just their internal hearts or their families or their priests and their god, that is their choice and part of their liberty and part of their equal citizenship under the constitution. back to one of the things you mentioned about states rights.

our constitution has a federalist system and we take the state's writes very seriously. on issues entrenched in the constitution when it comes to fundamental rights, the states do not get to vote on those. some rights are enshrined in our constitution that states do not get to experiment with. states cannot decide you do not get first amendment protections. states cannot decide that the 14th amendment does not apply to them. there are things that transcend state's rights because we have elevated them to federal protection in our national charter. it is true states have innovative opportunities to have diverse policies, but when it comes to nationally and constitutionally enshrined fundamental rights, they cannot experiment with those.

host: let me get your take on the case of the governor, corruption cases going forward. decision, is it much more difficult to decide what is corruption and how you decide that? guest: that is so interesting, we saw in the ruling, all of the justices seemed bothered by the prosecution here because it seemed so potentially broad. the question is whether there was an official act here. as of the court said, this may be unseemly, the tawdry tales of -- the question is whether that then translated into an official act and the court said setting up a meeting with someone did not qualify as an official act.

it is not like putting your thumb on the scale in an actual decision. what i think is more interesting case,g beyond mcdonald's the court has narrowed its vision of what political corruption is even in campaign finance cases. we saw it in citizens united, the mccutcheon case, the court is looking at corruption as a narrow, you think of cartoons with the $ on it and they handed over to the elected official and they pull the lever on the vote in that moment. it is a cartoonish and simplified idea of what corruption is. that has had massive effects when it comes to campaign-finance regulation. when you look at the broader framework, the framers were concerned about when setting up lyrical branches, they wanted elected officials to be dependent upon the votes of the

people. they wanted them to be dependent upon the democratic process and the people, not to be focused on special interests, which meant different things in the 18th century than now, but the point is the same. that they should be dependent only upon the people and that improper dependence on money from big business, or special interests wanting you to legislate a certain way not beneficial to your constituents, the framers wanted to make sure we kept that away. there is a broader perception of corruption in our constitution that the supreme court has moved away from. host: it seems like a smoking gun in order to prove it. guest: exactly. and of the something exchange for something else has to be very particular. i think that is perhaps not what

the framers had in mind when they tried to put together all of these interlocking, not to nerd out on the constitution but there are various revisions, one of my personal random favorites of the constitution, it does not allow you to get gifts from foreign dignitaries and it does not allow you to raise your own pay. there are all these different parts of the constitution that show that they wanted our elected leaders to be focused on serving the people and not money or special interests. host: our next call, west memphis, arkansas. democrats line, go ahead. i am enlisted and retired, i wanted to say, is it possible that abortions, abortion laws may be unconstitutional [indiscernible]

under four different presidencies, under george herbert walker bush, when i gave [indiscernible] and under bill clinton, i said redistribute wealth and put the money where it belongs, under c-span2. he balanced the budget at the end of 1998. under george w. bush, i said we got to go to war after the first plane struck on september 11. host: so specifically, what are you looking for from our guest as a question? caller: can i say this, i just wanted to ask, to knowledge, people would take advantage of me, say positive things to uplift people to change minds and emotions to make changes in the country, why can they

violate the laws against me and say that i have got to pay medicals, knowing they could correct my paperwork under obama and george w. bush. host: thank you. we will move on. sherry is from hampton, connecticut, independent line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am pro-choice, but i am wondering if she thinks there could be a compromise between pro-choice and pro-life in terms of, abortion should be legal but may be limited to a certain amount of months that a woman could have an abortion, so she could make her mind up about that, or whether or not it should just totally be abortion on demand up until partial-birth abortion? that is my question, a compromise for people on both

sides. what you think about that? guest: that is a great question to we kind of have that system already were states are able to regulate abortion much later in the term. it is like a sliding scale of regulation. later in the term, found to have a greater interest in regulating. we have kind of that compromise already. one thing i would like to emphasize after your great points is i think the idea of being pro-life is something that should attach to prenatal care and making sure that women have the opportunities to be able to access contraception to help them better decide when they want to have a child and under what circumstances. >> the u.s. house is gathering momentarily for what we expect will be a routine pro forma session.

