tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 20, 2016 9:42am-3:01pm EDT
jo and bernard. the police officers who made the arrest, the national health service paramedics who were on the scene so quickly. in her maiden speech last year, jo said this -- our communities have been deeply enhanced by immigration. why we celebrate our diversity, what surprises me time and time again as i travel around the constituency is that we are far more united and are far more in common with each other than things that divide us. we need, trying to a kinder and gentler politics. this is not a factual party political point. we all have a responsibility in this house, and beyond, not to whip up hatred or so division. >> here, here. >> thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you to the prime
minister, and to rose hudson wilkins, our wonderful chaplain, for accompanying me to the vigil for jo last friday. at the priestly statute in the center of that lovely town. we, all of us, were moved by the energy and warmth of the crowd brought together in grief and solidarity. i've been very moved when the public outpourings since her death. the hundreds of letters and e-mails we've all received in solidarity with joe's family in their hour of grief. and by the outpouring of charitable donations to causes close to her heart, hope not hate, and the royal voluntary services. last night my honorable friend the member for south and myself held a vigil outside our townhall. one of hundreds of vigils
attended by tens of thousands of people the right across our land who are so shocked i what happened, and what to express that shock and grief. also what you think of the parties in this house who offered their sympathy and support at this very difficult time. we united in grief at her loss, and we must be aware her killing is an attack on our democracy. it is an attack on our whole society. as our honorable friend the member for world south wrote recently, jo's life was a demonstration against despair. and in her tragic death we can come together to change our politics, to tolerate a little more and condemn a little less. jo's grieving husband brendan said, jo believed in a better
world, and she fought for it every day of her life within energy and a zest for life that would exhaust most people. today we remember chose compassion, and a passion to create a better world. and in her honor, mr. speaker, we recommit ourselves to that. thank you. >> here, here. >> the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we are here today to remember an extraordinary colleague and friend your jo cox was a voice of compassion those irrepressible spirit and palestinians are you let up the lives of all who knew here are come and save the lives of many she never ever met. today we grief or loss and we hold in our hearts and prayers her husband brendan come her parents and sister, and her two children who were just three and
five years old. we express our anger at the sickening and despicable attacks that killed her and she did her job serving her constituents on the streets. let me join the leader of the opposition in his moving words in praising bernard and all those who tried to safer. but above all in this house we pay tribute to a loving, determined, passionate a progressive politician who epitomized the best of humanity, and to prove so often the power of politics to make our world a better place. i first met jo in 2006 in darfur. she was doing what she was so brilliant at, bravely working in one of the most dangerous parts of the world, fighting for the lives of refugees. our decision to welcome me, then a conservative leader of the opposition, had not been entirely welcomed by all our colleagues and friends but it was typical of her determination to reach across party lines on issues that she thought was so
much more important than party politics. jo was a humanitarian tumor core. a passion and brilliant campaigner whose grit and determination to fight for justice saw her time and time again driving issues of the agenda in making people listen, and above all, act. architecture to conflict in sudan and the democratic republic of congo, helping to expose the despicable practice of rape in war. or worked with senator brown and cutting mortality in childbirth, her support for refugees fleeing the war in syria. quite simply, the people on our planet today who are only here and alive because of jo. jo is a committed democrat and a passionate feminist. she spent years encouraging and supporting women around the world to stand for office long before she did so herself. when she was a was elected as an mp just over a year ago, she
said to one of our colleagues that she did not just want to be known for flying around the world tackling international issues but that she had a profound duty to stand up for the people in her constituency and she was as good as a worker as she sat in her maiden speech, jo was proud to be made in yorkshire industry the area in which she had grown up. she belonged there and did a constituency of a truly multiethnic, multi-faith communities she made people feel that they belong to, too. chose politics were inspired i love, and outpouring and unity of the tributes we've seen in the past few days should the ordinary reach and impact of her message. for remembering jo we showed today what she said in this house to be true, and an ability quoted many, many times today, we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than things that divide us. this wednesday as the lead of the opposition said, it would've
been jo 42nd birthday and to be a global celebration of her life and values. simulcast events in new york, washington, london, brussels, geneva and beirut. she should have been celebrating her birthday by hosting a traditional summer solstice party. a reminder that behind the professional was a loving and fun mother, daughter, sister, wife and friend. with a warm welcoming smile and so often laughter in her voice. jo brought people together she saw the best in people and she brought out the best in them. her brave adventure and 18 climate and she was never daunted. when most people hear replace the inaccessible pinnacle, they leave it well alone. not jo. she didn't just climate. she did so despite a bad case of morning sickness. and it was their irrepressible spirit that helped to give her
such determination and focus into politics. a conservative colleague of mine said this weekend if you lost your way for a moment in the cut and thrust of political life, meeting jo would remind you why you went into politics in the first place. track to the been summoned moving tribute in the past few days, but for now like to quote from someone already mentioned, the honorable member, jo, we mourn your loss, yet know the august at fort is unbreakable. we promised to stand up even though we are broken. we promised we would never be cowed by hate. mr. speaker, they we and the generations of numbers that follow was in this house under jo's memory by proving that the democracy and freedom's jo stood for our indeed unbreakable by continue to stand up for our constituents and by uniting against the hatred that killed her, today and forever more.
>> here, here. >> rachel reads. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i stand today to honor a friend and a colleague. along with shock, anger and grief, i have very many fond memories of jo. jo and i knew each other for around 10 years, and i knew her husband for longer than that. we first met at a conference about 18 years ago and it was the brendan that i first met on flickr i remember them coming on for dinner at the house my husband and i in london -- i remember worrying i had drunk too much wine early in the evening and i realized it was the boat that was swaying and not me. [laughter] i'm a member talking with jo about her future shortly after i became an mp. she was thinking about stand for
parliament has spent a day shadowing me in my constituency, talking to constituents about the problems, campaigning with party members and conducting meetings to by the end of the day off on the people were not sure who the mp was and who was doing the shadowing. jo hadawa had a way with peoplee relating to people from all walks of life, should real way of doing that. her name hesitation about the parliamentary career was her young family. she worried as many of us do about whether he to be a great mp and a great mom at the same time. but when the opportunity came up to represent her own seat, jo felt a special responsibility to step up and do what she could for the place where she was born, grew up and went to school, a place jo called home. jo wanted to make the world more fair, more equal, more tolerant and more generous. we all have their instincts.
joke appealed to our better instincts. our sense that as she said in her maiden speech, what we have in common is greater than what divides us. on friday morning, less than 24 hours after jo was killed i sat in a coffee shop just a few minutes away from where jo had been murdered. a woman came over to me and said she had not known jo but that her death had made want to be a bit more like her. a better person, a better mother, a better daughter. it is ironic that after troubling the world some of the most damaged war-ravaged places in the world, jo died so near to her home. but she died doing the job that she loved in a place that she loves representing the people that sheloved. her mom and dad said to me that you would not have changed a thing. she lived the life that she wanted to live, injecting her mom's words she had so much more that she could have done.
jo was struck down much too soon. so it now falls on all of our shoulders, the woman i met in a coffee shop, jo's friend in peace, all of us, to carry on jo's work. to combat and guard against hatred, intolerance and injustice, to serve others with dignity and love. that's the best we can remember jo at all that she stood for. but last let me say this. they were going to elect a new mp but no one can replace jo. >> mr. andrew mitchell. >> mr. speaker, today we mourn the terrible loss of our friend and colleague jo, so tragically murdered as she went about her constituency duties last thursday. her life has been taken over to exceptional woman whose goodness and passionate dedication to humanitarian values as inspired us all.
i knew her as a friend, but how unbearable it be for those who mourn her as a daughter, sister, husband, and above all, as their beloved mom who they used to visit for tea each week. i first met jo 10 years ago in london when we marched against injustice in darfur. add-on to this is in darfur, where she helped to develop essentially managerial role for oxfam. the leader of the opposition as he did, and i stayed there with her, and other humanitarian workers, and witnessed her crucial role for oxfam and supporting women and children come effort during water for thousands of refugees in the camps. she gave me the green wristband. i wear it still, to ensure that we remember that -- people caught up in what president bush
rightfully described as a genocide. and it is amongst her many friends and colleagues in the international humanitarian and development family, all around the world, of which she was such a respected and experienced member, that she will be mourned and remembered as a staunch friend of the most desperate and deprived in our world. and as a campaigner against injustice. when she entered this house with just 13 short months ago she rapidly used her deep knowledge to champion the dispossessed. she was labour to our fingertips, but russ is fully dismissive from party political maneuvering, which she saw as a barrier to progress. making common core with a crusty old tory -- [laughter] she and i became co-chairs of the all party friends of syria. and she was brave.
her energy and effectiveness were an inspiration. we invited ourselves to tea with the russian ambassador in his london residence. with clever charm but steely determination, this five-foot bundle of old-fashioned yorkshire commonsense rest him down for his country's cruelty and cynicism in syria. i do not believe the russian ambassador will easily forget that visit. mr. speaker, i think i'm many things jo would want us to remember this afternoon. may i mention just a few? i do not believe she would want this vile and unspeakable act to change the open and accessible relationship we enjoy with our constituents. >> here, here. >> all of us take the advice of our local police in protecting those who work and support us. thankfully, the record shows
these attacks are as infrequent as they are disgraceful. secondly, jo would want us in this house to redouble our efforts to resolve the greatest catastrophe of our age, the crisis in syria where lives of more than 11 million people have been ruined, while the international community has shown itself is organized, ineffective. but, mr. speaker, i mourn jo today as a friend and as a colleague, but most of all i mourn for her as a mother whose two gorgeous children will not have to charge through life without the love and support of their wonderful, lovely mom. >> here, here. >> harriet harman. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want -- i got to know jo after
the 2010 generate election when she was elected to chair labour women's network which she did for four years come and she was regularly burst into the office without extraordinary energy she had and to all that they were doing to a labour women get elected to parliament, to give women a bigger voice in the party, and so many of the labour women who are here in this chamber today who were elected in 2015, and who so deeply our morning jo's loss, women who under jo's leadership, helped and supported. not long after she had her son she came to get me one of those regular briefings and, of course, that they became also. i remember it because she literally didn't stop kissing and all the way through the meeting. and when she had her daughter, she was still there for the women who are trying to be, candidates, texting and support, phoning to commiserate if they didn't make it, urging them to try again. her feminism, her solidarity with other women was a thread
that ran through her and all her work in her cane or beet and for humanitarian causes. she always said to me emphatically that her children were priority above everything. but there was no dividing line between her maternal heart and a great political heart. her children will grow up to know what an amazing woman their mother was. .. mr. speaker these are not my comments but many of the comments i heard from those i
met. conscience of time i want to make sure that our friends have the opportunity to speak. i make this short but heartfelt contribution. i first met joe over a year ago. it was not long past the general election and we were both appearing on the region sunday politics show. on arriving at the studio i was taken to the makeup room where joe was already sitting in the chair. the this to say i had to spend a lot longer in that chair than she did. [laughter] but as i walked in, joe looked up to me in the reflection of the mere with that wonderful smile that lit her whole face. in that instance, that split second i knew this was someone i was going to like enormously. i was not wrong. as we reported the program it was clear that we agreed with each other on a number of issues.
i'm sure the lack of political argument came as a huge disappointment. it is a testament to who she was but she got her point across effectively and calmly without the need for talking over people because when jo spoke, people listened. she was always passionate about the issues she cared about, never afraid afraid to stand up to those she felt needed a voice. she was also a proud yorkshire woman. we are proud of her. as i spent time over the weekend, it was clear that her constituents loved her. almost everyone i spoke to had met her, quite an achievement in just a year. another tribute continue to increase and you could see the outpouring for jo. people packed into the center,
tribute after tribute spoken about one of the most outstanding members this house has. many described her as a rising star. personally i think she was a star full. they demonstrate the background from which many of the values came from. in the speeches we heard, she talked talked about how we are far more united and common than each other than things that divide us. in everything that she did she promoted those values. united communities and campaign for things that she cared so passionately about. in these last few days i have been amazed that the kindness and love expressed on social media, e-mail, letters, cards and conversations to encourage so many messages of appreciation
even for people who have opposing views. in her tragic death, jo is managing to achieve what she successfully did in her whole life. i am no i am not allowed in saying that i will miss her. i will miss her compassion, her determination, her conviction but above all i will miss her smile. jo was a proud yorkshire lass and a beautiful yorkshire rose. my only regret is that i only knew her for a year. >> here here. >> we have been friends for over 20 years. i will never forget her dashing
around in her viking gear, grabbing her close and shouting something over her shoulder about her latest project or campaign. she often brought her lovely children to the office with her. if i was lucky i would get a dinosaur drawing or a chance to read them a story. they are wonderful kids who are truly bathed in love. the murder of jo cox was a national tragedy but we must also remember the unspeakable personal suffering that has taken course. they have lost a loving mother, wife, daughter and sister. to speak of a fearless jo cox who never stops fighting for what is right. she gave voice to the voiceless. she spoke truth to power. she exemplified the best of our party and our country, compassion, community, solidarity and internationalism. she put her convictions to work for everyone she touched. for the people and the wretched of syria and victims of violence
and injustice everywhere. she was fascinating because of what she was and what she stood for. out of the deep darkness of joe's death must now come the shining light of her legacy. let us build the politics of hope, not fear, respects not hate. unity, not division, mr. speaker i can only imagine her reaction hours before her death. there were hungry terrified children begging from the terror of isis. she would have responded with outrage and without the calculated narrative of despair that it represents because she understood that rhetoric has consequences. when insecurity, fear and anger are used to light if use, then
an explosion is inevitable. in the deeply moving tribute brandon cox made last night he urged the british people to unite and fight against the hatred that killed her. it is the politics of division and fear and the rhetoric that twist patriotism from other countries into an ugly loathing of others. we must now stand up for something better because of someone better. in the name of jo cox, all that is decent, we must not let this intimidate our democracy. we must work to build a more respectful and united country because this is our time to honor the legacy of the proud yorkshire lass who dedicated her life for the common good and was so cruelly taken away from us in the prime of her life. jo cox, we love you, we salute you and we shall never forget
you. here here. >> jo cox was a politician who span continents and political party. amongst other courses she campaigned alongside many of us on behalf of people with autism and with her death we have lost a powerful advocate. when i came into this house in 1992 i sat alongside this woman. she was here for 14 years in the library and she shared letters with jo. like all of us she has been shocked to the core by this tragedy. she asked me to say that the attack on jo was an attack on the democracy and our government and political system and she will mourn the loss of an outstanding friend impolitic.
