tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 21, 2016 2:00am-4:01am EDT
program can legally buy guns. there are 20 million travelers in that program annually. more than 100,000 of them don't go home when they should. now now i would like to share just one example where a known or suspected terrace was on the fbi's radar that had not beenent placed on the no-fly list.he over the weekend my staff went through 86 cases and pulled out some of them. i i have them here and i would like at this time just to mention one. nonoaud, a u.s. citizen was radicalized and became a devoted follower of isil.
the fbi received a critical tip about him in april 2015. the tip included a detailed account of his radicalization in support of isil. this is all available in a 13 page criminal complaint. in maine he flew from new york city to jordan, he was a detained and later arrested by the fbi. now here is someone who clearly met the definition of a known, or suspected terrorists. he was permitted was permitted to fly out of a major u.s. airport in the city where the 9/11 attacksy occurred.t this shows the danger of focusing only on narrow subsets of the terrace watchlist. to me, that does not make sense. there is broad support for amendment including more than 240 organization and communityu. leaders around the country.ffic
madam president, i would ask that list be added to the congressional rescue record, directly following my remark. >> without objection. >> thank you madam president. >> the justice department of the white house supports assembly of its workable approach to help prevent terrorists from obtaining weapons. justice, we have worked with justice and justice made some additions tont our amendment, they released a statement of support. that may read it in part. this a moment gives gives the justice department an important additional tool to prevent the sale of guns to suspected by lessons firearm dealers.ons firearm it ensures protection of the department's operational and it investigative sensitivities. 38 senators have cosponsored thelog amendment including republican senator mark kirk, making it bipartisan. now, causing the terror gap is
an important step, but it is not enough. g let me tell you why. check today you can buy again at a gun show without a background check. as as a matter of fact, my chief of staff, woman was pursued at a gun show to buy a 50 caliber rifle which is a sniper rifle the bullets can go for a milee and go through a brick wall. you can buy a gun on the internet without a background check. you can you can buy a gun from an individual on the private market without a background check. that's why we must also pass the amendment offered by senators murphy, schumer, booker, and blumenthal.nt this would ensure gun so that guns shows over the internet and from person to to background check. g if we don't make that change, known or suspected terrorists will still be able to buy guns at gun shows with no questions
asked.tacks i now, with isil intent on perpetrating inspiring attacks in this country, there is increased urgency to make it harder for terrace. to me this is not a gun control issue. it is really a national security issue. if there is any doubt about that, i want to just share brieflyto with you a part of our cia director, john brennan's remarks from last week's open hearing of the senate intelligence committee. he said, and i quote, we judge that isil is training and attempting to deployed operatives prefer their attacks. isil has a large cadre of western fighters who could potentially serve as operativeso for attacks in the west.f a variety of ways of
infiltrating operatives to the west, including refugee flows,v. smuggling routes, and legitimatt methods of travel. further, as we have seen inizers orlando, san bernadino and elsewhere isil is attempting to inspire attacks by sympathizerss who have no direct links to the group. last month for example a seniors isil figure publicly urged followers to conduct attacks on their home countries if they're unable to travel to syria and iraq. those are the words are the words of the most prominent intelligence agency. ladies and gentlemen, we should heed them. we know isolate hearings and sympathizers are already inside the united states. in in fact, just since march of 2014 federal
prosecutors have charged 85 men and women around the country in connection with the islamic als state. thirty-three have been convicted. we also know that terrorists are well aware of just how weak oura gun laws are and they urged their followers to exploit them- in 2011 demand by the name of adam good done, and al qaedarged spokesman who is an american who went to syria urged terrorists to take advantage of our weak amounts. the gun went out, this is a quote, america's absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. this bears repeating. terrorist groups like al qaeda, isil, and others know that our
gun laws are weak and can be face exploited. so madam president, we cannot continue to do nothing in the face of this potential caree devastation. i've been fighting to reduce gun violence throughout my career since my days as a county supervisor and as mayor of sannd francisco. oppo make changes. the opposition is so extreme and opposes any measure to curtail gun violence. the no matter what it is. so it is against all odds that the assault weapons legislationme passed in 1994. the gun lobby fought hard not only to defeat the amendment which succeeded but to defeat those in the house who supported. that started its own reign of terror. when the background check past in 1993, multiple motions on the
bill failed before it ultimately passed with 63 votes. but that belted not cover sales at gun shows. private sales, or internet sales. and those that increase significantly. after the new town shooting, i thought weic would do something to stem the tide of these. >> the senator's time is up. >> i'm just about finished if you could just give me another minute or so. >> without objection. >> thank you. we tried to really leave the ban on assault weapons, that failed. we try to expand the background check even through compromise offered by senator, that failed. i remembered when the vote on the background check failed, the new york daily news but the photos of the new town victims on the front cover, there were 20 young children age six and
seven and there educators and the headline read, for shame. it is time for us to stand up. it is time to force elected representatives to take action.m we must expand background checks, we must make sure the government can stop the gun from being sold to a known or suspected terrorists. and that is not too much to ask. i think you madam president, appreciate it, yield floor. >> madam president, the president, the two main amendments that we will hearpe tonight with the no-fly list in both instances we agree, terror should not have guns, the only difference is that once a gun purchase was stopped the bag i s
walks away unlike the bombersse who use the makeshift bomb in massachusetts or some other device be able to go buy guns illegally or create some other weapon of mass destruction and commit terrorist acts. mine would make sure that the law-enforcement officials were notified on a timely basis and they would have up to three additional days to go to court, show probable cause to get a wiretap, listen to phone conversations, execute search more and, get more information go before a judge. and not just deny access to the firearm, but to take the terrorists off the street. actually in many ways my friend from california cinnamon would but w
is mine would be. restr we really should be focusing not on restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens under the second amendment without due process of law because that is what the feinstein amendment does.self if we ought to be asking ourselvesa if they are those in this chamber and the spotty who believe you can deny american citizens their constitutional rights without due process of law based on a secret list that the government maintains, i don't care who it is, whether it is the obama administration, the former bush administration, i r don't think any american should sacrifice their constitutional rights without forcing the government to go to a magistratd or judge and be able to show sufficient evidence to convince the judge that they have the evidence to deny those constitutional rights. this is really surreal to me.