however, we wanted to update you , six house democrats on the floor, i think that is what this means, to make a ruckus over guns during pro forma session. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 28, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable andy harris to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. haplain conroy: let us pray. merciful god, thank you for giving us another day. let your spirit of peace descend upon this place and

those who work here. during this week, may the heat of political positions cool and the light of governing wisdom break forth. bless the members here and those back home in their districts and the people whom they serve. and as all americans prepare to celebrate the fourth of july, may we be forever grateful for the benefits we share as citizens of a common nation with uncommon diversity. help us to work together to build a better community as a light for the world. may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause section 3-a of house resolution 797, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which

it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on june 24, 2016, at 10:28 a.m. that the senate passed senate 795. that the senate agreed to senate concurrent resolution 39. that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 3114. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-b of house resolution 797, the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. on friday, july 1, 2016.

we'll take you there live momentarily. we'd love to hear from you, though, and your thoughts on the ongoing gun issue on capitol hill. 202-748-8921 is the number to call for republicans. 202-748-8920 for democrats.

independents and others, that's 202-748-8922 and we welcome cspanwj. s at they are in the corner of staff wear hall. the statue of will rogers. just to check in reporters in the gallery. mike of "the washington post" tweeting about members on the floor in terms of democrats. he said at present are representatives engel, israel, al green, ruppersberger, matsui and connelly. seeking to be recognized on gun violence. but as you saw there, the daily prayer was done, the pledge of allegiance was done, some quick business and andy harris of maryland gaveling out the session until friday. they're back for the -- the house is back for another short -- what we expect to be a short pro forma session on friday and then legislative work next week. all of this goes back to the issue of democrats seeking to

bring forward legislation, so-called no fly, no buy legislation. there are a couple of bills out there. one by congressman thompson of california. as you remember in the senate last week, the senate failing to move forward on four separate gun amendments and the house last week with their 25-hour gun sit-in. let's hear from john, a republican from illinois. john, you may get cut off here as we listen to democratic members -- hang on and let's listen to steve israel. come on over. we'll get a little symmetry here. good afternoon. we are here to remind the american people that congress is on break and we still do not have a bill protecting americans from gun safety. we still do not have a no fly, no buy bill. we still do not have a bill on

enhanced background checks despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the american people want us to take this vote, want us to pass these bills. and despite that today the republicans did, what they have been doing consistently. they walked away from the safety and security of the american people. they would not let us speak. they turned off the microphones, turned off the cameras and it continued to turn their backs on the safety of the american people. today, we are in washington during this break making the point that the american people deserve a break, a vote. tomorrow our colleagues from throughout the country will be holding their own day of action in congressional districts across america with their constituents and we're going to continue to use every tool that we have, whether it's on the floor of the house of representatives in washington or in town meetings and sit-ins, in community facilities throughout america to make this point that we deserve a vote. it's not we, democrats, but the

american people who want us to make them save, deserve a vote. i yield to my colleague, eliot engel. mr. engel: thank you. since the sit-in last week, 177 americans died from gun violence. think about that, in a few days, 177 americans. and all our republicans colleagues are doing are twidding their thumbs. it's an absolute disgrace. people were stopping me in the street. they were glad democrats staged a sit-in. they were glad democrats are bringing up gun safety to the rest of the country. this is what the people are thinking about. the polls have shown that 90% of americans want a vote. want a vote. it's absolutely illogical to say that somebody who is barred from flying can go in and purchase any kind of gun they want. it just make any sense whatsoever. and so as democrats we're going to keep the pressure up. we're not going to lay back at all.

the american people demand reforms and so do we. the republicans may shut off the mikes. they may shut off the lights. they may shut off the sound but they cannot shut off the marn people, and we demand -- american people and we demand a vote and we are not going to stop until we get one. gun violence in america is a very, very terrible thing, and congress cannot continue to twiddle its thumbs and pass all kinds of meaningless things while at the same time americans are dying and we violence. any more where will it be next? so we'll keep demanding this and telling the republicans, you can't hide. no fly, no buy and the background checks for people who want to get guns. and now it's my pleasure to call on our colleague from maryland, dutch ruppersberger. mr. ruppersberger: you know, i'm really concerned and upset when i keep hearing a certain

individual say, we're going to make america great again. let me say this. we are the best country in the world. we have more freedoms and liberties than any other country. sure, we have problems. we have problems with jobs. we have certain problems and one of our biggest problems is the issue of people, children, people going to church being killed by semiautomatic weapons. and american people want us, the greatest country in the world, to do something about that and that's why we're here today. this isn't usually our style but we're in the minority. all we're asking for is one vote, to be debated like we do every day when we're here. you know, we debate and we vote, because this is what the american people sent us here for and i'm asking the speaker to get with our leaders and come together and find a way to resolve this very serious problem that the american people want us to do. they want us to solve the problem of innocent people getting gunned down with automatic weapons. let me say this, too.