her family will mourn her. we will mourn her, a a woman of talent in humanity, a rising star in the bright light whose voice may now be extinguished but whose spirit epitomizes our democracy and will not be forgotten and will inspire not only her children but many generations of politicians to come. >> here here. >> holly lynch. >> here here. >> mr. speaker this will be the hardest beach however give however it wasn't difficult to write as there was just so much that i wanted to say. jo cox, a young woman was the very best. she may well been small but in politics and life she packed a point beyond measure. she came into this life with passion and energy. from the very start she had a pleurisy about what she was here to achieve, what needed to change and she wasn't going to waste any time in getting on with it.
she was new people counting on her couldn't afford to wait. her experience working in the most dangerous places in the world and upholding the principles of basic human rights were reflected in her politics and her character. it meant that when she spoke people listened. there was a weight to what she had to say per she wasn't afraid to say and she had a vision of a world better than the one which has taken her from us. she would write characteristically at cross the benches to work for change in the most collegiate of ways which has been reflected in the tribute paid to her. i remember in may of last year that i -- she was telling that every day that you are here's a day you can make a difference. my friends and colleagues will speak candidly about balancing
the challenges of being a mother and in politics. that's not to say that she was an easy person. [inaudible] she managed to reconcile reckons helping a hero and being incredibly down to earth. you only had to hear her speak to know her words were true. she was a daughter of yorkshire and she fought tirelessly for those who put their faith in her i remember her in many different ways. she spoke about her pre- [inaudible] i wouldn't be surprised if they had become increasingly nervous once they began to realize how
fermentable she was. i remember her in the lobbies and her cycling gear leaving us all wondering where did she find the energy. i remember hearing about the kids having chickenpox and regional news capturing the moments when one of her kids lost their shoes and she retrieved all before starting the day. those of us from my intake who had the pressure of her company as she hosted events to make the first year in office. we will be eternally grateful for those memories and the chance to be together one last time. they told me they will remember jo as a comic, shining brightly, lighting up the dark, inspiring and giving up hate and shining
light wherever she goes. she was the heart and soul of these benches and we are heartbroken. we loved her every day and we will miss her every day. she inspired us all and i swear we will do everything in our power to make her and her family incredibly proud. >> mr. speaker today we are united in grief. in jo cox we have lost a reflected respected and treasured colleague and friend. on behalf of the people we represent i want to pay tribute to her passion, determination and hard work rubbed off on those around her peer i was lucky enough to know jo before we were elected to parliament. she was an inspired and inspiring colleague. from the time we first met jo was in her 20s and already heading up to advocacy office in
brussels trying to help developing country spirit she was a joy to work with. she was talented, smart, focused and driven. the way she worked with others is what really made a difference. she was supportive and inclusive and generous and she had positive energy per she was a bright star that helped others to shine peer she could do anything with her life but she chose to spend it helping others and making the world a better place. inevitably over the last few days i've been sharing members of jo with many of my colleagues, some who were far more closer with jo on a daily basis than i was. i wanna share some of the things they said because they sum up the value she brought with her in the kind of person she was. she brought energy, fun and a focus on what she was working on to help those in poverty.
she was determined to make the government help the civilian spirit she embodied what it meant to be a true humanitarian. another said the wonderful thing about jo was how much she cared for those around her and those far away. she was not afraid to wear her heart on her sleeve. another friend described her as a massive bundle of brains and energy. she radiated warmth and intellect. almost everyone i spoke to talked about her yorkshire roots. she was proud of where she was from but rightly so note contradiction between caring about the life of the people on the other side of the world. jo fought with equal resolve for refugee children leaving syria and her own children in her constituency growing up in her district.
she wrapped her arms around the world with love. yorkshire should be immensely proud of her. i note joe's friends and former colleagues will be holding memorials for her in countries all over the world. last time i saw jo was at the parliamentary tug-of-war event just a couple weeks ago. the conventional wisdom is that height and weight are advantages in tug-of-war. jo had neither of those attributes. it was quite possibly be only thing about her that was demented. she was there with every fiber of her being and sheer dogged determination. that's how i want to remember
her, a strong, brave, determine woman giving her all with absolute commitment. i want to remember her with how she lived, not how she died. i wanted to be a symbol of the politics of hope, not the politics of fear. this parliament is a lot better for jo. we extend our sincere condolences to her family and constituents and the parliament. to brandon and her children, to her family, we know your losses in measurable that your life has been changed your revocable he and we holds all of you in our hearts. i hope they know how much their brilliant, beautiful mother was able to contribute to humanity in her short, purposeful and well lived life.
joe, those of us who knew you will never forget you and i hope you rest in peace. >> here here. >> in the midst of another yorkshire tragedy, the flowers of yorkshire and like the women of yorkshire, they have a beauty but the last phase is always the most glorious. it was glorious, jo. i was in all of jo. to be honest i was always a bit and adjusted she was energetic, brave, dynamic, fit, beautiful, passionate. i can't ever remember her seeing her sad, negative or without hope. she said she didn't do touchy-feely and i was being too emotional and we needed to get on with it. [laughter] we needed to sort out the campaign we were working on. she believed in building bridges when we thought our party was on
the way out, she knew there was bigger things at stake. we have to reach out to others and convince them of the case of poverty and standing up to civilians in crisis and for women and girls. she was never satisfied with platitude. she wanted action. we've all been overwhelmed over the last few days with just how many lives she touched from the refugee camps to the mountains of pakistan. she wanted to know why, who was responsible, what could we do about it. she had a remarkable mind and incredible ability to multitask. i once met her to go lobby about various issues and she turned up in a rush and we sat on the floor in charles street where she jumped straight into reading a briefing and knew what the key points were within minutes and delivered the important information to the decision-makers with confidence
and assurance. it was alternately brilliant. that was felt by all those she worked with. they described her as a fearless compassionate professional with such industry. she had smart, sound spirit, she taught me how to get stuff done with passion and professionalism our friend ben spent nights with her in the mountains in pakistan the truth is or not. we can be vain, arrogant and mean. were not jo. not just that everyone like jo or impressively jo liked everyone. she was fearless to injustice and saw no one as an enemy but everyone as a potential ally. though she was kind she was a speedy edge campaigner. she was one of most talented people i've ever had the
privilege to know but she could also make herself a pain in the back kind if she profoundly disagreed with you. he reflected on her years when she headed off from brussels office at a young age. he quickly changed his approach. most of all, he said jo loved justice and jo loved love. a friend saw jo a few weeks ago over a sandwich. he saw the bravery and determination as she continued to work over syria and the good that we have failed to do. our close mutual friend and campaigner summed it up perfectly for me in the last few days. she said jo never just asked what you think, always what should we do. this is what we should do, act, act, love and unite and that was the jo i knew, kind, caring,
principle and thoughtful and intellect but most of all focused on doing for others and not just being for ourselves. - here here. >> we stand united as colleagues to mourn somebody who was an anonymous figure in this house and would have gone on to be much greater still but for me and millions of others the snatching away of a wife and a mother, hugely loving and hugely loved is what moves britain to stand in collection these last few days. others who knew jo well commented on her hughes achievement in her career before parliament and the time she served in the past 13 months as an outstanding member of parliament. my path crossed hers as we took the same side in a campaign in this country to show compassion to desperate refugees, especially child refugees
fleeing syria and elsewhere. her wisdom, authentic and conformed contribution, the refugee debate seem to me to be critical. her legacy is one of building bridges and not walls,. she combined passion with what she believed in and kindness of how she expressed it. can we all agree now that that is how our politics should be conducted. we are shocked and we are heartbroken at her loss. on behalf with my family and everyone in congress, i want to say our enduring love and sympathy is with joe's family. >> here here. >> thank you mr. speaker, let me begin by saying again joe's own words, who can blame desperate
people for wanting to escape the for their families were expensing. children were being killed on the way to school and one and three children have grown up know nothing but fear and war. they have been exposed to things no child should ever witness and i know i would risk life and limb to get my two precious babies out of that hellhole. when jo spoke, mr. speaker, we all listened. why? because the principle she drew on in that speech and in life is the simple idea that we have more in common than that which divides us. her words demonstrate that if we choose, we do not wake up to view ourselves so different as those far away. we can choose to seek what unites us. we all listened because her words spoke to each and every one of us. now, to know joe, even a even a little bit was to understand how proud she was of her family.
you could hear her relish her role as a mom. many of her friends have spoken with that joy, that warmth, that naturals charm. she had a way of talking, not just about herself, her own ideas but always what we could do together. jo took on the toughest of problems, the most forgotten causes and bought campaigns we could all feel a part of that truly would make change happen. jo knew how easily our global responsibilities fade from view without conscious activism. as jo herself wrote, this active international approach is not inevitable. it has been and is still contested across the political spectrum. she wrote about the fight, not just the one country or one people or one cause but we all have the responsibility to protect.
this is especially true in relation to her activism in pursuit of women's rights. she had a great joy and great risk of motherhood. mothers are uniquely and equally vulnerable. when the world cannot find, jo took on this challenge to make leaders stand up and listen to leaders. jo didn't just believe that women's voices should be heard, she made it so. she was a feminist whose activism saved women's lives and political skill got women elected to this house. many in this place will help never seen the quiet careful work of jo and her colleagues at labor women's network to give women the knowledge in the network to take control and wind power. she did it not by hectoring or lecturing but by believing in the goodness of others and path
holding you up bright and part shoving you forward. that was what it was like to have joe's arms around our shoulder and how we all long to have her arms around her shoulder again today for one more hug and one more smile, but it cannot be. mr. speaker, those words from joe's maiden speech must therefore truly ring out today. we are far more united and have far more in common with each other than the things that divide us. you cannot take hold of populism. what we know in our hearts is true. it's not where you come from that matters, it's the compassion and love in your heart. you might be ferociously proud of your hometown as jo was but you know that compassion doesn't end its boundaries. here's another thing that doesn't and, jo cox's life has real meaning.
she gave love to us all and that can never be lost. we may feel lost today but the cytosol, the love is still there. >> here here. >> mr. speaker, i speak today by agreement for all the northern island parties members represented in this house, the dep and others. we sat together and we speak with one voice this afternoon to echo the common united response of all of the people we represent at home and in northern ireland. whatever is said cannot adequately reflect our heartfelt feelings. to the words that have been spoken already and will be spoken, i pray that joe's family may find some comfort and solace at this terrible time. we all want to extend our deepest sympathy to brandon and her dear children and to their
wider family circle of the tragic loss of someone so loved, so admired and who will be so missed. we also want to extend our sympathies to the party and the movement and the many, many friends of jo who have spoken about her in recent days in such moving ways. it is right that we as parliamentarians should meet together in this parliament today to record not just our discussed and our outrage at what is happened to an honored colleague but also to express our determination to uphold the values of democracy in an assessable way in which we conduct our political life in this country. a life like cox should not be defined by its and. it was her life that counts. that's what we remember today and should always remember. we in northern ireland, on all sides, of all parties have experienced directly and
personally attempted murder attacks, have indeed lost friends and your colleagues to men of violence. we have felt the pain and anguish which those close to us are going through now. our warehouse hearts are going to you and our thoughts are with you in our prayers are that god will comfort you and in the words of holy scripture, beyond to beauty for ashes,. >> we believe the common tribute to jo cox who was murdered last week, this is likely to continue for several more hours. if you've missed any of what we showed you earlier you can watch it online on our website cspan.org. we have more life coverage coming up shortly today on the cspan network.
it's just over 90 minutes we will bring you a discussion of three female assistant secretary of state who are expected to talk about the global fight against terrorism. they will appear at a women's foreign-policy group event and you can watch that live at 12:50 p.m. on our companion network cspan. join us at one pm eastern for remarks from sec chair tom wheeler. he will be at the national press club talking about the future of wireless technology. it starts at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. the focus of congress today is gun legislation. the u.s. senate gavels in at three eastern. they will take up gun related boats at 530, to dealing with background checks and two on the terror watch list. you can watch that live here on c-span2. in related news, the associated press reported the supreme court is rejected challenges to assault weapon ban in connecticut and new york in the aftermath of the shooting on a gay nightclub in orlando florida that left 50 people dead. justices today left in place a lower court court ruling that were passed in response to
another shooting involving a semi- automatic shooting, the elementary school attack in newton. >> the washington reporter who has been following this, good morning. >> good morning. >> can you break down the four amendments being debated today and basically the way of thinking amongst democrats and republicans on this issue? >> sure, the four amendments that we will see it will familiar to anyone who is watching the senate last december after the san bernardino shooting. there are two that the democrats propose to a republican alternative. to deal with weather tears should be able to get their hands on firearm explosives and to deal with background checks.o
the atty. general can deny the right to purchase gun to anyone who is a suspected terrorist. the republicans are saying that's too broad. the list the government keeps about who is suspected of terrorism are already salty and this ability moving on that will be problematic. they want to limit that, the atty. general or any other authority that's names can onlyn deny the purchase of firearms to anyone they can proof was in the first three business days after the point of sale but there is probable cause to do not deny that but the court has to get involved in the government has to prove their case and if they can it goes ahead. there's also alert systemshlisth involved that would say if you've ever been on a terror watch list or the fbi gets notified when you try to buy or when you do by a gun but it doesn't actually block the sale. the other two are due to background checks. one is trying to scan background
checks and require them at gun shows and it would put more money into the system that does background checks but it wouldn't change the rule. it works pretty much along the party line, not absolutely but pretty darn close when it comes to these proposals because that's kind of what they did when variations of that pop up from last december. >> what expectation of any of these proposals that will pass? >> alone, very, very low. even among members of congress is very low. there was some discussion last week about trying to craft an alternative but diane feinstein reached out to john cordon and those efforts fell apart.