our colleagues want to make this about gun control when what we should be making this about is the fight to eliminate the islamic extremism that is the cause for what happened in orlando. my colleagues in many ways want to treat the symptoms without fighting the disease. there's nothing in the feinstein amendment that would've prevented the orlando shooting from occurring. invest conversely, under my amendment,e the fbi would be immediately notified if anybody who was or had been on a watchlist during the preceding five years, this this would obviously escalate tappo the fbi could go to court, get a search warrant, get a wiretap upon appropriate legal showing to get the evidence necessary to detain, the terrace rather thano just deny them access to the be firearm because of their too
dangerous to buy a firearm, they are too dangerous to be loose on our streets. the boston marathon bombers i mentioned earlier, the the jihadists and attempted attacksi by isis inspired radicals are all examples of the fact that islamic extremists want the american people to trade our a liberties and values for fear and panic.he cia director make clear last week that this threat from isis, the the islamic state is not going away.ts he said with the president just about every member of the administration has refused to acknowledge, that the ministrations efforts and i quote, have not reduce the groups the groups terrorism capability and global reach". and each time they want to make this about their gun control dea agenda. but we can have that debate, but
talk like this as a a substitute for dealing with the threat of isis, either abroad or here at home to radicalization of american citizens using social media and the internet is just a diversion.t i think all we need to do is look at what the administration decided on the 9/11 transcripts from orlando. originally originally they said they were going to redact those weause transcripts. i'm glad they had a chance to reconsider because this reveals was going on in that nightclub in orlando this reveals the motivation of those shooter and this just was not some street crime incident. this was a a premeditated terrorist attack on american soil. feeling to release the complete 911 tapes would have been in the front not only to the promise of open government which the
administration said they're going to be the most open, transparent government in american history. it would not only be underminedr the premise of open government it would be an insult to the american people. you cannot redact away the hurtu the payment payment so many are feeling from the loss of loved ones and the loss of a sense of security. you cannot redact away the reality that he felt killer pledged his allegiance to a terrorist organization before abou i still believe the administrations, 11 of their goals is to avoid any discussion about their failed strategy to combat the radical islamic terrorism either a broader here at home. instead, they decide to pivot to limit america's constitutional rights without due process of firs law.y
if they could do that for the first amendment or second amendment, can they do it for the first? how about for the fourth amendment? of the fifth do amendment? how many more provisions of the bill of rights door democratic friends believe can be denied absent to process of law or forcing the government to go in front of an impartial judge and actually produce evidence? we are indeed facing serious threat from radical terrorism both overseas and at home. if we cannot be honest and clear eyed about who is attacking us, how in the world we have any chance to defeat them. because, that needs to be our ultimate goal, to degrade and ultimately destroy isis. we all agree that tara should not be able to purchase a weapon, that is not up for debate. anybody who suggests that it is, simply misleading you. the question before us is whether we are going to do so in a way that is constitutional.
the question is are we going to do it and why that would actually improve terrorism b investigations are not? my amendment is called the riot it was stopped terrace from buying guns while ensuring law-abiding citizens placed on a watchlist by mistake don't have their rights taken away because of some secret list created by the obama administration or by this government. it will also, this is important, it will also set up a process to to monitor, investigate, and detain terrorists while warranted by evidence. in that way my proposal is far and away stronger than the senior senator from california's for several reasons. first, her amendment is unconstitutional. last week i mention the problems of the late senator tended kennedy had when his name came up on a watchlist by mistake. he was denied a ticket and airport one of his trips from washington to boston.
after realizing the problem he had a lot of trouble getting it resolved. if you can bet teddy kennedy had trouble getting it resolved, what kind what kind of have? fairly he said as much, he said now that they had that kind of difficulty for member of congress, how the world are average americans going to get caught up in this kind of thing. how are. how are they going to be treated fairly and not have the right to be his? senator kennedy asked the question we all need to be asking right now. a well-known, well-connected powerful public figure like ted kennedy had trouble getting his name removed from a watchlist, to have any confidence that the average americans won't have their constitutional rights denied with no legal process to woul it?