we're not talking about taking away second amendment rights. that's not what the issue is about. we're talking about semiautomatic weapons. in this case, if the individual who might be sick or a terrorist or whatever, if that individual did not have a semiautomatic weapon, sure, he might or she might have killed a couple people but not 49 people. also, what is wrong with a background check? this is what we need to do to make sure that we keep our families and our country and our communities safe. so let's come together, republicans, democrats, and let's do this for the united states of america because we are the greatest country in the world. mr. israel: ms. matsui. ms. matsui: thank you very much for being here. last week we had a sit-in led by the wonderful john lewis and we had a sit-in because we're standing up for the american people against the intrang jens of the republican majority. we're asking for a vote, a simple vote. and these are not votes that

are partisan. these are nonpartisan votes, very bipartisan. in fact, no fly, no buy, expanded background checks. i don't know about you but i hear every single day about violence, not only mass killings but also the devastating violence that happens every single day in our communities. sometimes you don't hear about it in our communities because there may be one violence, one person killed throughout the neighborhood instead of maybe three or four with mass violence. this impacts everyone, and in particular, the young people of our country. i still think about newtown and what happened there and those wonderful, lovely kids who went to school that morning with their backpacks expecting to come back home to their lovely parents and the parents who today do not have those wonderful people, those young people. i think about every time people go to church and expect to be

able to be there in reverence. and i think about it when young people go to the movies. you know, my grandson just went to the movies this last weekend and i got to tell you, there was a little thought in my mind about, oh, my goodness. and when you think about schools, i just got a letter from a substitute school teacher who said that this is something that has to be addressed. she -- when she goes to various schools around sacramento she has to go through a protocol because now you have to think about protecting the children in the schools because of the guns. so where are we today? we are just asking for a vote. that's what we're asking for. not only for the american people but especially for all of us and the future people that we have coming up, the young people who are our future and i want to make sure this country is safer for them and

we what we need today what we need next week and we're not going to go away but is a vote. mr. israel: gerry connolly from virginia. mr. connolly: thank you for being here. last week we spent 26 hours on the floor in a sit-in to highlight the tragedy of orlando and the need to have a vote on one simple idea. people on the terrorist watch list ought not to have access to guns. is that really so hard? and what are you afraid of denying us a vote on that? the speaker called what we did a stunt. i live across the river in fairfax county, in prince william county. nine years ago at virginia tech we had the single worst mass gun massacre in american history until orlando. that week my community buried

five young people. i'd like to introduce the speaker to the families of those young people so he can explain to them how what happened last week in highlighting the heartache and tragedy we see every day in our ountry is a stunt. i think even his heart might be turned if he had the opportunity to talk to the families of the victims of gun violence in america. mr. israel: al green from texas. mr. green: thank you, steve. there does come a time when you have to take a stand. we have tried regular order and we have not had any degree of success, so we have to take a stand. rosa parks took a stand by taking a seat on a bus and in so doing she ignited a spark that led to a civil rights movement that led to integration. john lewis took a stand by

marching across the he had monday pettis -- edmund pettis bridge and he took a stand and in so doing law was passed to give civil rights to those denied in this country. so we, democrats, have decided to take a stand by taking a seat on the floor of the house of representatives. it is not our first option. it is the option that we have available to us, and it's an option that now people expect us to follow through on which is why we are here today. we made a demand. we took a stand. we were not heard. we will continue to take a stand so that we may be heard. gun violence has to cease. we should not allow people who cannot fly on planes to buy guns. no fly, no buy. this is our hue and cry. mr. israel: thank you. a final comment before we open up to questions. if speaker ryan believed for a

moment that we were going to spend 26 hours on the floor of the house and then go quietly into the night, today is a sign to him, it's just not going to happen that way, mr. speaker. if he thought he can send his members home to districts, we will meet them there. and if he thinks he can bring us back next week and there will be more silence, we will meet him here and we will keep doing this until we get a vote on no fly, no buy, and enhanced background checks. we'll open up to questions. reporter: and the speaker yesterday on radio stations in wisconsin argued he wasn't going to tolerate, his word, any more of these discussions between the speaker's office and security officials about how to counter the -- i know you guys are itching for a fight and some people say, mr. green cited the edmund pettis bridge and civil disobedience. are you willing to stand up for security officials this week, get arrested, get hauled off the floor? what are you willing to do?