there were talking to the organization, the gum gun control organization into the last thing that seems to be sitting is that tim collins is talking to other republicans about trying to craft an alternative but it doesn't seemk like that is going to be able to get done in time for these votes because no voter has been scheduled and they were talking about it publicly on thursday and they have not been in d.c. since then. it does seem like things are not going to happen and there were a lot of people last week expressing their thought frustration.n >> the nra put out a tweet last week in light of these votes and
stemming from the orlando, all gun owners must act now to save their second amendment right. what have we seen as far as their influence on these votes or as far as the advocacy they might be making leading up to today. >> their tradition is fairly well-known on these things. again because we've seen this before. when the proposal, the proposals are not that particularly new because they've been out there for a while. the nra, it's this thing wheres basically it's very possible to speak in a way that sounds very similar to what you are saying. the nra can say that too. it doesn't mean you support more stringent gun control. you can say that and still support that you are trying to
keep guns out of the hands of tara's but i want to make sure someone is a terrorist before their deny their second amendment rights.the that's what you're hearing from a more hard-core second amendment rights and i believe the nra has back that as well per the question is where people are going to end up on this despite that. you heard last week donald trump saying he was going to try to come to a meeting with the minds of the nra. it sounds like he's pushing republicans to be a little more proactive but he hasn't come out and said this is the proposal that i back. he just said we need to do something about guns getting into the hands of terrorist which is a common concern you hear around congress right now. >> she is writing about the senate vote on the gun measures. these votes will take place this afternoon. thank you very much for your time. - thank you. >> with the political primary season over, c-span's road to
the right house takes you to the political convention. watch the republican national convention starting july 18 with live coverage from cleveland. >> we will be going into the conventional matter what happens and i think we are going to go in so strong. >> and watch the democratic national convention starting july 25 with live coverage from philadelphia. >> let's go forward, let's win the nomination and let's return as a unified party in july. >> and then we take our fight for social, economic, racial and environmental justice to philadelphia. >> every minute of the republican and democratic national party convention. on c-span, c-span radio and cspan.org.
>> what are the d.c. court of appeals decide this week on net neutrality? >> it's a pretty surprising decision, i think for many people involved. the court ruled 2 - 1 to uphold the net neutrality regulations almost completely and you had what was ultimately a pretty big victory for the regulatory agents. >> what does that mean practically? what's way to happen now i think it means that the organization can move forward implement in its rules more aggressively without the fear that those rules will be struck down by the court or that they are will be further legal uncertainty, at least until the petitioners that were involved decide to you either appeal or ask for rehearing, but i think that's probably what we will leave to the folks. >> brian as our guest reporter on the communicators. we have two advocates on each side of the issue on net neutrality. fred campbell is with text knowledge, formally wireless
telecommunications bureau chief and matt would is policy director at free press. mr. campbell, was it a good decision by the court? >> i can't say that i'm in favor of the result. i have long been either opposed to net neutrality or looking for a lighter touch version to be the way that go and i've written in support of that idea in the past. what the court did here was apply a statute, a statutory scheme of title to in the industry of nomenclature that gives a lot more power than just net neutrality. for a long time, net neutrality was about whether your broadband provider can walk a website or discriminate amongst different websites but now that the fcc has, for the first time, gone further than that and said the scheme that one government
monopoly telephone network now applies to isps, it opens up the door for a bunch of additional regulations that were never part of the net neutrality debate. the fcc is considering imposing privacy obligations on broadband providers, that wasn't part of the net neutrality debate until recently. the public safety is thinking of requiring battery backups for dsl modems and cable modems. there's a lot of additional opportunities for regulation of internet providers than i think was contemplated even just a few years ago with this decision. >> mr. would. >> well not too surprisingly we disagree with a lot. brian said it was surprising, we weren't really surprised, we might of been overconfident but i guess i was pleased with the comprehensive nature. i guess it one on all.
we think these are good things in flow from that law. really what we think is the fcc is returning to the loft and to the right law for broadband, treating it like communication service and an infrastructure and a transmission system and making a distinction between the content on the internet so speech can flow freely but it's not the speech rights of the telephone company or the cable company it's you and me, c-span, commercial sites and people who rely on that which is millions of people today. that discussion has read us to the right place. >> i'd be curious to know what you think about judge williams
decision and what you think the strongest most compelling arguments that he made were. >> having justice scalia's dissent maybe i'm not the right one to say that but to be honest i don't pick we need to focus that much on the dissent. he basically said the fcc's rationale he had to see that they had the statutory authority to make this determination, basically with the d.c. circuit court of appeals was doing was following supreme court precedent on that very question. he question the fcc's reason for doing so but i think justice answers that well and it's a factual conversation. in some ways that's not the courts place to make those factual determinations. they have to be deferred to the agency's understanding of the technology and we think that's what they got right here and listen to a lot of other things based on earlier court cases. >> fred? >> i think the strongest point he made overall is that this is a paradigm shift in the way the communications law has traditionally been viewed.
if you go back to the original communications act, it was designed to regulate the monopoly telephone network. so the provisions in it were designed to protect consumers from a monopoly. fast-forward to the early '80s, the fcc said we can foresee competition developing and if we have competition the protection and the act will be taking care of by market forces, in other words they have orders that say if there's enough competition they can't discriminate or customers can go to someone else. what shifted here that judge williams raised in his dissent is that the fcc didn't really rely on the competition rationale for the rules. the reason he would say this decision and legal standard terms was arbitrary and capricious is that he would say you want to regulate broadband
operators like you did the telephone operators. you need to make a finding that there's a lack of competition because they said if there's competition consumers will be protected from discrimination by people switching. what the court did or what the fcc did that the court approved was they said well, we don't need to make a finding of of competition but we note that switching costs are high according to the fcc, you can switch broadband providers but it entails some cost and because of that we don't think that the competition will protect consumers. that's the paradigm shift. that's not really a traditional competition analysis, it it's something new. so the question becomes there are switching costs and lots of industries. in what incidences are switching costs a reason to regulate. i think it's an interesting question but that's one of the
things judge williams focused on. >> i think to just go back to where it started, we don't agree this is the first time this court has done this or the fcc has done this. title to in these common carrier roles and non- discriminate tory protection has applied in markets. in 1996 they overhauled the telecommunications act and left in place these nondiscrimination provisions in common carrier protections that protect people from things like blocking or undue discrimination by the provider. the rationale is that there is a lack of competition and i think most people understand they don't have that many choices for broadband as compared to the number of websites they can visit but importantly matter how many competitors there are we have these protections in place for wireless voice for the past two decades. we've have have them in place for dsl, at first for all dsl offerings and broadband offerings made by phone companies and then even after the last ten years for rule dsl operations and cable companies. title ii is neither new nor outdated.
it's a long-standing tradition and a long-standing part of law even in competitive markets and were glad that the fcc has returned to that mentality. >> parts of that opinion could be used by the industry to further its arguments. i don't know that it's point to go up further. >> what we usually see on appeals either to the full circuit or to the supreme court is some kind of circuit split. they could decide to take a case although they may not do so now with the hobbled supreme court with only eight justices. if there some sort of important question of law at play, i'm sure some of the petitioners or phone companies will be tempted to seek further review.
i don't know that they will get it and we don't see any weak points on what they are likely to win in the unlikely event that they do get a further review by a higher court. >> you view the circuit split as being a guarantee that they can't get a review. >> it's not a guarantee it's just that they don't have that to look to and say that they must decide some kind of split between the appellate court. >> do you agree with that? >> to some extent. i think what he was pointing out as part of what you have going on is with review of a federal agency decision like this, i probably won't come up on review again in another court see don't really have the opportunity for a circuit split. although the court can decide to take it without respect to that but matt's right, they they don't have that to look to. much of the opinion references the earlier court decision overturning the previous fcc net neutrality rules and i can't remember if that was if they tried to appeal that to the supreme court but in any event, it didn't end up there. supreme court review is not
given by any stretch. it's interesting to see what will happen. the one interesting issue i saw in the majority issue that creates new law or is inconsistent with existing law is the treatment of the first amendment question. it's not entirely clear but that could pique the supreme court's interest, possibly of they want to take that on. what the court did their, and in disclosure i filed a brief on the first amendment issue so clearly i'm interested in it but the court said look, once you have a common carrier network the first amendment generally doesn't apply. what's assumed in that analysis is that the fcc can force broadband providers to be common carriers.
if the first amendment says you can't force somebody to make their network available on a common carrier basis which was my argument, at least with respect to certain internet services. it gets a little more complicated. than that part of the opinion doesn't hold up. it's implied in what the court said, they weren't clear, that broadband carriers are held out as common carriers and they go on to say if the broadband provider, if they make rules that don't apply any other website, it might violate the first amendment if they tried to force the rules to apply. it raises an interesting question, my first thought went to the facebook service that was banned in india on net neutrality grounds were facebook made their social media network and some other services available for free and they paid
the indian provider. >> right that they ruled against it because they were getting paid by facebook. >> the question that's left open here is it appears from a reading of the court that it's very well permissible in the u.s. and the fcc may not be able to do anything about it. that's an interesting issue the supreme court may want to look at. >> so where to start, i think there's a lot of interesting questions. india and their total munication laws we probably don't have time for today. but to say that it was struck down on net neutrality ground is an easy and largely accurate description of what happened there but i don't think it answers any questions for us here. i think what the court did in some respects, it did lead leave out the option and possibility because the fcc left this open that some kind of curated internet service where the isp is editing and taking away choices for people are offering them special choices, not
necessarily requiring that company to be at common carrier would violate the first amendment but that company might have first amendment rights. so if they were indeed offering up and edited internet service perhaps that would trigger the first amendment. i think that's fair to say the court left that for later day. courts don't like to decide constitutional issues that they don't have to. by definition, it might not be a broadband internet access service and that might trigger first amendment review. i think the answer to that is anything but clear as to how that would come out. >> can you think of anything that does that that mold today and what kind of rules with that service be subject to? >> i really can't think of any. i think factually a will be hard for an isp to get there for a couple reasons. it's not generally what people want. there are such things as specialized services and data services that allow you to connect but that's not what were talking about here. were talking about more of an editorial choice, maybe a family-friendly isp or something
like that. it offers access to the internet but not a single server. >> do they support together through conscious decision of their own effectively create a new category of internet service question at. >> i don't think up likely to happen because it's risky for the isp. if they put themselves out there as the speaker and suddenly they lose liability protection that have always protected isps and said they're not liable for the speech of others. >> there's actually two providers other that are doing this now and they are relatively small. it's far far from clear to me that a large provider has any interest in doing that. i'm not trying to suggest that. i wrote a law review article on the first amendment issue and did quite a bit of research so i use an example, there's a small isp in new york city that markets itself as a friendly to the jewish faith. it blocks, it does not allow its subscribers to opt out. it blocks content it considers
inconsistent with the moral principles of that faith in the actually market that as their advantage. they do provide a curated service. i do think it was interesting it was never a net neutrality complete directed at them but their small and may not be the main focus. so it is happening now and for matt's point on it not being clear, this is also the kind of thing that can be brought up later on in what a court would call an as applied challenge. court can decide that these rules as written don't violate any constitutional right or provision but if the fcc were, for example to take action against this isp for their editorial decisions, they then could say will as this is being applied to me it's violating my first amendment rights. it's an issue that may not come up again but it is happening to some small extent.
>> so how does the net neutrality rules encourage more competition? >> it encourages competition for the services that we can all reach over the internet. it allows companies on the edge of the internet or so-called and providers to innovate without permission. allows them to compete with the broadband providers and offer things like voice and video that broadband providers might otherwise have a lock on and it also allows them to come up with that next innovation that nobody can dream of and say we can put in our category what we know of it seem so ordinary but of course social media and the power that we see in that platform is such a new thing in the last decade or two that nobody really dreamed about that. now it's being considered an important part of people's lives. :
traffic and get there faster that will harm competition on the edge. judge williams pointed out the largest providers are already getting a significant speed advantage by owning their own facilities and owning, paying our prime interconnection points that a lot of smaller providers either can't afford or they're paying a third party that isn't the isp. there are third party networks that provide these services. advantages are still going on. this was raised with the fcc. if you want to read these types of damages you have to address these networks. the sec said we are just not going to look into that. just didn't want to address it. >> some of that is true. i think netflix is an edge provider. they are on the other side of the network from the user. that's a we are talking about. a lot of people like to talk about net neutrality or anything as a battle between companies, netflix on one side and comcast on the other.
what we're talking about with net neutrality is comcast customers, and anything their commentary, internet service provider does unreasonably anything with that company's customers opportunity to reach different web traffic. to stream the data to want, to say what they want online. netflix is an edge provider. it's not a legal determination and the fact that some of their content might move more quickly, despite the common understanding a better job of some sort of speed limit, that's not really too. i think people understand that. they buy different speeds at home. that's not a violation or somebody might have a faster connection than somebody else. it's about whether there's any unreasonable interference or discrimination or roadblock that the cable company puts in the way. and doing something to improve the quality of your own stream if netflix has more servers, they can serve video more quickly than i can. that doesn't mean they are
somehow damaging or making my service or a few less appealing to viewers. >> let me use a different example to illustrate. a potential energy to your question about how does net neutrality promote more competition to the fcc's theory is that the broadband service providers have an incentive and ability to block or charge edge providers to deliver traffic. the fcc says that will reduce the amount of edge providers who want to provide traffic would reduce demand for the internet and, therefore, the isps themselves will not have as much infrastructure. in other words, it think isps are the own worst enemies. they will hurt them in the long run. this is what it meant by paradigm shift, the virtuous circle that the fcc talks about. it doesn't justices to apply to isps. who else stands a somebody in
between the consumer and an edge of service? i put this in the sec record and again they didn't address it at another thing is if you use the mobile internet at a lot of consumers today are only using mobile devices to access the internet, you have to have a mobile operating system. there's only really too. 96% plus market share, google's android or apples iphone operating system. both of them charge application developers to be able to be on that platform, and they charge consumers for the phone. at least in apple's case the they are making money that way. they say if yo if you if you wat on her phone you have to be in our apple store. they charge 30%, 30% rate. the sec says we are word they will be charged excessive prices to these edge providers and it's going to reduce the amount of edge providers down the chain.