friends across the aisle would not provide due process rely abiding citizens placed on a watchlist by mistake. lake like the late senator kennedy, like mine way. way. secondly, the feinstein mm and has another flaw. there are no additional tools for enforcement to investigated detain terrace. my proposal stops stops him from buying a gun,trr take them off the stree. the fbi director coming test to testify before the senate that legislation that merely blocks a firearm transfer to a person on a watchlist without more actually disrupted terrorism investigation. that's because if we automatically block a transferoe it would tip the terrorists that the law-enforcement is watching them in building the case. andct then they would choose some some other weapon either illegal or manufactured.nc as this could have tragic consequences. as a terrace could take immediate steps to speed up their attack, obtain legal actions or thwarting law-enforcement surveillance. we need to be careful about
enacting legislation that could the worse of the fbi director,th effectively blow a terrorism investigation. -- no matter how well-intentioned, i believe that would be the effect of senator feinstein's amendment. the truth is, under that amendment, motivated motivated terrace could buy a gun, be denied, and walk out of the gun shop and find another avenue to carry out a terrorist attack.my by letting a dangerous terrace rope regardless streets the proposal or democratic friends would make us less safe, not my legislation and contrast would not only block that person from buying a firearm, becauseab the fbi would be immediately notified, they would not be able to take it with them, they would have to wait at least three days while the fbi conducted additional investigation. oty but it would allow the authorities to carry out that investigation followed by next bidet the court for hearing where a judge could block the
sale and authorize the arrest of the terrace, if in fact there is evidence to prove that that was the case. if the judge deemed there is probable cause to block the sale of, the terrace can be immediately detained by law enforcement. i repeat i repeat myself, if you're dangerous enough not to own a firearm, aren't they also dangerous enough to be taken off the streets? but the senator from california's amendment would let the back i go. this way my proposal goes much further than our democratic friends, we have to do more from preventing terrorist for buying guns we have to lock them up and stop them before they kill innocent americans. importantly, my amendment would apply to anyone who is previously under an investigation for suspicion of terrorism within the last five a years, like the orlando attacker. the orlando attacker was not even on a watchlist, so i do not
know what our friend from california was try to propose bd saying if you are on a watchlist you should be denied a gun but i guess you're saying even if you are not on the watchlist you would be tonight a gun. w but we've set if you are on the watchlist for the last five years, than the fbi would be provided notice. >> senator would you you'll purchase one for,. >> i will yield to the senator after remarks. i'mn almost through when the proposals were offered from the senior senator from california did not even get a majority of votes in this body. my related proposal back in december was bipartisan and garnered 55 votes, i'm glad the junior senator from indiana and from west virginia, both democrats supported that build then and i hope they will do so now. both made the decision to do most right instead of what j. was politically convenient.
the due process clause of the united states constitution is more than just a convenience, it is after all, our constitution. something senators pledge allegiance to uphold and defend the constitution of the unitedit states, but then to vote for an amendment to deny constitutional rights without due process of law, it sure seems intention with that oath. st we must advance commonsense legislation that fences selves against islamic extremism and my amendment i believe is a good place to start. it is not the only idea, the the senator from may, senator collins, senator from pennsylvania have interesting ideas that i know they would like to develop and have ado chance to have a vote on. in the meantime, we need to doey more to equip the fbi and the with the law-enforcement tools they need to gather information on terrace so they can lock they up. we have to be able to connectue the dots for we can connect the
dots. i hope today my colleagues will for my amendment. it blocks terrace from buying guns, detains terrace, detains terrace if there is evidence to prove sufficient to status by that should be taken off the street and it upholds the second amendment to the constitution of the united states. gun again, the question before so should be clear. we are going to to vote on two proposals that postop terrace from buying guns. one is constitutional, one is not. amendme i would strongly my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to is for the one that is constitutional and that would be the shield back amendment. i will yield to the senator for question. >> it is my belief that our mens meant amendment does cover, senator leahy and senator nelson cemented to a set amendment which is incorporated, which jut does cover the orlando killer. i just wanted, just wanted you to know that.ifornia,
thank you very much. >> i would say to my friend from california, the problem in this instances the shooter was aot licensed security guard. he was guarding the courthouse, he also had a firearms firearms license from the state of florida. there is nothing about her amendment that would havegh prevented him from purchasing a firearm. indeed the only thing that might've happened would be that the fbi would've been notified under the five-year look back provision. but the fbi had already investigated this particular shooter and cleared him, notwithstanding notwithstanding all the troubling signals we see now in retrospect. so i still believe that there is nothing in the feinstein amendment that would've prevented this shooter fromns tn purchasing firearms because he had a firearms license already pain i thank you for your time. i yield back.
>> will now report the motion to invoke cloture -- gun cloture. >> madam president first want to thank my colleague for decades of work to address gun violence and then i want to thank also sanders murphy and poker for standing on their feet for almost 15 hours to force the republican leadership to release allows some of the votes on gun safety. six months after rejoined the senate in 1993, there was a terrific impact of assault weapons when a deranged gunman and enter the law offices in know california killing eight people wounding six others madam president when you lose someone they love to gun violence it is hard to get that out of your soul in
one of those killed was the attack of the law office was an assault weapon was one of my son's best friends. and yes the soul of our family and his family and all of the and their families gunned down i willll f tell you the pain does not go away. it? i know we all feel that a the question is what are we going to do about it? if not now then when is the time to do something about it?, after orlando the worst mass shooting in american history i see my friend senator nelson who has been there and looked into the eyes of the families and he will never be the same this is a moment to do the right thing to take action is it going
to stop everything in the san future? now. but it is a crisis so we have to do what we can do we should have done it after california after sandy hook after santa barbara and aurora but we didn't so let's do it now. roughly ready and this year madame president 30,000 americans will have died from gun violence and in 10 years roughly 300,000 americans are killed by a gallon every 60t year 300,000. has lost nearly 60,000 after 10 years of vietnam they tore the nation apart but
300,000 americans from gun t violence over 10 years and my republican friends do bottomn nothing that is the culture they claim they want to do something but when you look at the bottom line of their proposal they do nothing and the gun epidemic continues. how many times to be common to the senate floor descender thoughts and prayers to the family? and that was in the 1990's. now unfortunately i was just on the floor in december after a mass shooting at a holiday party that killed 14 people and wounded 17 others in san bernardino. i stood right here, and i begged for us to come together and pass
sensible laws to prevent another community from the gut-wrenching heartbreak my state was going through. through. to prevent another committee from the gut wrenching heartbreak my a state was going through. that was six months ago. we did nothing. to i was here on the floor after a mass shooting in santa barbara in 2014 with the pause that gives family and friends of the love ones to use a gun and dangerous way. and to do it legally no action. urge every when is a finely going to japanese to make sure peopleer
that buy again to get a bad deft project do we need to defeat isis? one of the most brutal and vicious groups that is why support the president's actions to take them now and i am glad to see the iraqis.. we need to make sure the al long wolf does not get hay guide precocious mentally unstable people have guns?