mr. israel: let me say two things. number one, really, none of that would be necessary if speaker ryan just brought to the floor of the house these bills. we wouldn't have to be talking about violations of decorum and security. all it takes is for speaker ryan agreeing to give us a vote. republicans can vy yes on no fly, no buy, but give us a vote. and secondly, i don't think any of us enjoys violating the rules of decorum. none of us likes to do them. but there are violations going on in america and that is the violation that everybody who walks into a restaurant, a movie theater, a nightclub feels when they fear the possibility of being wounded or even killed. mr. green: you mentioned that the speaker has spoken to security. it would be judicious for the speaker to speak to our leadership, a conversation with our leadership would not

necessitate any further action. this can be resolved in an amicable fashion, but it requires people to do something we have not done enough of and at is have collegiality, conversations. this can be negotiated. it doesn't require demonstration. negotiation is the best way out. reporter: i understand the importance of the american experience of civil disobedience, as you cited, mr. green, but some people say these were, some people said, egregious violations of house rules 4 and 5 and those types of things, regardless of what the grievance might be, shouldn't play out on the house floor. mr. israel: 49 people killed in orlando. and they live streamed on the floor of the house because republicans cut off the cameras and the mikes. >> outrageous. mr. israel: there are degrees of outrage in the world. mr. green: i hate to continue.

mr. israel: please. mr. green: let me share with you. our colleagues across the aisle were the first to violate house rule 4. they did so and my question would be, where was the speaker's voice when they did it? i would also add this. 177 people have died since we were here last. that is worthy of our continuing what we're doing. but let us not forget that gabby giffords, a member of the congress of the united states of america, doing her duty as a congressperson, was shot. it is only by the grace of god that she's still with us. what we did not do then we must do now. ms. matsui: may i just say this, i'm not usually the one who would sit on the house floor but it's important because quite frankly we need to do something. we have to do something and it is, as members of congress, i think it's our duty to

represent our constituents. we hear this an awful lot. what are you going to be doing? we had no recourse so we sat down, led by john lewis, who we know is our moral leader when it comes to things like this. i would do this again and quite frankly it doesn't have to happen again. i believe that we could have, as said before, a conversation here because i believe that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel much the same way too. we can all win on this thing here, win for the american people, and that's why we're here. mr. engel: i want to take -- mr. connolly: i want to take premise with your question. the question is not protocol or decorum or even technical violation of the house rule. we're elected members of congress representing people.

we want a simple vote. we didn't ask for complete rewrite of public gun laws in america. we asked for one simple commonsense public safety measure and an opportunity to vote and lose or win fair and square. we wanted our voice to be heard. we didn't turn off the cameras. we didn't turn off the microphone provoking the democratic side of the aisle. you want to -- if you want to ask a question about decorum, why not put that question to the speaker? why aren't you respecting the right of members to be heard, especially when the overwhelming majority of americans agree with them on this right to vote on this issue? mr. israel: eliot. mr. engrrl this is one of the most important i shall -- mr. engel: this is one of the most important issues.

this is a disgrace, the congress is not doing its duty. over in the other house, in the senate, they have means available to them. they have the filibuster. we don't have that here. so we need to make clear to the leadership that we demand a vote. that's all we're asking for. now, a vote could be voted down. it was voted down unfortunately in the senate, but to not have a vote i think is the epitome of arrogance. i think it's the epitome of arrogance toward the american people. forget about us. we're only representatives. we're representing our districts. it's a spit in the face to the american people, not to us, to say on this very important issue that people in america are talking about that is definitely an issue in the presidential election that the house of representatives should be denied a right to have a vote. so i would say that the violation of the law or certainly the spirit of the law comes from the house leadership that's refusing us to have a vote. and what are they afraid of?