the app space is exploding. 30% is about double what the sec historically has considered a reason over at every turn under their regulatory authority. that doesn't seem to be just waiting for a perplexed at all. but put that aside, if the theory is now part of a lot of communications, why doesn't it apply to the other gatekeepers on the internet that are charging people upstream 30% or what have you? i don't know. >> i want to come back to the mobile thing in the second but before i want to ask about implications this will have for legislation on net neutrality. there's been a lot of talk in the run up to this decision about whether or not republicans and democrats come together to write rules for legislation to supersede the fcc's regulations. what does this court decision mean for the process? >> i take it means you either
have the right lock in place and it would take a lot to convince me you can do better in congress. the fcc has some limited as to open internet advocates, editing what this does is set of does is set of the for we have today. ever going to improve upon that, there are ways to talk with the that the will not allow these protections be swept aside to make whether some kind of compromise that would not protect people as well as the loss was on the books right now. i plan to go back to the richest cycling but that may be in relation to the statute. and our culture open up the discussion and look at other to the keepers and talk not just about the app makers and the operating system makers, the apples but also social media giants and internet giants. that's an interesting conversation about the virtuous cycle against and the only thing the sec could rely on. they swept aside the disability this by going back to title ii and by treating isps as
carriers once again. the virtuous cycle conversation essentially said the only justification we have for net neutrality rules is this notion that somehow without good content online we'll see a dip in broadband assessment and we will see less and less people taking up broadband service. what we have is a restoration of law this as carriers are indeed different, and fred and others may disagree. they are by no means the only gatekeepers but they are gatekeepers the sec is going to charge in keeping in line with these protections that prevent the transmission companies, cable and phone companies from interfering. that doesn't mean apple cannot have a role in people's choice they make online. it does mean that you comcast cannot favor its own video in order to prevent people from switching to somebody else. that would not message libbey, i think france it would be the isps of shooting themselves in the foot. not really the case because
comcast or verizon or whoever can make a lot of money by controlling people's access and keeping them painful to services. it would be in the isps self-interest economically to keep people paying for cable tv, and even that dampened broadband investment and demand, comcast still makes it will because they're receiving two revenue streams. >> i want to discriminate one thing. the question is what is the difference between the isps ability to impact edge providers and the mobile -- that's not the only example a morning of the gatekeeper, so it is a platform for somebody else has to accept consumers. i don't see a difference. there was a historical difference because the networks working to fully. that's been erased. most of the time the answer i give when i raised this question is the fcc does have jurisdiction over mobile operating systems. then i point out, there was a
time -- >> you do think the fcc has jurisdiction over mobile operating systems? >> i think you either have direct, or my plan would be even some years ago there were even people who think, who support net neutrality policy where the fcc didn't have jurisdiction to do it. so they said look, use your ancillary title i or authority or the that what the congress ad proposed a bill. i find interesting. no one to sing anything about these other gatekeepers. they say that i have jurisdiction. nobody wants to talk about. >> so far we've seen chairman wheeler say very clearly that he has no intention of regulating edge providers online services using the net neutrality rules. could that change? do you see that changing? >> i think we see this in the privacy context. fred has said that decisions been erased. what his argument may be is that those kinds of gate keeper pars
have been replicated by new players. we've seen this in the privacy debate. if we can't prevent people's privacy from being invaded by facebook perhaps we should regulate what comcast and horizon be. most consumers that seems like a good idea. avoid the production we don't have and not using just because they might not be complete. as a somewhere interested in the conversation not to ancillary authority, not to section 726. those are the things that been swept away by the fcc, richard is a much more common sense and solid understanding of the authority they have anyone in this court case so decisively. but that doesn't mean we should sweep with the protection went in favor of some other new regime that has yet to materialize. >> so what's the practical effect of this decision and what's next? >> practical effect can continue to play role in these decisions. we think that's a good thing.
they are have to worry about coming up with another almost for the bite at the apple have a loss in court a couple times before except they went back to the solid legal foundation the congress wrote in 1996. they understand broadband as an essential communications director other than something that is mysteriously and i in te ignobly intertwined with the content that we all get on the internet. we are happy the fcc has that authority. what they do with it is yet to be seen to the are questions that will come up that we can't predict. that's not a scary thing because the fcc should be involved in that conversation. not setting rules when it does have all the facts but having the power to protect people from unreasonable discrimination and other kinds of interference that the isps cause for the use of the internet. >> fred campbell of tech knowledge comes in question. >> i think we'll see the law continue to expand. the history of these types of things, once you set the precedent people will start to file complaints under the new
rule of you can do anything to disadvantage the rule that some claim is too vague. it's not a strict prohibition. we will see people file complaints to test business models which will get the fcc more involved in sort of the way the internet is packaged and sold by isps. you do have a risk that some will try to expand this to other gatekeepers on the internet because there will be app developers who don't want to pay 30% anymore. they got pretty good arguments that we are in the same position with them as we are with the isps. over time this will start to develop more and then maybe we will get a better sense of what its real impact is going to be. >> brian, what are you going to be looking for? >> i think i'm going to be waiting to see of the internet industry response and whether or not they're going to look to escalate this case, and if so,
how? >> brian fung, fred campbell, matt wood, thank you all very much. >> thank you. >> more like event coverage coming away today on the c-span networks. coming up into discussion featuring a female assistant secretaries of states who are expected to talk about the global fight against terrorism. they will appear at a woman's foreign policy group event and you can watch that live on c-span. join us at 1 p.m. eastern for remarks from tom wheeler. you get the national press club and is expected to talk about the future of wireless technology. again that slide on c-span2. the focus of congress today is on gun legislation the u.s. senate gavels in of three eastern and will take for gun related votes at 5:30 p.m., go watch that live here on c-span2.
across the street from this capital since the supreme court where today justice is left in place a lower court ruling that upheld laws were passed in response to another mass shooting evolving as an automatic weapon. government fiscal attack in newtown, connecticut. for more about today's senate vote we spoke with a reporter who covers capitol hill. >> host: joining us on the phone is karoun demirjian of the "washington post," a congressional reporter. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: can you break down the for a menacing debated today in basically the way of thinking amongst democrats and republicans on this issue, it should.ry they will look very similar to anybody who is watching senate last december after the same party are shooting. is to democratic proposals by republican alternatives, two of them that have to do with whether terrorists should be able to get their hands on fire
arms explosives and then to do with the subject of background check. what democratic time to do onck the terror issue is basically say the attorney general and deny the right to purchase guns to anybody who is a suspected terrorist. republicans are saying that's too broad. to listen the government keeps about who's suspected of terrorist is already -- the billy goat the onset. that would be problematic. they want to limit that, the attorney general or any other authority that is named cannot deny the purchase of fire arms to anyone they can prove within the first three business days of actually point-of-sale that there's probable cause to deny those firearms. the court has to get involvedve basically in the government has to prove their case. if they can't because it. it also does alert systemsbeen a involved with, say if you ever been on a terror watchlist that the fbi gets notified when he tried to buy, when you do buy a
gun. they will actually block this and. the others to do with a background check. one is trying to, the democratic proposal is trying to expand background checks. the republican proposal would put more money into the system that would not be changed with the with the democratic proposal does. wilwhat we're expecting is the parties will pretty much split along party lines, not absolutely but pretty darn close. because that's kind of what thee did when these things popped up last december. >> host: what are the pas expectations any of these will pass treachery low. very, very look even among members of congress is very low. there were some discussions last week about trying to craft an alternative but diane feinstein reached out to john cornyn, to john cornyn, accused baucus, democrat and republican havingng to do with terrorists suspected
deals to get their hands on guns. that effort fell apart very, very quickly. pat toomey was talking to the organization that michael bloomberg backs. those seem to have grounded. the last thing this seems to be -- susan collins was talking to others about trying to craft ano alternative but it does seemem like that would really get done in time because no vote has been scheduled, and she started talking on a publicly on thursday and not in d.c. so does seem like things are just not happening to let more of an impact on where the parties stand for election. they're coming up with a compromise and to a lot of people last week expressing frustrations than what one of the people expressing their thoughts on is the nra putting
out a tweet last week invited these votes and especially sitting from events in orlando, all gun owners must act now to say theisave your second amendmt rights. what do we see this more as their influence on these votes or at least the advocacy that might be making leading up to today? >> caller: their position is fairly well known on these things. again because we see these topics in the last several months.oposals ar none of the ideas and the proposals are that particularly me because they been out there for a while. the and are a, there's this thing were basically it's very possible to speak in a way that sounds very similar to been a what you see the everybody is out there saying democrat,epubli republican, we don't want terrorists to come. the nra can even see the. that doesn't us are living to support the more stringent gun control been.
you can easily say that and still support senator cruz because he sang the same thing come on try to keep guns out of hands of tears but i want to be absolute sure someone who is not a terrorist is not denied their second amendment rights. the question is kind of what people are going to end up on this despite that. you heard last week donald trump sinews going to try to come to meeting of the mind with the other a. that sounds like is pushing republicans to be a bit more proactive but yes, i do come out and said, and this is the proposal that i back. he december the to do something about guns getting into the hands of terrorists which is a common refrain here around congress. >> host: karoun demirjian talkwa about today's efforts innocent with votes on the gun measures,
5:30 p.m. or so these votes will take place. thank you very much for your time. >> caller: thank you. >> with the political primary season over, see spencer road to the white house take you to this summer's political convention. watch the republican national convention starting july 18 with live coverage from cleveland. >> will be going into the convention no matter what happens i think we're going to go in so strong. >> watch the democratic national convention july 25 with live coverage from philadelphia. >> let's go forward. let's win the nomination and in july let's return as a unified party. >> and then we take our fight for social, economic, racial and environmental justice to philadelphia, pennsylvania,. >> every minute of republican and democratic parties national convention on c-span, c-span
radio and c-span.org. >> next testimony from a safety director john brennan who expressed concerns with isis in libya during the senate intelligence committee hearing. director brennan appear before the committee to talk about the agency's operations and resources. with getting a presidential election year the cia's director also outlined some key threats of the new president will need to address including cybersecurity. this runs about one hour 45 minutes. >> [inaudible conversations] >> call this hearing to order. i'd like to welcome our witnesses today, central intelligence agency director john brennan.
john, you operably note in your opening statement that this hearing takes place against the backdrop of a heinous act of violence perpetrated by a troubled and evil person. the committee has been consistent, in contact with the fbi from early morning hours on sunday, and it's been provided a great deal of information on the status of the investigation. i know that your team, along with the intelligence community partners, are also working to determine if the killer had any connections to a foreign terrorist group like isis. let me think you officers for what they do, and for the long hours that they are likely putting and to understand this tragedy will also focusing on a wide range of threats facing our nation. mr. director, i know your organization understands the threat posed by isil, and there's been much of a
discussion about progress, the u.s.-led coalition has made to contain isil geographically to degrade its finance and media operation to remove his fighters from the battlefield. however, while progress may have been made against those folks can you note in your statement that our efforts have not reduced the groups terrorism capability and global reach. that assessment is significant. i want to take this moment to speak not only to you but also to the american people. we live in an open society, one that values freedom's and diversity. the islamic state is recruiting individuals by leveraging that freedom and taking advantage of misguided hate to attack us, and in doing so, to divide us. isil global battlefield now includes the united states, if we cannot stand idly by.
we must take the fight to them. we must attack them where they raise money, where they plan, where they recruit, and we must deny them a safe haven. we cannot negotiate with extremists who seek only to kill, and i don't think we will. i'm not willing to accept the events of san bernardino and orlando as the new normal, nor should anyone. we should be able to live securely in a free society, and i think we will. we are not alone. our friends in europe, asia, and across the world should be able to go to sporting events, concerts, dance clubs, and experience life with the families in safety. we will unite as a nation and as a coalition to confront isil and deny them safe haven, but we can only do so with a realistic proactive, aggressive, and well
defined strategy. and, frankly, we have to own it and embrace it. now is not the time to pay lip service to these threats. the sooner we as a nation realize that the only one path for us to take at this juncture, the sooner we will destroy isil's capabilities and ensure the continued safety of our nation. john, i don't make these comments lightly and i'm confident we will highlight during her testimony these and other threats to our nation. but before i turn to the vice chairman, i would ask you to relay something to your entire organization. our thanks and our appreciation for their work. your office's work in the shadows often and austere and dangerous environments, day in and day out to keep us safe. their selfless dedication to their fellow citizens should be
commended, and we are in debt for that service. mr. director, i thank you for being here today at a now turn to the vice chairman for any comments she might have. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. i don't want to repeat what you said. i think you said it very well, and i'm very strong and agreement with it. but i'd like to talk about a slightly different dimension. i think it's becoming apparent that the tragedy of the last weekend in orlando highlights one of the great difficulties this nation faces with the rise of the islamic state. this inning is very different from past adversaries like al-qaeda. because isil not only seeks to control territory in several countries, but is taking advantage of technology and social media to recruit fighters and inspire terrorist attacks far from the battlefield. this trend concerns big early.