but should that be allowed on our streets even the of inventor of the assault style weapons and said he never meant it to be used on the streets those weapons have no business being in civilian hands. now today we had been news from the supreme court. they refuse to take up the case that challenged the assault weapons ban in connecticut and that is good news. and it follows the legal opinions we have seen from the courts. so yes there is a right to bear wen arms to have common senseon god modest that they are trusted get a weapon and those that are not are not
and pass a background check. what happened in the's overall? si dash minded as america. with the gun death we know that they save lives that germany tightened their losses in shooting deaths dropped in half from 106 iran from 2012 after the day drp from 35 in 2014.violence ended 56% drop in gun violence between 93 and 2010 according to the law center to prevent a gun violence.
and connecticut also sought a 40% drop in debt related murders in 10 years because they pass a 1995 law. now we cannot prevent every single tragedy with past with safety laws. and to buy firearms or explosives and requiring background checks for about its. there are 30,000 reasons to pass these amendments. to and those that could die in years and. in there is something i want
to conclude with. here. we are 100 senators. we had the honor and privilege leakages something about those per year. safe in with those measures it will take more time with, that with safe at school say fattish shopping mall in the movie theater. loo and a nightclub.ince and that we lose 300,000 americans over 10 years and had done nothing since the 90's.and i would
and thanks to my colleague for her work on this legislation and the senator blumenthal and i will reclaim my time for the debate on our side. >> to the senator from iowana before i speak i ask unanimous consent to speak for 20 minutes followed by senator nelson and murphy. >> without objection. would you please tell me when i use 70 minutes i will reserve three minutes for senator from pennsylvania to follow with his three minutes. >> the chair will do so. >> that want to express my unwavering support for thoseom killed and wounded in orlando. life and community members this terrorist attack represents
the great tragedy with ann affront to our way of life with the existence of americans will do all i can to give the fbi the tools they need to investigate the circumstances of this attackn the radical islamist d terrorist they have reason to be upset and even furious isc :september 11. the real problem of islamic terrorism but the leadership has taken their eyes off the ball and is trying to turn this tragedy into another debate about violence.. we will gladly have that debate but very soon with
misleading or incomplete statements occurred and we heard running statements to purchase those who would commit terrorism these s comments and with the fully automatic weapons about background check.uy they cannot buy those even with the fact check had theund minority leader to claims. and with a background check. with a semiautomatic with the radical islamic terrorist would lie about what is not a reason to change a lot.
the minority leader in the senator from connecticut in his amendment is before us is a terrible.ay t no one convicted of terrorism with the other side means and they say terror loophole is someone who might be space any number of watchlist. not to time and again the heather's side says they support the second amendment rights we have every reason not to believe that. and the amendment that they proposed violates the second amendment right to keep and bear arms and that this amendment due process clause because a fundamental
constitutional rights cannotme be infringed upon with the due process of law. with the same kind of constitutional was that it contained when first proposed so the bush administration proposedt similar wrongheaded ideas but that is before the supreme court recognized the second amendment protects the individual right of a gun ownership they are prominent voices against the terrorist watch list amendment and for instancepl in an editorial in the "l.a. times" asked and answered the question this way should people on the no-fly list be able to buy guns? yes. the editorial pointed out that they are not convicted
of any crime the vastd "the losl majority of the people on the list are foreigners already for inhibited from buying guns and the "l.a. times" stated that it is of only fundamental right in the feinstein amendment for only allowing a challenge after it was denied with no prior judicial involvement in the san bernadine a shooting would not have been stopped had the amendment been in place at the time. bueno have done so again orlando either. this past week then near times ran an opinion piece by ucla law professor at am
winkler the professor noted that the nra has raised people n objections to the feinsteinased amendment including the attorney general can be based only on and suspicion in to sue the department but only after the right is denied the professor winkler wrote we should take the nra criticism seriously and also roche if the attorney general believes a suspected terrorist should be added to the list they should have to go to court first and offer evidence. of only after concluding the
attorney general has probable cause should the court to approve the denial of a suspect's right the aclu also opposes theso feinstein amendment on civil bae liberties supporters of this amendment would not prohibit a person in this database from exercising the first pro and rights or the right to vote or the ability to have an abortion with the same when absence of due process. ter the fbi takes action now when a person in a terrorist to database tries to purchase a gun the senator from connecticut requires universal background checksho last week the senator from connecticut contended there is less gun crime and fewer s homicides in states that pass strict gun control laws
like his state but homicide rates are higher in connecticut than in many states that provide greater protection of gun rights such as mine state of iowa. you need to do is look at merrill lynch refused claim that imposing tougher gun murden control reduces crime. despite stringent gun control murders in maryland of russia have increased dramatically the other side wants it both ways. heads i win curtails orion's when the state laws are in stringent they say they work regardless of any were elsewhere cry rises they argue it is because othero states have lenient laws the "washington post" recently
reported to have a study that found no correlation at all much less causation between homicide in state gun laws and the same newspaper fact checker gave my colleague claims three pinocchio. been and reenacting the assault weapons ban to stop mass murder of his policy has been tried and failed even the justice department funded research found the effects of the ban and on crime to be known or minimal once again "the washington post" fact check that democrats are erroneous claim to give threee pinocchio the senator from connecticut also has statements made about all mine purchases of guns as a
would-be terrorist could order one from amazon and it would show up at their door without a background check. this is not though lot either. from a a person is not allowed to take possession of guns from ordered online out-of-state or from a licensed dealer without undergoing a background check additionally the senator from connecticut amendment would create a new federal felony for not reporting a loss to a stolen gun to local police or to the u.s. attorney general. it would apply only to lawful gun owners and not to criminals in america that we normally prohibit with criminal actions of thatiz gives the freedom it does so ra.