vote up or you vote down. why can't they give us a vote? if they have the majority they can outvote us if they want to, but they won't even have a vote. so i think when we look at who's violating what, i would look no further than the house majority leadership because i think their refusal to allow us as representatives of the american people to debate this very important issue is an absolute disgrace. mr. israel: dutch, do you want to say something? dutch and then we'll take next question. mr. ruppersberger: those of us who are appropriators in a hearing said we didn't know john lewis and about four of our peers were on the floor. when i got back to my office my staff said, you better get to the floor. there's something going on about a protest and not being able to have a vote. so we all went to the floor, and i saw my members there. i at that point said, well, it's not my style to do this but on the other hand, you got to take a stand.

i'm representing my constituents and i want to make sure my constituents get the best representation we can get and give them safety and health. i thought i was going to sit down with two artificial knees and all and it wasn't easy. anyhow, when i was there and i watched every member in our caucus, almost every member talk and what they had to say was from the heart. this was not about something trying to get press and we had to take a stand. you know, in the united states senate you have a filibuster and the only alternative we had was to be able to call attention to this and the american public wants us to do this. and look at the polling. what is stopping the speaker or what advisors does he have to say not put this on the floor so we can do what we do every day? we debate and then we vote, but is it because the speaker is concerned that the american public are with us on this? does that make him look bad? i don't know. i'm not sure. i don't know what the reasoning

is, but i'm calling out to the speaker now to get with our leadership. you know, a lot of issues that we fight over the floor and why americans are really upset with this congress is that we don't sit down and talk about these issues and resolve them before we get to the situation we're in right now. so let's turn this around. let's come back. let's have what we need, put the bill on the floor, let's debate and let's do the rest of the people's business because we have a lot to do there also. mr. israel: one more. two more. ok. inaudible] mr. israel: i don't know. you have to talk to the leadership. i do know we've been organizing a series of events in members' districts across the country. that's been our focus, but you'd have to direct the question specifically to the leader. ok. [inaudible] reporter: a couple members in

your caucus -- [inaudible] was this a wrong move to do? mr. israel: listen, the n.r.a., through its political actions committee and the gun manufacturers raise trying to the -- defeat members of congress who are for no fly, no buy and background checks. we're going to do what we have to do until we get a vote and can pass these sensible measures. >> i am not interesting in making any money off of this. i am at it again the american people the right of safety and legislation. anything else anybody else the situation.ur we want to see sensible gun laws. youralk up and down

districts, talk to people in both parties, they agree with us, think us for what we -- thank us for what we are doing. no one is trying to prevent second amendment rights. no one is saying people cannot have guns. we are staying for someone to buy a semi automatic gun that can mow down 49 people without changing clips is not something the forefathers of this country ever imagined could happen. we do not want to take gun rights away. we want sensible gun control. the american people are not stupid. the only seen -- the only people that seem to be tongue death is the republican leadership. reporter: -- [indiscernible] [laughter] reporter: she said this it-in

last week heard efforts for the bipartisan bill to pass. what is your response to that? : my response would be -- there was a bill. the only reason we sat is what came first, the chicken or the egg? the only reason they sat is because they have not done anything to bring the parties together. look, there are good members in both parties, good members that want to see this happen in both parties, but not allow us to have a debate and vote on it is shameful and disgraceful. she had a vote. -- and -- >> and she had a vote. >> i would add this -- we tried regular order, subcommittee, committee, trying to get it to the floor.

it is a basic premise of the american democracy that the rights of the minority have to be respected. our rights are being disrespected. when your rights are being disrespected, you have to take action to protect the rights of those that you represent. we're not here for ourselves. we are here because there are countless american people who have voted to have us here to stand for them. finally, this -- the american people always expect us to always win, but they do expect us to always fight for what is right, and that is what we are doing. truth,ake the facts of slanted into the tree of circumstance, and let the chips fall where they day. reporter: -- [indiscernible] mr. --

israel: i am not saying that. we will continue to reach into the toolbox. some will be blunt. some will be sharp. some will be blunt and share. we are putting the republicans on notice, we're not going quietly into the night. keep doing everything we can just to get a vote. the scenean can end being my scheduling the bill for a vote. one other thing on your question, we will you speak and read that appeared senator carl -- senator may argue that a -- senator carlin's may argue that sit in the efforts, but multiple moments of silence were not working. they were not passing the bill. : i was going to say before the one thing we're not going to do is do nothing.

we're not going to fold of our tent and go home. we represent the american people and we believe we revisit the majority of the american people, and you are not going to stop these protests one way or another until we have a vote on the floor for viable gun control legislation. >> one short comment speaker -- i think the speaker has a family, wants to the right thing, but you are a leader for the united states of america first, not the democratic party or the republican party. that is what we have to come together. that is the message that hopefully the speaker will listen to to resolve this issue. the american people want this to be done. that is why we're all here to take a stand your -- and. mr. israel: stay tuned, latest german.