according to the president and the fbi director, the killer in orlando was inspired at a minimum influenced by online terrorist material, similar online propaganda played important roles in the shootings in san bernardino, chattanooga, garland, texas, as well as fort hood, texas, and other attacks. so, director brennan, i hope you can assure this committee and the american people, because this is an opportunity to do so, that the cia is doing everything in its power to understand how these four organizations working operate. i think such knowledge is essential to help policymakers shape laws and counter isil's online efforts so that we stop them from incessantly parading on at risk individuals, and rather like to see pashtun
radicalizing them to such heinous crimes. i would like to ask that you update us on cia's understanding of the extent and reach of isil, and the implications for those of us here at home, and for our friends and allies overseas. i think there's been some important progress lately, and i think it's important to share that progress with the people. on tuesday the president publicly listed some of the senior leaders of isil who have been killed, and i think that's welcome news. secondly, we would like a cia assessment on whether the 13,000 coalition airstrikes against isil have been effective and what sorts of targets have most setback isil's efforts. we know the iraqis forces have surrounded fallujah and begun to move into the city. iraqi forces have recently liberated the strategic town and
broke the isil siege. isil has now lost nearly half the populated territory it once controlled in iraq. isil continues to lose ground in syria as well. a coalition of global forces is now pressuring the key town which will cut isil smuggling routes into turkey, hopefully, toward substantial pressure on the capital of rocco. in sum, i think would be helpful for america to really understand whether the and the isil coalition that united states has put together is making progress. if so, how and where? in addition to isil, i would either interested in hearing from you on of the global threats to the united states and the challenges that you believe we face. in particular i think all of us
are concerned about the recent behavior of north korea. the aggressiveness of russia, china's actions in the south china sea and the instability in north africa in particular. so i thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. i really look forward to the discussion. >> thank you vice chairman. mr. director, we will be joined by a lot of members as is evident that there will don't care what diane and i say but when they see you on -- >> speak for yourself. [laughter] >> they will be here quickly. we again thank you for being here. we thank you for what the agency does day in and day out, and the floor is now yours. >> thank you very much chairman burr and treachery and members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to speak you today in an open hearing about the central intelligence agency, an agency of the workforce that i am
enormously proud to be part of. i am privileged every day to lead the women and men of the cia as they work around the clock of the world often a difficult and even dangerous locations to keep our country strong and free and our fellow citizens safe and secure. our hearing today takes place against the backdrop of a heinous act of wanton violence that was perpetrated against innocents in orlando, florida, last week and. we join the family and friends mourned the loss of their loved ones were killed in the attack. extend our best wishes for a full and speedy recovery of all those injured. this act of violence was an assault on the values of openness and tolerance that defined us as a nation. in light of events in the land of us like to take this opportunity to offer the committee our assessment we face, especially from the so called islamic state of iraq and the levant, or isil. on the battlefield of syria and iraq the u.s.-led coalition has made important progress against isil. the group appears to be a long
way from realizing the vision that our identity, its leader, laid out what he declared the caliphate two years ago in mosul. several notable indicators are turned in the right direction. isil is lost large section of tape and both syria and iraq. its finance and the operations have been squeezed. it a struggle to replenish the ranks of its fighters in part because fewer foreign fighters are now able to travel to syria. moreover, some reports suggest a growing number of isil members are becoming disillusioned with the group and are eager to follow i in the footsteps of members who have already defected. the and the isil coalition is taking steps to exploit these vulnerabilities. in addition to efforts underway to liberate cities like fallujah and manbij, the coalition is moving isil is from the battlefield reducing the goods capabilities and its will to fight the last month a u.s. airstrike killed and influential
isolator in al anbar. isil, however, is a formidable resilient and largely cohesive enemy and we anticipate the group will adjust its strategy in an effort to regain momentum. in the coming months we can expect isil to probe the frontlines of its adversaries on the battlefield weaknesses to harass the forces that are holding the cities it controlled coming to conduct terror attacks against enemies inside iraq and syria. two comments eight for losses, isil will rely more on guerrilla tactics, including high profile attacks outside the territory that it currently holds. a steady stream of attacks in baghdad and damascus demonstrates the groups ability to penetrate deep inside enemy strongholds. beyond its losses on the battlefield, isil's finances are taking a hit. coalition efforts have reduced the groups ability to generate revenue and to force it to cut costs and to reallocate funds.
yet isil is adapting to the coalition's efforts and continue to generate at least tens of millions of dollars in revenue per month, primarily from taxation in those areas it controls and from crude oil sales on the black and gray markets inside syria and director despite all our progress against isil on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced their troops terrorism capability and global reach. the resources needed a very modest, and the group would have to suffer heavy losses on territory, manpower and money for its terrorist capacity to decline significantly. moreover, the groups for branches and global networks can help preserve its capacity for terrorism regardless of events in iraq industry. in fact, as the pressure mounts on the isil we judge it will intensify its global terror campaign to maintain its dominance of the global terrorism agenda.
since at least 24 to isil's been working to build and aggregate to direct and despite attacks against its foreign enemies resulting in hundreds of casualties. the most prominent examples are the attacks in paris and brussels which we assess were directed by isil's leadership. we judge isil is training at attending to operatives for further attacks. isil has a large cadre of western fighters who could potentially serve as operatives for attacks in the west. the group is exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the west, including refugee flows, smuggling routes, and legitimate methods of travel. as we've seen in orlando, san bernardino and elsewhere, isil is attending to inspire attacks by sympathizers who have no direct links to the group. last month a senior isil figure publicly urged the group's followers to conduct attacks in their home countries if they were unable to travel to syria and iraq.
at the same time i saw it is cultivating its global network of branches into a more interconnected global organization. the bridge in libya is probably the most developed and most dangerous. we assess it is trying to increase its influence in africa and to plot attacks in the region and in europe. meanwhile, isil's sinai branch in egypt has established itself as the most active and capable terrorist group in all of egypt they focus its attacks on egyptian military and government targets but has targeted foreigners and tourists as we saw with the downing of the russian passenger jet last october. other branches worldwide while also concern of struggled to gain traction. yemen branch has been written with factionalism and afghanistan-pakistan branch has struggled to maintain its cohesion. finally on the propaganda front, the coalition is working to
counter of isil's extensive propaganda machine. isil paints the carefully crafted image to the outside world on its own military efforts, portraying its so-called caliphate as a thriving state and alleging the group is expanding globally even as it faces setbacks locally. isil releases a multitude of media products on a variety of platforms including social media, mobile applications, radio and hardcopy meetings. to disseminate its official on my propaganda the group primarily uses twitter, telegram and tumblr ever less a global network of sympathizers to further spread its message is. in sum, isil remains a formidable adversary by the united states and our global partners have succeeded in putting the group on the defensive, forcing it to devote more time and energy to title the territory to protect its vital infrastructure inside of syria and iraq. and though this would be an long and difficult fight, there is broad agreement and the international kimberly on the
seriousness of the threat and on the need to be did collectively and decisively. and dominates the conversation with my intelligence and security counterparts globally worldwide. i frequently engage with them about what we need to do together in terms of information sharing, joint operational activity and being able to complement our respective strengths and capabilities. as you well know cia is not just a counterterrorism agency. we are a comprehensive intelligence service with the global charter and we're called upon to address the full range of 21st century threats. as it often to young officers at the cia i've never seen a time when our country faced such a wide variety of threats to our national security. if you anything as long almost any portion of the map from the asia-pacific to north africa, you will quickly find a flashpoint with global implications. china is modernizing its military and extending its reach in the south china sea. north korea is expanding its nuclear weapons program. russia's threatening its
neighbors and aggressively we asserting itself on the global stage. then there is a the cyber domain with states and subnational actors are threatening financial systems, transportation networks and organizations of every stripe in second at other times particularly appreciates the work of this to try to come to grips and to address the cyber threats we face as a nation. in the face of these challenges our nation depends on cia and our intelligence community part is the keeper country stronger to do. in today's volatile and complex world, policymakers depend on cia more than ever for intelligence, insight and options. if there to meet the nasa study challenges that confront us we must constantly adapt and innovate. that is why we announced a conference effort last year to modernize our agency for the future. since launching our modernization program over 15 months ago we've taken aboard steps to ensure agency fully adapt to the challenges of our time. we still have work to do, and in
some respects we always will. that's because modernization is that more than lines and boxes on a chart. it is about the mindset, a commitment to innovate so we can keep up with an ever-changing world. i.t. part is our commitment to making our workforce as diverse as the world recovery. just last week the office of the director of national intelligence issued a report showing the intelligence community is less diverse than the rest of the federal workforce. a report that forces those of us to confront some hard truths about who we are and how we are performing our mission. as this committee know cia unveiled a landmark effort to make sure our workforce reflects our attitude, background, ethnicities and our perspective. the nation we worked so hard to get them. this is both a moral and ignition impaired. i believe the business case for diversity is stronger for the cia then it is for any other organization in the u.s. government. diversity only gives us the cultural understand when he to
operate in any corner of the globe. it also lets us avoid groupthink uninsured would bring to bear a range of perspectives on the complex challenges that are adhered to intelligence work. again i would like to thank the committee for support for the cia and our partners, through the course of you and i look forward to addressing your questions. thank you. >> mr. director, thank you for the testimony. note to members, we will do five minute rounds based upon seniority. mr. director, you lead an organization with unique insight into global defense unprecedented access to the entire world and highly trained officers who possess a wide range of talents and skills. to the extent that you can discuss in this setting, do you believe that you have all the authorities you need to accomplish your mission? >> senator, i believe that we have a great deal of authorities
and very important sal of authorities to carry out our mission and retired to the best of our ability. the one everyone i look to the future that concerns me is in the digital domain which is why we set up a fifth director, the first time figures we set up a new director. we were able to understand all of the implications, vulnerabilities and the opportunities that that digital domain presents. as i know this committee and others in congress are crowded with the issue about the role of government in the digital domain, law enforcement, intelligence and security organizations, i do wonder whether or not we as a government have the ability to be able to monitor that domain from the standpoint of identifying those threats to national security, that we need just the way we have within the physical domain, maritime domain, the aviation domain. the consensus about how the government has an obligation to protect its citizens in those various domains.
the digital domain is a new domain. it is the new frontier. i cannot believe our legal frameworks as well as our organizational structures and our capabilities are yet at the point of being able to deal with the challenges that we need to have in the future. so this is the one area that i encourage the committee, the congress to this administration of the next administration to continue to work on, particularly as this country's going to be part of the internet of things where virtually every type of electronic and mobile device is going to be connected to the internet. that interconnectedness and gives us tremendous convenience in our lives but it also creates inherent form abilities that our adversaries whether they be nation-states or individual actors were groups will take advantage of the area i'm concerned, the authority not just the cia but fbi and nsa we need to be looked at carefully. >> the committee is extremely engaged in that side, and our
focus pashtun our hope is we can continue to make progress in understanding what the structure should be in the future. in your opening statement that this is not just the characters the agency but and intelligence service with a global charter. he believed the organization focuses too much of its time and resources on the terrorist threat to? >> i think as this committee knows very well that the terrorism threat has in large since 9/11 but it does present a serious threat, not just worldwide but to our beloved homeland which is why the cia has been called upon to help lead this fight and to take the fight to terrorists or positions so we can defeat them abroad so they are not able to carry out their one depraved acts here in our homeland. cia has multiple missions. we had a clandestine collection mission of both human and technical. we have the all source analytics commissions we can provide policymakers with insights any.
we have a counterintelligence mission to make sure protect ourselves from those adversaries who are trying to steal our secrets. we also have a covert action mission which involves a pair military dimension, given our roots in the overseas in order to come since our birth and at 47 every administration has taken advantage of cia's tremendous capabilities in that covert action military realm. as we fight terrorists on the oe battlefields of syria and iraq in yemen and libya and other areas, i think cia's capabilities are going to be called upon increase in the future. i would add one other component to those missions and that's on the liaison front, our partners. we need to make sure we develop the partnerships we need so we can leverage that capability because as good as ca eight is we're not able to confront all of these challenges globally simultaneous. we need to stop the professionalism of other services and want to make sure they are able to fulfill their
obligations and they are not subject to the whims of a corrupt political masters are going to try to use them for their own political agendas. as we develop these partnership would turn to develop the professionalism as well. >> last question. you've been at the helm of the secia for roughly three years n. the world's changed dramatically during those three short years. while this is not the appropriate venue in which to go into great detail and discussion of sources and methods. it's a good opportunity for you to speak to the american people to educate him about the cia and in some sense humanize what is a very open organization to most. how is your view changed during the last three years? >> mr. chairman, thank you. in your opening remarks such while cia officers the good work in the shadows and without the accolades that i think they deserve. i first raised my hand and swore allegiance to this giunta on
august 5, 1980, as a young officer and worked at cia for 25 years. during those 25 years and in subsequent years to include the last three and some three years i've had the pleasure and honor to lead the cia, i am always impressed with expertise, capabilities and dedication of americans from every state in this union will come to cia, recognizing that definitely going to be aligned unfairly because of misrepresentation of the work. but they recognize the work they do is essential to keep their families, neighbors, friends, fellow citizens safe. i truly believe that the agency is core and essential to keeping this country safe and secure from the growing threats we face around the globe. coming back to see a and coming back to cia and being able to spend every day with cia officers, i am just amazed did what it is they're willing to do
on behalf of the country. i presided over our annual memorial ceremony last month in front of a wall of honor were 117 stars graced the wall and progressive cia men and women have given their lives to this country. they do it again without seeking praise, public acclamation, but they do it silently, selflessly, with great sacrifice to the end of family. i am honored to be part of this organization. >> thank you, director. vice chairman. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i hope to get him three questions, director. the first is, and listening to your remarks, which i think a lot of broad strokes and very interesting, i want to ask you about a couple things that you said. you said that libya is the most dangerous country in the sinai the most active.