much less that whatnv criminalizes is inaction for ordinary citizens this is very rare. the senator from connecticut and others invoked the gun show will pull anybodyck watching would think that people who buy a firearm is subject to a background your check about the senator from connecticut was year if your individual lunches all your gun to another individual you may do so assuming you n don't have a reasonable cause that a person is prohibited from owning a gun just as there is no background check required in your driveway there is thew. one required with a private pier to piers sale atta pinchot to hear my colleague discussed that you would assume that these gun shows were lawless free-for-all
for a felon and terrorist to obtain the new was still legal weapon you can have the rest of my time regardless of how much time it is. >> what to think the senator from i would yield a just want to take up a momente we'ret mr. president i want to express my deep frustration with what is about to happen on the senate floor becauseg. we have a system of a series of votes and we will g accomplish nothing that is a we're making sure of tonight and it doesn't have to be this way that is what is so maddening just one aspect briefly is the background check legislation we will vote on is the version that goes further than the bipartisan compromise that we worked out a couple years ago. what are the chances that would pass?
pretty close to zero and we know that if we have a vote on background checks should be the only bill that i am not aware of that has had bipartisan support in may not pass sanders than that at least has a chance that we will not even have that vote let's talk about the other big controversial issue that we already know the outcome of that is about terrorist and if they can buy guns and what do we do about this? so let's start with a simple lel goal number one terrorist should not be able to buy guns legally. that shouldn't be controversial. but it shouldn't be controversial that it is an innocent american who is denied his or her right to buy a gun they should have an opportunity to clear their name because governments make mistakes
the federal government makes mistakes all the time the mere fact that they have a list almost guarantee somebody is on the listereby pee longley that is not a reasonon to do nothing but to have a meaningful process whereby people could challenge their status. process the bills that we voted onk abot tonight have serious flaws. first the feinstein amendment there is no due process ought all. nothing to speak of the way it is designed by the way before we even have the or votes to it is failed overwhelmingly but the attorney general to put now allf anyone on the list no judicial review she can create the criteria the list and all of a sudden they're denied the opportunity to buy a gun. the b the proponents will argue there is an opportunity but
the problem is that person has to go to court the burden is on the buyer to prove his evidence -- genesis and can see the evidence talking to prove the evidence is flawed if you're not allowed to see it?n odyssey that is not aro serious attempt to give someone that is wrongfully placed the chance to clear the name.orney the cornyn approach is better than a we have no now because a has the new tool that the attorney general does not have that is a three day period during which it would have an opportunity to make the case i think that is difficult for the attorney general to do is adjust to this legislation is flawed because of bad better than what we have probably not enough in many circumstances which is why we shouldn't just be talking past each is
other i have legislation senator collins is working on legislation and to make sure that terrorists cannotth buy a gun the believe also make sure that the people on the list were put there properly if there is a litigate mistake by law-abiding american citizen has a reasonable opportunity to mitigate that against his server name off the list the attorney general can come up with the west but a summer is not on it with an emergency mechanism to block whh the sale if the attorney general says so than provide a reasonable and manageable amount of time during which this could be mitigated if the buyer says i am notli fully think i am i should not be denied my second her amendment rights under my approach and under senator
collins that innocent american would have a chance to have his or her day in court that is denied undere the feinstein approach me know the bill will fail they both will fail nobody disputes that. but why aren't we working on something that could get done? stopping them to buy gunsngfully and at the same time give all law-abiding and americanan to clear his name if wrongfully put on the list? i am not saying i have the only way to get this accomplished by adding senator collins legislation will be unveiled soon and i know she has been working on this constructively with the group of folks that one or the other approach needs to get a vote in this body because it is the only approach that really is a serious way to balance these
two priorities and have a chance to earn bipartisan support i yield the floor.do >> mr. president yes the senator from florida florida, orlando, mr. t presid ent this is the ar-15 the civilian version of the semiautomatic of the m-16 this is what the killer in orlando took in the same the caliber two to three collapsible stock. do we think that a person that is on the no-fly last