-- ladies and gentlemen. houseut 5:00 eastern, the came in for what was supposed to be a pro forma session. the six democrats you saw there sought to be recognized, trying to bring forward gun legislation, a vote on the bycalled no fly, no buy . here on c-span we will show you the brief for forma -- pro forma session, what happened, but we want to fulfill the promise and that you weigh in. about 10 minutes or so of phone calls. just a scenario of what happened -- a tweet from our capitol hill producer on the action on the house floor.

mike dibona's, who covers capitol hill for the washington post -- ryan, hasaker, paul not weighed in, but his spokesperson ashley strong has. grexit we welcome your comments on twitter as well. it is -- >> we welcome your comments on twitter as well. it is @c-span. florence has been waiting patiently. go ahead with your comment. caller: i do not understand why these people you congress running everything do not understand how the american people feel. i am a senior citizen, and i'm having my grandkids coming to

visit this summer, and i am afraid, really afraid, you know, because we have so much violence here in chicago. i just don't understand it. i would just like to know what planet do these people live on where they do not see all of gun mass carrying of people's lives, every day, every second? vancouver, washington, our independent line. this is jerry. caller: i feel good gun legislation is make violent criminals pay. don't give them 15 years of appeals. go back to the judicial system. they are wanting to do the -- dan automatic weapons -- i'm sorry, every weapon can be used as an assault weapon. the verbiage will be totally screwed up for the american people. they need to go after the criminals, and have different penalties for gun violence.

that is all i have to say. host: you may recall last week the democrats 25-hour sit in on the house floor, of course we saw video streams from members periscope, facebook streaming, and none of that came up today, that we know. werehamber's lights locked. as we saw, the members, the six democrats came quickly out to the cameras that have been set up outside of the house chamber. vincent or charles, florida. republican line. caller: hi, how are you? >> i'm doing fine, vincent. caller: i would like to know how come democrats don't have a big sit down when it comes to chicago and all the killings going on, how come they do not force case law, and hillary clinton has guns well around

her. -- all around here. she should not talk too much. host: rita, republican line, canton, ohio. caller: yes, i watched the democrats do their in, and i thought it was disgraceful. they talk about the republicans not working with them. they don't work with the republicans. i think the background checks , tedreat, but on no flys kennedy was put on a no-fly? how many other innocent people could be put on no-fly? theirk they need to stop infighting and work together. host: a state of play on gun legislation -- the senate, with corrective forward on four piece of legislation, and then after that, susan collins in a number of democratic senators, public and senators, angus king of maine came for lithic my piece

of legislation introduced toward the end of last week. following last week's democratic sit in, a parallel measure was introduced by several members including carlos cabello florida. that is where things stand. the house is not in session. his is a pro forma session. they have one more on friday. they come back to work on tuesday. the senate is in session this week. in fact, going on in the senate right now, at least it was short while ago, another long speech. our capitol hill reporter tweeting this host: the senate failed to move forward earlier on the legislation. there is sen. menendez: a live look. you can follow that on c-span two.

raleigh, north carolina. our democrats line. raleigh, north carolina, you are on the air. i'm sorry about that here we go to noah, democrats line. caller: i just want to say about legislation that should be asked -- i don't know what the point is about, and why do cannot at least he brought to the floor -- and why can a deal not be lost to the -- brought to the floor, and many to reconcile us recognize -- we need to recognize many lives are lost. people are dying daily. children are getting hit. mothers, grandmothers. it is a bill that needs to be sent to the floor and passed. host:, sacramento, california. robert on the republican line. would you see today -- what is

your take on this issue of gun legislation in congress? -- you arest of all probably going to cut me off, there is a situation we need to look at seriously. we hired these people to do a job for us. the sit out and the rest of stuff, if they were my employees, i would have fired them on the spot and they would have been gone. they do not have any kind of recourse, supposedly, but when they step out of order and do their own thing, it tells me it is an unruly type people and a need to be taken care of and address. i applaud speaker ryan for what he has done. i am 70 years old. i am so mad at these guys. why don't they do their job the way they are supposed to do it? quit crying. throw them crying towels, get it over with, and let's have the business taken care of what we can go back to the people's business, not the democrats?