you mentioned military and governmental targets. could you explain a little bit more about that, please? >> i talked about libya as being the country where there's the most dangerous branch of isil outside of syria and iraq. they have several thousands of individuals who have pledged allegiance to isil. they now control a portion of the libyan coast around the city of cert whether able to train, develop and to consolidate their position is that libya as well as to use libya as potential supreme court for carrying out operations abroad. they've attracted a number of individuals from african countries inside of libya. so, therefore, i am concerned about the growth of libya as another area that could serve as a basis for isil to carry out attacks inside of europe and in other locations. that is very concerning, particularly since libya is right across from europe, the meta- train.
the refugee flows that are going there. there's a group within the sinai, isil, it used to be an egyptian terrorist group which was basically consumed by isil and that group pledged allegiance to isil. they already have the capability. had a number of individuals who are trained and ready to carry out attacks. we to attribute the downing of a russian airliner to this group that was able to get on board that aircraft, an ied, and to bring it down. the great concern about how isil has been able to rapidly develop capabilities in other countries, in some areas they were able to co-op and acquire groups that were already in existence, thank yous in the country where boko haram is not an islamic state of west africa. where you have several thousand individuals who are also on the march waving the isil better.
i was just out in singapore last week were i talked to my asian counterparts, consider that what we might see in southeast asia as various terrorist organizations are increasing their interactions and connections with isil. so this is a global challenge. the numbers of isil fighters now far exceeds what al-qaeda at its height. we are talking about tens of thousands of individuals. >> can you estimate the number? >> right now we estimate within the serious iraq area, between 18,000-22005 at announced a significant farmer estimates last year were estimated estimates last year we estimated they may have had as many s. 33 thousand or so fighters. in libya the numbers range 25 to 8000 or so. inside egypt the are several hundred if not over 1000 hard-core fighters inside of the sinai that are a combination of individuals who were formally of others have joined.
inside the image of several hundred. in afghanistan and pakistan, it's in the hundreds. so the numbers are significant. in iraq, syria, libya, nigeria you probably have maybe 7000 or so. again that are hard-core fighters your there are logistics, specialist, facilitators and others but the numbers are significant. significant. >> i want to get and one other thing. you said hey possible ties to by using twitter, telegram and tumblr. that those are the most used. explained a little bit. c., i fight this huge personal privacy that get to keep everything private. and yet when you have the electronic world being used as the propaganda mechanism to fuel a lone wolf, to goad on the lone
wolves, and to use the word inspired the lone wolf for the united states, that's a big security problem. what do you recommend from an intelligence point -- i know it but you on the spot, but we are trying to discuss a bill on encryption using court orders to ask companies to cooperate in cases of national security as well as major, major crime. it's just very difficult, and yet we see this propaganda. i read those magazines. i see what's happening. the enormous frustration, it's not like you go to a library and find something in the stacks. this is a few clips, links. and people of all this vitriol. what do you think the responsibility of the technical
sector should be? >> i think you put your finger on two major issues. one is about your absolute right. isil has made extensive and sophisticated use of the various, technological innovations that we have witnessed over the past decade. taking full advantage of social media. a large part of the isil contrary our young individuals have grown up and whether the inabilities, you're part of the places in an era of great technological development. using these mediums comes naturally to them. they gravitate toward them but they also are very aware of what mediums provide them the greatest security and the greatest protection from governments insight and oversight of that. they recognize about of these apps provide them the ability to communicate with hi end to end
encryption, and also provide amphetamines to governments to be able to gain access to content of their information. i will hearken back to what i said earlier. i do believe that this committee and others we need to continue to have a discussion that is going to be a national discussion about the appropriate role for the government. in an area where the private sector owns and operates the worldwide internet, and we know that the internet does not respect the sovereign borders. so it's not just wage of what the united states is able to do. it's what the normal standards of going to be across the globe i do not believe there is a national consensus by that evil than the congress of the executive branch about what the appropriate role is for law enforcement for intelligence agencies in terms of being able to have the basis and foundation to be able to protect their fellow citizens from what can happen in that digital domain, whether it's with the propagation of propaganda that
these organizations are involved in a whether or not they are directing and training and inciting individuals. but also the vulnerability of our critical infrastructure as well as our way of life here, to disabling and destructive malware can be deployed by nation-states or organizations that have that capability and the intent is something that we need to come to grips with. we don't want to face the equivalent of a 9/11 in that cyber domain. it is a very important and worthwhile debate and argument on all sides of the with the government's role should be. but when i think but the government's inability to be able to follow up on a court order that grants the government access to some type of device that holds a lot of documents or information, that it could be in
public o or exculpatory about at manifestation as will provide in this give legs to prevent the next attack, there's something this government has to come to grips with in terms of what is the authority and responsibility and the role of the government in making sure that this country is kept safe from those who want to do is harm using the digital domain. >> senator coats. >> director, you talked about the charitable games we've had against isil in both iraq and syria. i'd like to get the intelligence assessment, agency's assessment, of what he would look like in c. recover the challenges are, what the intelligence and shows the complexity. it's a mixed cocktail of opposition groups and so forth. so if isil is defeated, what are we facing? what are the continue to face in syria talks whether assad stay for what he does this going to
be significant questions raised as to what we're going to be facing. i think there may be some people come to include the method is to keep prices in syria and iraq, and then everything will be fine. we know that they metastasize to a number of other nations but my question is, what is syria going to look like if and when that happens and what kind of challenges are we going to have? >> your absolute right. series of is a cocktail of factors many of which are in violent conflict with one another. that our two principal organizations to operate inside transit. one is isil. the other one is al-qaeda in syria. that also has formidable capabilities and presence throughout the country, several
thousands of fighters, some of them just engage in the battlefield against president of sabah also some were plotting to carry out terrorism attacks outside of syria. would want to do is destroy those organ is -- terrace or decisions. the u.s. government support the moderate syrian opposition. if we're able to eliminate those terrorist groups, there's still always to go to address some of the outstanding issues inside of syria. the syrian opposition was generally because of concerns that the sunni majority had a chance to bashar al-assad regime that was abusing its authorities and its powers. so there needs to be some resolution of outstanding confessional tensions between shia and sunni together christians, druze, others inside of syria, visible we believe that bashar al-assad needs to be part the scene so they can be a more representative and
legitimate government that is able to preside over this series in the country. but in addition to that you tensions between the syrian kurds in the northern part of syria and the arabs and the rest of the country. so there's a lot of tensions that is very similar in some respects to the content that exists within lebanon with a multi-confessional nature of the country really has been a serious impediment for lebanon to have a functional political system. swivel long way to go but the important thing is to destroy the terrorist organizations, bring the conflict down, stop the bloodshed, bringing the humanitarian assistance that the stream people so richly deserve and need it to be a mature able to develop a government structure that is going to be represented of the syrian people to be able to address the reconstruction of the dutch which is going to cost you against upon billions spent given the russian involvement in syria now and whatever decisions they make relativity either
assad staying or leaving, how does that complicate the resolution for some kind of settlement, cease-fire or whatever? >> russia brought its military force to bear last september in syria with aircraft artillery and personnel as a way to prevent what they saw as an imminent collapse of the bashar al-assad regime. they have boasted the regime for senator baldwin and carry out strikes against the opposition. we worked very closely and talk with a rush about how to bring this conflict down. we worked with them to try to see if we can do on the counterterrorism front. but i've been disappointed that the russians have deployed a more constructive role in terms of leveraging its influence inside of syria to bring the syrian regime and military
forces down in terms of their engagement and to be more helpful, as far as negotiating track. this problem is not been resolved on the battlefield it has to be resolved on the political front. secretary kerry has been working very hard and long to try to stimulate some traction there. the russians i believe can do more both in terms of the restraints that they can put on the syrian forces, but also more constructive engagement on the political front. >> is assad stronger today or weaker today than it was a year ago? >> a year ago he was on his back foot as the opposition forces were carrying out operations that really were degrading the syrian military. as a result of the russian military intervention, he is an instructor position that he was in june of last year. >> does that enhance the ability to reach a diplomatic solution or does it lessen the ability? >> again it depends on how
russia decides to exercise its influence. but right now to strengthen the syrian military and russian unwillingness to use the leverage that house has made it i think more difficult. >> sounds like the russians have put themselves in a position which we hoped they would never be. >> senator watt's. >> thank you very much. mr. director, just a quick comment on encryption, since it has come up. it's important to remember that if encryption is restricted in the united states, it will still be very easy to download strong encryption from hundreds of sources overseas. and in my judgment, requiring companies to build backdoors into products, to weaken strong encryption will put the personal safety of americans at risk at a dangerous time. and i want to make it clear, i
will fight such a policy with every thing i have. now, with respect to my first question, mr. director, i want to talk about accountability at the cia. the agency's 2013 response to the very important report on torture stated that the agency agreed that the work, and i quote, significant shortcomings in cia's handling of accountability for problems in the conduct and management of cia activities. ..
it has now been three years since the cia said that. is it still a case that no one has been held accountable for the systemic failures that the agency has acknowledge? >> first want to say that i disagree with your opening comments. they dominate the market with encryption technologies available to these various apps and we will continue to dominate them. i do believe this country and this private sector is integral to addressing these issues and i encourage the committee to continue to work on it. the agency, over the course of the last several years took actions to address the shortcomings that we have fully acknowledged in the interrogation program through individual accountability that was taken as well as accountability for some of the management and suspend systemic failures. i would be happy to address in a
different setting the details of those accountability steps that the committee is aware of. >> i want to make sure i heard that right. i believe you said, individuals have been held accountable for systemic failures. if that's the case, i certainly think that is constructive. i will say we will await your classified response we have more details on that. i heard you say there have been individual accountability and i would like to see the details on that. >> right, anytime anytime a systemic faire is going to be related to the individual's failure to either provide the type of management and oversight for the performance so there is a combination of factors that contribute. >> were individuals held accountable? yes or no answer. >> yes. >> i look forward to getting that response and i appreciate that because i think that's very important. let's discuss an upcoming policy
that will all tackle on the committee. section 702 of the surveillance act is up for renewal or expiration next year. the office of the director of national intelligence described under 702, the cia routinely conducts warrantless searches for medications and the year before the cia conducted nearly 2000 of these searches. if an american is involved with terrorism or espionage, the government ought to perceive that lead aggressively. in an emergency situation, which i strongly back they can obtain the communications right away and get judicial review after it. my question is, if there was a rule that said the cia could only search for american conversation under section 702 of the justice department has obtain a warrant.
with the up section for the emergency of when a person is in danger. is the cia in compliant with that rule question in. >> will have to get back to you. that's a complicated issue and i don't want to give you an off-the-cuff response paired i want you to have the answer you deserve. >> i would like that in writing. can we have that within two weeks. >> we will do our best to do that. >> i think two weeks should be sufficient mr. director and a appreciate the fact that both areas are going to get back to me and we will look at what part can be classified and what part can be discussed in public. both in response to individual accountability, torture and warrants. >> something i think you would be up pre-should above is that we have an officer that is a full member of our senior staff that is fully involved in all of the activities that the cia is
engaged in to make sure we are protecting the private rights of our citizens. >> has he been appointed freshman. >> yes it is his second or third week. - please make that person to make an appointment with me at a time of his convenience. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> dir. brennan, thank you you for being here with us today. we can see you often but seldom do we get to see you in a public session like this in public comments, our military leaders, director, director of intelligence and others say over and over again they feel we are facing more threats for more directions than ever before. do share that assessment. >> yes i do,. >> what kinds of things has the
cia done to be more agile in dealing with more threats in more directions than ever before? >> as i noted earlier, we embarked on this effort to make sure we are able to take full advantage of the great expertise and capabilities that we have within the organization. i am a very strong proponent of integrating capabilities so we are not attacking these problems in individual streams. that's why we set up our mission centers where we have our regional and functional systems were we can bring our capabilities in our open-source capabilities and in insight. our technical innovation and our ability to bring these different skill sets and expertise together because as you noted, the array of challenge we face proliferation with north korea, the cyber domain, terrorism that terrorism that is plaguing so many countries and that
threatens us, instability that is racking these countries, i have i have never in my 36 years of national security service seen a time when there is such an array of issues of national security consequence. i'm constantly going down to the white house, participating in national security council meetings meetings so we are able to address these issues. that's file and make sure i take full advantage of the resources and optimize these around the world. >> images that complicated by what appears to be the new addition of self radicalization in the country? >> these so-called lone wolves that operate by the encouragement of the terrorist organizations, it is an exceptional challenging for the intelligent committee to deal with the tragic attack in
orlando, we have not been able to uncover any direct link between that individual omar mateen and a terrorist organization but that inspiration can lead someone to embark on this path of destruction. they can start to acquire the capability and the expertise and maybe do the surveillance and carry out an attack without triggering any of those traditional signatures that we might see as a foreign terrorist organization tries to deploy here. those individual actors really presents a serious challenge and we are working closely with the fbi and others to give them whatever intelligence we have that might help them identify some of these individual. >> i think you have been asked this particular question already today but let me say again, i think we are eager to hear from you the kinds of things you need to better deal with this really unique and hard to penetrate
self radicalization because you don't have the other contacts that all your other sources may come across. the mass one additional question about china and cyber attacks. last are the president announced a common understanding with china's leadership that neither country would conduct or knowingly support cyber enable threat of intellectual property or commercial advantage. in your view does that mean that cyber enabled theft of intellectual property by people from china has ended? >> no. >> do you see any good faith effort on the part of the chinese government to crack down on this? >> i see some effort by the chinese government to follow through on some commitments they provided in local channels. there are a lot of entities and people in organizations inside of china.