ought to be able to buy one of these lethal killing on a machines? i have been a hunter all my life i grew up on a ranch i alone in numbers of guns but my guns are for hunting these guns are for killing. just and that is exactly what that weapon ted to 49 people the little over a week ago. c so if we have a list that is approximately 1,000 american citizens or american people that are here legally both not americans that category
is called american persons on the no-fly last, if they can't get on a plane to fly, should they be able to go out to buy one of these? now there is another 1700 people better on a select t list and those are the ones that are close to credible evidence that they are a terrorist. 1700 that they are close to credible evidence that they are a terrorist and do we want them to go by this kind of weapon? watch and then there is another category that we call the terrorist watch list. and in this country that is
about 5,000 people of american persons that there is declaratory evidence that they are a terrorist. do we want them to purchase these weapons?n the feinstein go, that a group of 5,000 that is it. don'k berisha is many more that international's the 5,000 american persons on that list i don't think we want them to buy this. even if that had been the had law and senator feinstein included the bill that i had
filed that would have caught him because it says if you have been on the terrorist watch list, as he was in 2013 and 2014 and they did not have any prosecutable evidence so they close the case but if you have been on the watch list, and then when you purchased the gun the fbi would be notified so they could make the updated decision to go back to interview that person and if they had seen the he was purchasing these knowing he had been on the watch list they would have talked to him that is what is in front of us and it seems to me it is common sense. we hear words all this is
the nra blocking the votes to put the fear of god in our republican friends and colleagues on the next republican primary i am so brout proud of the senator from connecticut it and what he did for 15 hours to bring this to a head. >> your time has expired. >> thank you for listening to my plea and i yield the floor. >> thank you gentleman and i think the staff and my colleagues -- colleagues for joining us here on the floor wednesday night into the early hours of its be clear
about the fact this body was going to ignore what happened in orlando last week with the largest mass shooting in the history of the country and if not for myself and senator booker and 30 others we would bee moving on with business that have nothing to do with keeping this nation safer i know people are skeptical but at least we will see where people stand on simple concepts that if you are suspected of terrorism you should not be able to walk out of a gun store with a dangerous assault weapon and a new poll today shows as 87 percent of americans support that and guess what? a greater percentage of republicans and democrats. why? because this country is under attack and the new weapon of choice is therom gettn
assault weapon after september 11 we made a decision to stop terrorist from getting on the plane because they're using them to kill americans so today the recruiters are specifically instructingas would-be terrorists to go into the gun shows and walkout with assault weapons that can kill 50 people in an instant so why would we apply the same carefulher they i protection if they are suspected of terrorism cannot get on a plane or an assault weapon? one day have to exist if it is again show oregon store? it suggested a greater percentage support expanding background checks to prove you're not a criminal for a potential terrorist before you buy a weapon.
these two measures are not controversial anywhere else in american public except for hear those amendments offered by not even halfstitutid measures the amendment would take people off theay background checklist those leaving a psychiatric institution to buy a weapon the next day but the senator the workforce the justice to go to court before getting a weapon it is just a shield for members who don't want to stand up and do the right thing the reason i came to the floor on wednesday is because i know at a deep personal level what were linda was going toward don't know the families when with the community is and i believe for all of the psychological harm more harm is piled on if you are
electing to run your country hurts awful when you lose someone but it is worse when you're leaders are silent firehn silent, totally silent in the face of your personal horror. long after the moms and dads left sandy hook after their boys and girls were lying dead there was one father who would not or could not leave his name was kneale and he came to this congress to tell us his story as we head into this ago i will leave you with his words to speak about his son has a divorced dad with one son, his best friend his son was dead and said we used to talk about coming to washington sunday he wanted to go to the washington monument last year he asked if we could meet the
president because he believed in you he learned about you in school and he believed in you and i want to believe venue to i know you cannot give if him back to me and if i thought you could i would ask the island to believe he will think about what i told you today n that you will do something about it whenever you can do to make sure that no other father passed to see what i have seen my friends we need to have an answer.