to work. host: redding, california. valerie. independent line. caller: hello? host: valerie, are you there? are you there, valerie? caller: hello. california,ands, and that is 10 miles from where the domestic terrorist was here in san bernardino. host: ok. caller: i lived through all of that. i am 67 years old. i have been a democrat. i am registered democrat right now, but i'm a bernie sanders supporter, and what is happening now in the house of representatives is just what bernie sanders has been saying all along, and it just follows right in. i am watching for my representative, pete aguilar. he is out campaigning, but he

should make a presence. i want him to be involved in the sit-in. i have called and called all kinds of representatives and senators. i am all for it. and bernie sanders has lost the vote in california. we lost the primary. it was stolen from us. too, but be addressed, i am behind what the democrats are doing. i love them. i am praying for them. and that is all. you stayingiate with us there, valerie. we will see another session -- pro forma session of the house on friday this week. california,lsinore, this time the democrats line. eddie. caller: hello. i was in the medassets nearing core for 25 years, -- the united states marine corps, fought in two wars, and i will tell you you do not need an ar-15 to

shoot a rabbit. the only way they are going to have partisanship in the congress in the united states is one way -- a one of the family members or any other members of the republican party, if they get hit with one of these things, then you will see some action, but it has not happened yet. goodbye. thank you. host: catherine, republican line in goldendale, washington. caller: yes. i happen to believe that the gun control laws are very similar to obamacare in that the democrats are trying to push it through without forethought, and what i mean by that is due process. if we're going to have gun control laws, which i have no problem with, we need due process. we need the ability to take ourselves off the gun control list. we need the ability to find out that we are actually on it -- i

mean, if there are thought processes involved in all of this, and the republican party is trying to make this a law that does not abscond the second amendment. x ofthat is the whole cru what is going on with the gun control laws. host: appreciate that. some concern on the second amended reflected in this tweet from joseph who says -- host: we welcome your comments on twitter as well. we want to show you what happened 45 minutes ago, or so. again, a brief pro forma session, democrats seeking to be recognized by the providing is presiding officer, in this case, andy harris, republican from maryland. here's what that looks like.

harris.ereby enact andy >> the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father: right -- father conroy. father conroy: let us pray. personal god, thank you for giving us another day. but your spirit of peace descend upon the dish this place, and those who work your. maybe he did political positions cool in the light of governing wisdom break forth. here and thosers back home in their districts and the people they serve.

as all americans, prepared to prepare to celebrate the fourth of july, let's be benefit as a citizens with uncommon diversity. help us to work together to build a better community as a light for the world. may all that is done before your greater honor and glory. amen. >> pursuant to section three of house resolution 797, the journal of the last days preceding is approved to the chair will leave the house in the pledge of allegiance. -- i pledge of allegiance pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which is fans, one nation, -- for which it stands, one nation, under ground, indivisible, and justice for all. >> [indiscernible]

>> the honorable speaker house of representatives, pursuant to the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on june 20 work, 2016 at 10:28 a.m., that the senate passed senate 795, the senate agreed to senate 339,rrent resolution passed hr 3114. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely karen l. haas. crux pursuant to section -- >> pursuant to section three b, the house stands adjourned until july 1, 2016.day, host: that was a scene 15 minutes ago as the credits, about them or so, sought to be -- democrats sought to be recognized. the house back friday for a pro

forma session. back for legislative work on tuesday, july 5. although the house is out of session, although the activities in the house for drew some attention, we are covering it -- the oven is on capitol hill was the release of the benghazi report. the select committee wrapped up their work, released a report in a news conference we will show you at 8:00 p.m. eastern. trey gowdy, the chair on the select committee on benghazi, looking into the attack on the conflict in benghazi on september 11, 2012. on the issue of the benghazi attack, the report dominated much of the briefing today at the state department. images. -- here it is.