some of them are operating as part of the chinese government and others are working on contract and therefore we are exceptionally vigilant about all the different attack factors that individuals or countries could attempt to use in order to penetrate our systems and networks and databases, whether their governments systems or private sector to steal social property. i continue to be concerned about the cyber capabilities that reside within china as well as the actions that some continue to undertake. >> thank you director and thank you chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. first of all, it's good to see you again director brennan and i want to reiterate once again personal thanks for you and all of the intelligent professionals that serve day in and day out
without necessarily the recognition they deserve and your efforts to recognize some of that service in terms of oss congressional recognition. we do small things like the intelligence professional days but i'm blessed to have a lot of the intelligence community in virginia and hope you will relate to the folks of the agency how grateful we are for what you do day in and day out, number one. number two, i do want to raise some concern in terms of your response to senator biden. i think the issue around digital security is one of the most complex i have ever been engaged with. the encryption in just a small component part of that. i think public press has indicated that the terrorist in france used telegram, a belgian encrypted technology in belgium,
2000 apps a day are added to the iphone store. over half of those are foreign-based entities and to renegotiate or read litigate whether or not encryption is here, it makes us safer. we have legitimate challenges and issues on how we work through a way within our legal structure to get information. i personally believe it would be, make america less safe and give great economic as well as national security harm for us to litigate or mandate in any way a solution set that would simply push the bad guys on foreign-based hardware and software. as complex as this issue is, it's it's only going to exponentially get more complex as we move into a so-called internet of things as we think about centers on refrigerators and cars and we think about our
kids toys which are interactive with 6.4 million children were hacked into last year. this is only going to grow larger. my approach has been to put experts in the room beyond the capability of some of our individual members to help guide us to a solution set and i still think that is the best approach. the point being, this is an international problem. it is not a problem that can be solved america only. it is going to require enormous collaboration and what i am so concerned about is that we have an issue that has disappeared from the newspapers on a daily basis and we can see some other
event using encrypted technology that would then lead us into a critical solution set rather than as thoughtful solution set. it would do enormous harm to our security and our economic. i wanted to raise one issue, the members i work with, i don't want to speak for all the members, but some concerns about the ability of our european allies in terms of the information sharing. we honestly saw their horrific attack in brussels but as our nation grieves over the chief killings in orlando, there were, you're well aware of the brutal attack on a french police officer and wife in front of a child was video and exploited outrageously.
can you comment on this incident in france? we need information sharing with the europeans and in particular some concerns i have with our german allies? >> first of all, thank you for your comments. i want to thank all the senators who visited agency officers overseas when you travel. it is sending a strong and powerful message that they have their support of their authorizing committee here in the senate. we have engaged extensively with our european partners in paris in belgium but we have long-standing relationships with them on a front for many, many years. over the past two months myself and others have traveled out to europe and we sat down with the heads of the internal and external services to talk about our experiences here in the
united states since 9/11 in terms of how we have been able to bring together different capabilities and organizational structures and information sharing structures in order to take advantage of data that is available. as challenging as it was in the united states, we were still one government so we were able to operate with what in one legal system. the challenge for europe is that there are 28 countries in the eu with 28 legal legal structures and within each of those countries they have sometimes several intelligent security services. they do not have the interconnectivity either from omission or legal spring perspective or it perspective. we have talked to them about some mechanisms that we can use to better facilitate information sharing among them. the key is being able to take information and be able to operationalize it at a boiler, security point or on the street so they can take action. for example, we share
counterterrorism information with a counterterrorism group. this falls within the eu. has the eu members as well as norlin norway and switzerland so we are able to push out to those 30 countries simultaneously information related to terrorism so they have the same information but they also know they can talk to one another about it. we have talked to them about different mechanisms that they could use to set up some kind of system whether it's eu -based or otherwise but they still have a ways to go. they have made some important progress and there are some countries in europe that are much better able to share information within their governments and systems as well as across the sovereign borders. this is something that the europeans are going to have to work on because it's not just a technical or it solution. it's also an issue of how they are going to protect the privacy of their individual citizens as they share information, what's
the threshold for putting individual's name and data into a database and putting them on a watchlist per they are working their way through that and we are trying to provide as much assistance as we can. >> thank you, i appreciate the question and answer because i think this is very important as it struck me when we were there that the political rivalries in ancient relationships between these countries is point to make it very difficult for them to exchange directly with one another. therefore some neutral hold or ctg, something has to be the answer and i encourage you to continue to encourage them because unless they get a handle on this, they will only be as strong as their weakest link, particularly when you have a situation of open borders and not sharing. that's a disaster waiting to happen and it has happened several times.
you mentioned that you are a great believer in integrating the cia capabilities in the reorganization. i support that that concept, but as you know i have concerns about possible integrity when you combine operations and put operations and analysis in the same box. could you update us on efforts to ensure the analytic integrity of the intelligence as part of this reorganization? >> it's a legitimate concern and it's one of the agency has had to deal with over the course of many years because the counterterrorism mission center had its root in the counterterrorism center that was established in the 80s were analysts and operation officers were co- mingled in the same area. i headed up the analytic effort inside the ctc back in the early 1990s and i was aware that we
needed to make sure we maintained that objectivity. those safeguards and techniques that we use to make sure it maintains that as part of the instruction in our career analyst training program the all analyst go through. we also want to make sure that we have the senior analysts mindful of the responsibility. the rubric analysis covers many different areas. it drives correction. >> i just want the covert action to drive the analysis. >> that's correct. there needs to be that separation in terms of independence. the analysts i know jealously guard that it integrity well they should. we want to make sure it's built into the system so there is an issue but i have been satisfied that we have been able to
maintain that objectivity and a and integrity while also getting the benefits of that location. >> how does the intelligence community and the cia in particular assess the compliance with the jcp oa thus far? >> so far so good. >> another question about organization of the cia, it seems to me we have to distinguish between effort and effectiveness. do you have a standard procedure that measures the effectiveness of programs after action reviews, assessments, we have to understand what's working. my question is is there some systematic way within the agency of assessing what is working and how it's working? >> a number of ways. one is that our inspector general has a regular review of the number of our programs to see how they're operating and make sure they are consistent with the law but also inherent
in those reviews are looking at how effective they have been. in the area that usually generates the most concerning controversy, we set up last year a new office where we have senior officers working and reviewing all of those covert action programs to make sure we understand more than just the milestones but how effective has it been in terms of realizing objectives. a number of ways that we have established these reviews and metrics, we will be happy to provide you additional information on. >> one of my mottos in life is does it work and how do you know. i appreciate your to that. finally, there hasn't been an ig at the cia for 17 months or so. why the delay? is there nomination forthcoming, i think this is a very important positions in government, particularly in the intelligence
agencies which don't have the oversight of other agencies. when are we going to get an ig nomination? >> the inspector general of the cia is one of three officers within cia who are presidentially appointed and confirmed. therefore it's the prerogative of the president of the white house so we haven't had an active deputy who is presiding over that office and i would like to think that i would be seen as, if i were to say such a nomination were to be forthcoming soon. >> i hope you convey back to the administration the importance of this committee puts on that position and we believe an appointment in the immediate future is appropriate. >> i will do my best to do that. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, dir. brennan it's good to have you here. i apologize i have not been present in person. i have been in the intelligence committee equivalent of a makeshift daycare. we discussed letting them
babysit my son so i could come out and asked questions but we are afraid it would be in both of us in child protective services. i did hear his opening statement and many the other statements of the committee thinking you on behalf of all men and women who served in the cia and i want to associate myself with those comments. in many cases, they face more hardship than our troops and while our troops get representative clinician appropriately at ballgames and airports, obviously your officers do not and they deserve all the recognitions of our troops. i want to discuss cooperation with our intelligent committee from silicon valley, specifically twitter and a company called data minor. according to the wall street journal from may 8 as well as other media reports, data minor which is owned in part by twitter and is the only company authorized access to pull real-time stream of public tweet
that twitter has, they they recently cooperated with the cia but in just a few weeks ago they ended that corporation. our intelligence committee no longer has access to data minor's information. could you comment on these reports? >> it appears as though data minor was directed to not provide its service to the cia and intelligence community therefore we need to be able to leverage other capabilities to make sure we have the insight we need to protect this country. >> so those reports are correct. >> i am not going to dispute them. >> wall street journal also reported that the ceo of twitter directed data minor to stop the contract because he was worried
about the optics of helping intelligence agencies. do you believe that is accurate. >> i do not know his motivation for any decision he may have made but i have note basis to dispute it. >> the wall street journal also reports that customers in dayton minor data miner and that vladimir putin is trying to break the strain on the client of data miner. is vladimir putin in russia a client of data miner? >> i don't know that for sure but i don't have any information that they have been excluded from their services. >> is it disappointing to you that american company would sell their product to russia today and yet not cooperate with the united states intelligence agency? >> i'm disappointed that there is not more active cooperation
consistent with our legal authorities that may be available from the u.s. private sector. >> thank you. i want to turn to the open skies treaty. the admiral has testimony that the testimony has become a critical component of russell's russia's intelligence capability directed at the united states. do you agree with that statement? >> admiral haney would be best directed to make a comment like that and i would be happy to look into it and get back to. >> general stewart has testified that he is very concerned about how it's applied today. he's the further said the things you can see in the data you can collect allows russia to get incredible foundational intelligence on critical infrastructure basis for all of our facilities and it gives them
a significant advantage. can russia use postprocessing analysis to enhance their open skies collection as general stewart suggested. >> they have technological advancement since open skies was first open so i imagine they take advantage of those technological developments in order to advance their capabilities. >> do you believe that these processes and procedures on digital images might allow russia to exceed the limits imposed by the open skies treaty? >> i would have to take a look into how those capabilities could be used to exceed those. >> thank you. >> my time has expired. >> thank you mr. chair. welcome director brennan. you talked a little bit in your opening statement, you outlined the disconnect between the real progress that is been made with iso- in terms of genetic
progress in limiting their financial resources and the reality that inspired terrorist attacks that have global reach including here in the homeland as we have seen this week. what progress is being made integrating isil's ability to inspire terrorists acts through the digital or even traditional media and how have we learned how to measure that progress? >> well what we are trying to do is to find out who is responsible for spewing this information into the internet that inspires individuals to carry out these attacks on so working with our military partners we are trying to make sure that the appropriate actions are taken in syria and iraq were a lot of this emanates from peer it in we are trying to share information with has many of our global partners as possible so they can be attuned
to individuals who may be involved in these activities because it's not just the upstream but the downstream propagation propagation of this as well. it gets to issues that we were talking about earlier and that is what is the governments role in being able to limit this type of material both in terms of what is legal authorities are as well is what its technical capabilities are to prevent this type of propagation of this poison. >> do you feel you have good cooperation from our arab allies on this front? >> we have very strong cut cooperation from a number of arab states and partners that we are actively working within this area. >> so director you and the vice chair noted the inherent security challenge of surveillance and the kind of work that you do in an age of ubiquitous encryption. one of the challenges is that
the encryption has nothing that we can do to take steps of that technology away from our enemies or isil or for that matter anyone else in the world when you can simply go online and download telegraphs onto your phone or device anywhere in the world. if were not careful about how we address these challenges, we could certainly mandate weakness into our own digital systems, potentially putting the records of americans at risk from hostile actions both from state-level actors and from criminal actors. i think if we mandate a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem we could also see a number of real economic activities and real jobs migrate overseas to avoid those purse heaved solutions.
it's clear to both myself and a number of my colleagues that we need to have continued conversations around us. they need to be technologically grounded and i know senator warner wrote and i cosponsored a bill that seeks to set up a commission that would include perspectives from intelligence of law-enforcement and the business and technology communities, do you have a perspective on that legislation? >> first of all, let me say that i strongly support encryption as a capability that protects our way of life our prosperity, our national security. at the same time i fully agree and wonder, we need to have the opportunity to deal with this new environment of the digital domain so that the government can appropriately safeguard its interests, its citizens, its future.
that requires the experts to be able to get together, legal, legal, the technical, the practitioners to find some way that will not be perceived as a backdoor but will allow the ever meant to carry out its responsibilities will not optimizing the great benefit of encryption. i don't know whether or not i'm allowed to endorse a piece of legislative initiative, but i have talked to other members of the congress and i think a congressional commission on this issue is something that really could do a great service because this is not just a government only issue. it is largely a private sector issue and there needs to be an understanding between the private sector and the government about what our respective roles and responsibilities are going to be. we need to find a solution that's able to optimize what it is that were all trying to achieve which is security, privacy, liberty, prosperity in a technologically rich world that will continue to evolve.