>> federal communications chair, tom wheeler believes that the u.s. must lead the world in developing a 5g wireless stander. he talked about the applications of high band spectrum at the national press club in washington. one technical note, we lost audio for a very brief portion of this event. >> [applause]. tom wheeler became the chairman of federal communications commission on november four, 2013. for over three. for over three decades chairman reeler has been involved in the telecommunications and sector as
a policy expert, advocate and entrepreneur. he has been a venture capitalist and lobbyist for the wireless and cable industries. he served as president and ceo of both the national cable television association and the cellular television association known as the ctia. but as a journalist i found it more interesting that a lifetime lifetime ago the chairman work for syndicated columnist mark schiltz, friend of mine. he managed the managed the ohio state university distinguished speakers series, the version of the luncheon series that brings all of you here today. given that he used to be an industry lobbyist, his his record at the fcc is rather surprising. he introduced the commission strongest ever rule in that neutrality. he find at&t 100,000,000 dollars for capping speed on unlimited data plans. he increased competition among
cable boxes and work to get more internet access options in rural areas. chairman reeler put the entire fixed and mobile broadband industry under stricter, revelatory regime. he had done some things that have anchored his former employers at the ctia and they have sued the fcc during his tenure. he explains his actions by thing, i used to be an advocate for corporate interest, and i hope i was a good one. but today, my client is the american people and i want to be the best advocate for the american people that i can be. america is the leader in the wireless technology in an spectrum innovation occupy the top spot a worldwide sport 4g network. the 5g wireless networks will offer faster wireless broadband services. stakeholders around the world have begun shaping the new 5g landscape to benefit their national and commercial interests. today they will share the framework for they think their vision for 5g should be in a speech entitled, the future of
wireless, vision for u.s. leadership in a 5g world. they do's do's and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming to the press club, tom wheeler. >> mac. >> thank you very much, you have certainly proved your journalistic credentials with some of that research that you dug up there. it is an honor to be here at the national press club. and it's an honor to be with my colleagues who really are the ones that make the things happen that i am talking about. knapp was the head of our technology, john wilkins who is the head of our wireless spirit, and my colleague larry strictly who we work like this together with larry at nta in department
of commerce on spectrum policy. there are so many familiar faces and friends in the audience. and i'm going to make the terrible decision to call out a couple. first is is my good friend and former colleague ron who is a real pleasure to see you sit here, we have not seen each other for a long time. the other is hiding back in the back, the the man who started the spectrum with the fcc, former chairman chairman read hans. he was back in 1994 with this crazy idea of opening up more spectrum, creating more opportunity, building but we'll be talking about today. and that was under his leadership. what i am most what i am most please, and most surprised to find karen smith in the audience today karen had to change her name from karen wheeler.
[laughter] but my sister from annapolis who was no stranger to telecom issues herself, having been the executive director of tech work which was that great operation that followed through, remember net day? and then okay and then okay we have pulled all of the fiber through this tools, now what we do and karen organize volunteers throughout the country and i was always proud of her and what she did. [applause]. a few months ago i found myself in a situation that i never would have imagined when i became fcc chairman. i was in dallas texas. i was at the helm of an excavator, a big piece of heavy machinery, digging up dirt. and for those of you who want to
picture that is seen in your mind, yes, i was wearing a suit. i was also wearing a pair of virtual reality goggles. and i had not left the fcc. while i may have been in washington, physically, i can tell you i was at the excavation site in dallas, 1400 miles away. i sat in the mockup of the excavator and i had complete control sensitivity to the equipment, 1400 miles away. now granted picking up dirt in dallas probably is not high on the list of transformational advancements. that will define the 21st century. but i want you to think of something, why don't you replace
the heavy machinery with a scalpel so that a world-class surgeon can move from hospital to hospital without leaving her surgical suites. or how about students sitting in the classroom, taking a virtual tour inside the human body. that we have all heard of amazing things, stories like that in the past, but making these kinds of activities possible without effect cable leading to the virtual reality headset cannot be accomplished because of three limiting factors, one the speed of the wireless connection, we all know the difference in performance of a direct fiber connection
compared to a wireless connection. the next generation of wireless must be mobile fiber. ten - 100 times faster than what we are used to today. second limiting issue is responsiveness. , the surgeon scalpel needs to be immediately responsive. not a blank later. the technical folks call this latency, he currently averages about ten milliseconds, or 1100th of a second. now that may sound pretty fast to you and me, but it's a snail's pace in computing. latency needs to be less than one millisecond, less than 11000
of a a second to provide for real-time interaction. and the third limiting factor is spectrum capacity, because if you're going to have that kind of high-speed latency, you have to have the ability for digital information to race down broad chunks of spectrum. multiples, of what we know today. so to overcome these challenges and to seize the opportunity before us, we need the next generation of wireless connectivity, fifth generation, or 5g. if the united states is going to continue to be a world leader in wireless, we need the speed the deployment of 5g here on our shores. the virtual-reality example that
i gave is but one sample. of the low latency activity. it is why american leadership in 5g must be a national priority. that is the example i gave you was just one example of how the driving force of the 21st century will be powerful processing, centralized in the cloud and wirelessly connected to clients, autonomous vehicles will be controlled in the cloud. smart city energy grids, transportation networks, and water systems will be controlled in the cloud.
summers of education and entertainment company the club. such futures will come to pass unless the pathway to and from the cloud is low latency, ultrafast, and secure. now we have learned anything in the generational march through wireless connectivity, it is that we have always underestimated the innovation that would result from new generations of wireless networks. the first generation wireless, one she was voice, and then early 1880s they said there be
900,000 cell phone subscribers by the turn-of-the-century, well it turns out there was 109,000,000. they were only offered by a. they were only off by a factor of 100 or so. the second-generation, 2g allowed both talk and text, but no one understood the power of text from shifting away and entire group, teenagers would communicate, to a developing world tool for banking the on bank innovators seized the new capability of texting and on imaginable ways. the third generation, third 3g married wireless and digital networks to open the door to connecting with the other new technological development at the time, the internet and the limited way. and in today's technology, 4g completed that digital migration enabling higher speeds for sophisticated applications
including video. again, greater capability in the network led to unanticipated in of bashan, without 4g there would not have been ways were over, or snapchat, or instagram, and the list keeps going on. but i have listed some examples earlier, moment ago about what 5g makes possible. but if anyone tells you that they know the details of what 5g is going to become run the other way. because it is the capacity to use this new capability that
will determine what her future looks like. yes, 5g will connect the internet of everything. if something can be connected it will be connected in the 5g world. but their world. but their predictions, but with the predictions of hundreds of billions of microchips connected in products from pill bottles to plant waters, you can be sure of only one thing, the biggest internet of things, application has yet to be imagined. yes, 5g will connect the young connected and compete with young competitive. millions of americans cannot access i keep speed connectivity because it's too costly to run the fiber to the home. verizon ceo has begun speaking lightly about using 5g connectivity to expand high-speed broadband service to rural areas. and fiber fast, wireless connectivity will deliver the long sought goal of competitive
high-speed internet access for consumers. but let's stop the imagining for a moment. here's the key, the interconnected world that we live in today is the result of decisions made one decade ago. the interconnected world of the future will be the result of decisions that we must make today. that is why 5g is a national priority. that is why this thursday i am circulating to my colleagues proposed new rules that we identified open up vast amounts of spectrum for 5g applications. we call it the spectrum front two years preceding and we will vote on it on july 14.