toner: a couple of things at the top, and then i will get your questions -- i wanted you to know that frank rose will cochair the third meeting of the international partnership of verificationmament in tokyo, japan, and that partnership brings together 27 countries with relevant expertise to tackle the challenges associated with nuclear disarmament verification. in his remarks, you will recall president obama did speak about how the destructive force of nuclear weapons informs his desire, indeed his administration's desire to reduce the role and number, and the partnership is one step they had a stick and its partners are pursuing to help make that a reality. -- the united states and its

partners are pursuing to make that a reality. tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. at the united states institute of peace, u.s. permanent representation -- representative to the united nations, samantha powers, will discuss the global refugees crisis. ambassador powers will make the case for the international community to strengthen its response to the unprecedented crisis, address concerns about admitting additional refugees, and also underscore the strategic importance and imperative in providing humanitarian it -- assistance in advancing living conditions and providing resettlement opportunities. an will also provide overview of the leadership summit president obama will convene on september 20 the united nations, a summit that will feature a select group of countries prepared to announce a significant new commitment to address the crisis. with that, bread, over to you. -- brad, over to you. brad: can we start with the select committee report on

benghazi? now you have had a few hours to look at it, can you give us your initial assessment? : first of all, we are still reviewing the report, certainly, and in that regard i am probably not going to be able to necessarily debate, nor do i want to debate from this podium every allegation that is contained in what is a report that is hundreds of pages long, but as you know, this is a topic that we have addressed on numerous occasions from this podium. it is important to note a couple of things before we get into your specific questions about the report. first of all, i want to underscore that no one takes benghazi and the lessons we have learned from it more seriously than the state department. it is important never to lose sight of the human element of this story. we lost our friends and our colleagues on that terrible night.

ambassador chris stevens, sean smith, glenn doherty, and tyrone woods did represent our very best, and their loss is a tragedy that remains with us. our thoughts always remain with their family and their friends, those that knew them, those that worked with them, and we work hard every day since this terrible event to learn lessons from benghazi and to internalize those lessons, and by that i mean, notably, in addressing security concerns. specifically to your question about the report, i will just say that we believe that the essential facts surrounding the 2012 attacks in benghazi have been known for some time. there have been numerous reviews.

including, as you all well know, the accountability review board report that was released, i think more than three years ago. there have been seven congressional committees, and that includes the house permanent select committee on intelligence, and the senate select committee on intelligence. and, so, all of these, we believe, have reached many of the same conclusions about the events surrounding the tragedy in benghazi, and we have been working hard to incorporate the recommendations surrounding concerns about the security that the accountability review board contained in this report, or put in its report. in that regard, we have closed down, now, 26 of 29 of the recommendations they made, so we are about 98% there.

brad: that is not 98%. that is about 90%, 89 -- i never claimed to be a mathematician. these included expanding the role of members overseas, threatng to address information, expanding the marine security guard program, and also, of course, accelerating projects to build and upgrade embassy security. >> some of the members of the committee, the republican members pointed specifically at the former secretary, madam clinton, including congressman pompeo who said she was morally reprehensible. do you agree with that position? i think -- we are not

going to get into assessing, and certainly characterizing the actions of secretary clinton beyond saying she, as with all departmentthe state situation ong the benghazi and working with the agency during that relevant time period. >> the you see anything in the report that points to wrongdoing you contest or you were not aware of? mr. toner: it is a good question, and i spoke a little bit about this just now -- we do accountability -- anything new. we spoke about accountability. accountability has been important. the accountability review board, in its findings, did assign some

level of accountability in saying there were bureaucratic failings within the bureau of diplomatic security. we all know that. we're all aware of those findings, and we have worked to address them in a variety of ways. know, we don't believe there is anything new in this report. -- that points fingers to any other individuals or entities within the state department. >> now that this investigation is wrapped up, and assuming there is not another one, do you feel the state department erred in having this outpost in benghazi in the first place? now -- no.so, there was a lot, and i saw the press conference as well at 10:00 this morning.

i had the allegations put forth congress. members of that benghaziis was important. we all know what libya looks like at that time post-civil war, post-conflict. benghazi was an important outpost. nobody knew that more than chris stevens. nobody believed in the importance of benghazi more than chris stevens did, but his was not the only assessment that benghazi was important. it was important that we had representation there, and that is why we were there. you know, it speaks, to be frank here, it speaks to the risk -taking that our diplomats do every day because we need representation in any given place, and we need our diplomats to go there and to be forward