our work 5g proposal, is the final piece in the spectrum trifecta of low band, mid-band, and high band airwaves that will open up unprecedented amounts of spectrum, speed the rollout of next generational networks and redefine network connectivity for years to come. i'm confident the actions we need will lead to a cornucopia of unanticipated, innovative uses and will generate tens of billions of dollars in economic activity. but let's revisit that spectrum strategy for a moment. rule number one, the technology should drive the policy rather than the policy drive the technology.
technology for 5g is not one thing, it is many things. the marriage of moore's law and wireless connectivity involves smart antenna systems, new, more efficient transmission format, lower energy, lower energy system, network virtualization, and much more. on the spectrum side these technologies require new access to spectrum and multiple bands. the wireless future will not be a one-size-fits-all future. so our spectrum trifecta begins with a low band spectrum that is optimal for wide area coverage applications. at this very moment we are in the midst of the world's first incentive auction to make a greenfield low band spectrum available. the broadcasters have stepped up
to bring spectrum to the market. shortly, the wireless industry will have the opportunity to fulfill their repeated requests for more spectrum with this beachfront spectrum. mid- band spectrum is kind of the jan brady of the spectrum world. [laughter] , the overlooked middle child. but it's characteristics enable in order of magnitude increase in spectrum efficiency. the commission's recent aws and three new three.five gigahertz were landmarks in using new sharing tools to open up new mid- band spectrum and we need to continue looking for other midbrain opportunities. it is high band spectrum that will be the focus of our actions
next month. these bands, the high bands, offer huge swaths of the spectrum for superfast data rates with low latency and are now becoming unlocked because of technological advances in computing and tennis. if the commission approves my proposal next month, the united states will be the first country in the world to open a pipe in spectrum for 5g networks and applications. and that is damn important. it means that u.s. companies will be the first out of the gate. we will be repeating the formula that made the united states the world leader in 4g. it is a simple formula. formula.
lead the world in spectrum availability, encourage and protect innovation driving competition, and stay out of the way of technological development unlike some countries we did not believe we should than the next couple of years studying what 5g should be or how it should operate and how to allocate spectrum based on those assumptions. like the examples i gave earlier , the future has a way of inventing itself, turning innovators loose is far preferable to expecting committees and regulators to define the future. we won't wait for the standards to be the first, to be first developed in the sometimes arduous standard setting process
of government let activity. instead will make ample spectrum available and then rely on a private sector led process for producing technical standards best suited for those frequencies and use cases. leadership in networks leads to leadership and uses, which quickly moves across borders. so a result of this national leadership is the creation of a home-field advantage similar to what we knew it 4g. the main value of 5g will not be found in workshare or intellectual property, the the main value of 5g, by orders of magnitude will be in consumption rather than production. it will be a material gains and improvements in the quality of life and economic opportunity. i would also emphasize that the development of 5g is not
anything like an international zero-sum game. rather it is a contest in which everyone can win. our success and that of others redounds to the benefits literally of everyone in the world. we are already seen industry gearing up to seize this opportunity. i have seen 5g hardware and firmware. the technology is here. it is also important however to recognize the 5g technology will be a constant evolution. it will be a mistake to think that 5g can be frozen in a snapshot, it is more like a video with many new scenes all building on each other.
the systems and standards for 5g will be continually improving and evolving. on the network side verizon and at&t tell us they will be to begin doing trials and 2017, 17, these efforts will of course informed the standards process by putting stakes in the ground and the first commercial deployment search talking about is expected in 2020. this timeline requires that we act to pave the path today. with the new rules that i am proposing that ours spectrum frontiers order, we take our most significant step yet. down the path toward 5g future. the big game changer is the 5g will use much higher frequency bands than previously thought
bible from mobile broadband and other applications. such millimeterwave signals have physical properties that are both in limitation and a strength. they tend to travel best and narrow and straight lines and they do not go through physical objects as well. this means that very narrow signals in an urban environment tend to bounce around buildings and other obstacles making it difficult to connect to moving point. with brilliant engineers we have developed new antennas that can aim and amplify signals, couples with sophisticated processing that allows moving device to pick up all of the signals that are bouncing around and create one coherent connection. to make this work, the 5g buildout is going to be very
infrastructure intensive. it will require massive deployment of small cells. it will also opens up unprecedented opportunities for frequency you reuse in denser, more localized networks. the ability to ability to use this high-frequency spectrum of its much bigger chunks of spectrum. current blocks of licensed low band spectrum are usually five-10 megahertz in width. with 5g however, we're talking about spectrum that are at least 200 megahertz in width. width. this will allow the networks to carry much more traffic per user. gigabits in place of megabits of through part