i could encourage you to continue to tackle this issue and educate the american people about what it is so they don't fear the government's role which is what happens right now because they don't understand it. we need to make sure they understand that frontier is just like the physical domain and we have an obligation to protect our people. >> thank you for your perspective on that. >> thank you. >> senator langford thanks for being here again. you helped lead or did lead when president obama was president elect in 2008, the intelligence came and is part of your responsibility to brief the future president at that time on some of the issues that were blinking red, i think was the term that was used on the intelligence committee. if you were helping organize for that next transition, what are the key things you can articulate right now that are blinking red for the new president question. >> cyber certainly, the
individual whoever is elected needs to use their four or eight years to tackle this issue because it's going to take time to come up with the type of understanding that are necessary. terrorism is going to continue to plague us. that is related to the cyber issue and how we make sure that the fbi and nsa are able to do their jobs and protect this country. proliferation is something we cannot forget about. it is brought relief by the activities in north korea and the continued development of nuclear program and ballistic missile capability that is a threat not just to the region but also to us. instability in a number of countries in the middle east and africa and the lack of governance capabilities within these countries so that they are unable to tackle the political, economic, societal and cultural changes. i am really worried about how
instability will continue to erode and corrode in the foundations of governance and how more more individuals, because of their feelings of being disenfranchised from the government are now identifying with some national groups, whether it's isil or boko haram or others. there now identifying themselves as somalis or nigerians and other identifying themselves as part of a group or terrorist organization print that is a very, very disturbing trend that i believe this country can play a role in trying to help address. we cannot solve it on our own. >> do you think we would have less proliferation of isil and isis, would we have less of a movement of terrorism worldwide if there was not a safe haven in syria and iraq? >> that is a big part of this. we need to take away their safe haven because it gives them the opportunity to use these plans
to train and fight, but also to gain revenue and their control of large cities like modal mogul and oil fields, generates revenue not just to keep their fighters on the battlefield but also to try to support some of these terrorists organizations. >> other opportunities that could reduce the amount of money that is flowing to isis right now that we are not taking or that we should? >> i think the coalition has done a good job going after some of these as well as the oil infrastructure and refining capabilities, it's intermingled with a lot of the locals who are trying to eke out an existence so i think the military has done a good job and is more work to be done. it's important that we get the insight of what they can do. >> to help you understand the tempo of the forces including the russians and others in their strike compared to our airstrike tempo. >> unfortunately they are directing a lot of their airstrikes and artillery barrage
is an army that is trying to unseat them. just looking out over the past two weeks, the amount of airstrikes in the aleppo area where many of the syrian modern opposition operate has exceeded the pre-facilities totals. so yes the russians and syrians have gone after isil but a large proportion of their strikes are directed against what we consider to be the legitimate syrian opposition and they're trying to save their country. - the number of strikes that are out there exceed the hostilities which seems to be a piece of paper at this point. it doesn't seem to be an actual cessation. >> it is holding by thread in the areas of the damascus countryside. >> we have an intelligence agreement with open skies and other things we hold to so strongly to the letter and the
spirit of it, do the russians also hold to the letter and the spirit of those agreements? >> i'll have to get to back to on another setting. >> thank you. daniel back. >> thank you director for being here. you mentioned in your remarks about the cia modernization and the desire to diversify the cia to be reflected of the diversity not only in our own country but of course those that we deal with in the world. can you go over what you are doing to increase diversity in the cia? >> over the past three years we have had initiatives on trying to advance women in leadership within the agency so we have had implementation teams that have been working on this for years to make sure that the objectives and goals of the study are being
operationalized in our promotional and panels and other types of programs that we have at the agency. i ask the member of our external advisory board to spearhead an effort on diversity in leadership at the cia that took a look at all of the different facets of the agency in terms of representation in leadership and recruitment efforts in our training and development of officers and why we have fallen short of these federal standards of what our diversity composition should look like. it was a hard-hitting report and it came up with a number of recommendations. we have put together action teams on that as well and i have a lead officer who was involved in it. i have made mandatory training from a senior leadership team and just three weeks ago we had several hours of diversity and leadership training for the seniormost officers of the agency. they need to be heavily involved in it. we think we have fallen short over the past years because we have been driven so driven by
crises that we have not paid enough attention. that's why we need to have our leaders actively involved in these efforts from development, mentoring, sponsoring two recruitment efforts. i go out to schools and i talk to groups. >> do you have a timeframe for when you would like to see some of the results of these kind of efforts? what would that timeframe be? >> yesterday was the first one. i want to make sure that we are able to look at the milestones that we need. it's not just the numbers but i want to make sure that we have instituted some of the programs that are going to sustain these efforts. it's putting in place the foundational elements of this. i think then the numbers that we are going to be looking at in terms of representation are going to increase over time but i'm most interested in institutionalizing some of these changes so it's not just a study. >> i think it's important. you also said, in a number of ways during your responses that the question of what is the role of government as we see entities
such as isil using every means to spread their propaganda and encouraging acts not just in our country but all throughout the world. i did, you seem to indicate that in order for us to determine what's appropriate governmental role should be that one will be a commission. i think that's what senator warner's bill is, is, to create a commission to enable us to figure out what governments role should be along with his input from a lot of other folks like you. would you say that is the best way for us? you have said that the role of government is one that we haven't quite figured out. >> i don't know what the best way is, but i just know it has to be an effort undertaken by the government and the private sector. it must be a very thoughtful manner that looks at the various dimensions of the problem and is going to come forward with a number of options, recommendations about how to optimize what we are doing on
the front to protect this country and not feed this environment to the terrorists and those who want to do us harm i do believe with the tremendous technological advances like encryption and other things, they are taking advantage of those liberties that we have fought so hard to defend. >> we are trying to figure out what we will be doing on cyberspace and i don't we have put in place any type of cohesive process. let me turn to china. they are expected to rule about china's claim and that the support of philippines claim that they have made excessive claims about man one-time sovereignty. can you explain what your opinion is on such a ruling and could this be a trigger for further escalation?
>> in the recent conference in singapore, the chinese representative made very clear that they don't recognize the legitimacy of the tribunal or will it heed to its findings. sec. carter made very clear that we certainly do recognize there needs to be this type of arbitration given that there are a number of claimants to some of these features and it's not just the philippines but other countries as well. there needs to be an agreed-upon mechanism that we will be able to resolve these outstanding results. the importance of protecting that part of the world and we will take precedence to enforce
this worldwide. >> thank you senator. do any senators seek additional questions? >> the vice chairman also asked me a couple of questions. she had to leave for an appropriations meeting at 10:30. what is your assessment of the north korea cyber capabilities and intentions? >> i think the north koreans has developed the capability as we have seen some recent incidents over the past few years were has been employed. i think it is something that we need to be given, we need to use the capabilities that we have so we can get back to the vice chairman more detailed answer about the capabilities as well
as potential intention. >> great, one last question. isil is given all the attention today. they are not the only terrorist organization that's out there. what do we do and how concerned are you on a qap and other potential organizations? >> there are a number of terrorist organizations. al qaeda is very acted in yemen. there been efforts between the united states and the uae and saudi arabia and yemen to dislodge a qap from the city and we successfully drove them out but there is an active effort underway to continue to dismantle and discredit organizations. also there is the organizations led by the taliban that continue to engage in terrorist attacks.
we work very closely with services in the area including the indians and others to try to guard against their ability to carry out those attacks. this is something that we continue to have to dedicate a lot of resources to. as you know, the head of al qaeda is still out there and continues to put out audio statements and other things to his followers. this is a continued challenge for us. >> just a quick comment and a question. on this encryption issue, you have been clear that you think there is a government role here. there's no question, there are ways that government can strengthen the personal safety of americans at a dangerous time. i for example think it makes sense to hire people with extensive experience in science and technology like we have for example in other areas. i can give you plenty of names. what i don't want to do is i don't want to go backwards on digital security which is what's going to happen if the
government or the congress requires backdoors be built into the products of this country. we will continue that debate and i just want to make that clear as we wrap up. >> center langford asked an appropriate question in regard to briefing a new president and what we would say to a new president. i think i've heard you touch on this but i would like to get it formally for the record. if the next president of the united states directs the agency and directs the cia to resume the use of coercive interrogation techniques, how would you respond? >> i have said publicly that i do not believe such aggressive coercive techniques are necessary. as you know the cia's potential interrogation program was disbanded and i certainly, while i am director of cia have no intention of bringing such a program back and will not engage in waterboarding and other things ever. >> thank you mr. chairman.
>> quick question about isil in libya. any chance they are going to get a hold of any of libya's oil capabilities because that's where a lot of the revenues have come from in syria and iraq. how do you assess the security of the oil asset coming in libya ? >> i don't think anything in libya is overly secure. there have been attempts made and assaults upon some of those oil facilities but to date isil has not been able to gain control of them. we have get back and see whether or not there are pockets of areas where isil has been able to encroach but there are some challenges there and a number of security militias and firms that are in the area that have prevented isil from taking over. >> i know i said this is my final question. >> i knew better. >> my wife says i say finally to
much and it gets people's hopes up. >> she's a smart woman. >> afghanistan, we haven't talked about this at all. what is what is your assessment of the security situation in afghanistan? there is a proposed drawdown of our troops which has to start sometime in the early fall if it's going to achieve 5000 troop number in january. >> give us an assessment of the situation. i guess this short question is does the government have a chance or is the televangelist waiting and they're going to take back over? >> we are near the height of the fighting season. the number of casualties on both sides in terms of the nsf and the afghan forces in the taliban are greater this year that we have seen in a long, long time because of the number of engagements.
i think the afghan forces are stepping up and engaging in the war as u.s. forces have drawn down but i think it reflects the intensity of the taliban efforts. they are really trying to erode the government hold in those areas. we have worked very closely with the afghans government to have them better consolidate their forces so they protect the critical infrastructure and transit routes. there is continued concern about the taliban ability to carry out these attacks both in some of the outlining areas but also as they tried to go over the capital. it is still uncertain in my mind whether or not the taliban will continue to make incremental progress
>> so i use the platform today. i don't think i find disagreement from you or from others in law enforcement either nationally or locally as we've heard from a lot of them. but i really believe that we need to take it to heart that hope -- that affects the intersection of rule in we which but often of that debate today. than we are to wait until something happens and we needed. the pendulum swings too far. we did some things then that we felt were right, today looking back we wouldn't do them again. we all agree. this is an opportunity to get this one right. not to go too far but to go to the right place at the right point. director, what you think you for your testimony. i want to thank you for the resolve of your workforce. i also want to highlight the
professional staff of this committee. i think they are incredibly talented, incredibly dedicated. they travel to very unpopular spots where your offices are on a regular basis. they do it not to gain mileage points. they do it to live up to the mission of this committee which is oversight of your agency and the rest of the intelligence community. on behalf of 85 of the members in the united states senate, and for the american people, we are the ones that testified and certified that you do things within the letter of the law, or a presidential directive. and that we don't overstep those ballots come and we we do into this committee's responsibility to report it and folded them. so they deserve credit because they don't get the credit very often. please pass to your employees our sincere gratitude for the job they do.
>> with the political primary season over, c-span the road to the white house takes you to the political conventions. watch the republican national convention starting july 18 with live coverage from cleveland. >> we will be going in no matter what happens after think we're going to go in so strong. >> and watch the democratic national convention starting july 25 with live coverage from philadelphia. >> let's go forward. let's win the nomination, ended july let's return as a unified party. >> and then we take our fight for social, economic, racial and environmental justice to philadelphia, pennsylvania. >> every minute of the republican and democratic parties national conventions on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org.
>> live now for remarks from sec chairman tom wheeler. is expected to talk about the future of wireless communication and technologies. speak at the national press club in washington, d.c. you can see their starting with remarks from the head table. this is live coverage on c-span2. >> art, j. edgar and his director of gallup. john wilkins, chief of the wireless telecommunications bureau at the federal communications commission. gary, washington bureau chief of the buffalo news, former press club president who said into the as the chair of the speakers committee. skipping over speaker for no, i will get to you, matt, president of the aggregators group llc and press club member who organized today's luncheon. thank you. julia, chief of the office of the jamaica technology of the federal communications commission. craig gordon, bluebird news in
washington. chris, technology and cybersecurity reporter. and an independent journalist. thank you all. [applause] >> tom wheeler became chairman of federal communications commission on november 4, 2013. for over three decades chairman wheeler has been involved in the telecommunications and cable sector as a policy expert, advocate an 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 telecommunications industry association. but as a journalist i've had a more interesting but a lifetime ago the chairman worked for syndicated columnist mark shields, a friend of mine. he managed the ohio state university's distinguished
speaker series, always use version of the press clubs speak on the press clubs spiegel editors that brings all of you here today. given the chairman wheeler used to be an industry lobbyist his record at the fcc is rather surprising. he introduced the commission's strongest ever rules enforcing net neutrality. he fined at&t $100 million for capping speed on unlimited data points. the increased competition among the makers of cable boxes and worked to get more internet access options to people in rural areas. chairman wheeler put the entire fixed and mobile broadband industry under stricter regulatory regime. he has done so many things that have angered his former employees, employers, have sued the fcc during his tenure. he explains his actions by saying i used to be an advocate for corporate interest. i hope i was a good one, but today my client is the american people and want to be the best damn advocate for the american people that i can be.
america is the leader in the wireless technology spectrum innovation from occupying the top spot in worldwide 4g world wireless push the new 5g networks will offer even faster services. stakeholders around the world have begun shipping the new 5g landscape to benefit the national and commercial interest to get a chairman wheeler will share the framework for what he thinks the american vision for 5g should be in a speech entitled the future of wireless, a vision for his leadership in a 5g world. ladies and gentlemen, preacher man welcoming to the national press club federal communications commission chairman tom wheeler. [applause] >> thank you very much, tony. you certainly proved your journalistic credentials with some of that research you dug up there. it's 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 who make things happen that i'm talking about your the head of our office of engineering and technology, john wilkins, who is the head of our wireless bureau, and my colleague larry strickland who we work like this together with larry on spectrum policy your there are so many familiar faces and friends in the audience. and i'm going to make that terrible decision to call out a couple. first is my good friend and former colleague ron nesson who it's a real pleasure to see sitting you. we haven't seen each other for a long time.
the others hiding back in the back of a man who started this spectrum revolution, former chairman we don't. it was back in 1994 that this crazy idea of opening up more spectrum, creating more opportunity and building what we'll be talking about today began and that was under his leadership. but i am most pleased and most surprised to find karen smith in the audience today. care and had to change her name from karen wheeler -- [laughter] but my sister from annapolis book festival accomplishes yourselherself having been exece director of tech core which was a great operation a follow-through, remember that day? advocate of leopold all the fibers of the schools, now what do we do? care and organize volunteers throughout the country, and i was always proud of her when she gave.
you know -- yes. [applause] you know, a few months ago i find 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 the scene in your mind, yes, i was wearing a suit. i was also wearing a pair of virtual reality goggles, and i have not left the fcc. and 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 a mockup of the excavator, and i had complete control sensitivity to the equipment 1400 miles away. now, granted, digging up dirt in dallas probably isn't high on the list of transformational advancements. that defined the 21st century. but i want you to think of something. why don't you replace the hidden machinery with a scalpel so that a world-class surgeon can move from hospital to hospital without leaving her surgical suite. or how about students sitting in a classroom taking a virtual tour inside the human body?
now, we've all heard of amazing things, stories like that in the past, but making these kinds of activities possible without a that cable leading to the virtual reality headset could not be accomplished because guthrie 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, 10-100 times faster than what we are used to today. second limiting issue was responsiveness. the surgeon's scalpel needs to be immediately responsive, not a
blink later. the technical folks call this latency. it currently averages about 10 milliseconds, or 1/100th of a second. that may sound pretty fast to you and me, but it's a snail's pace in computing your latency needs to be less than one millisecond. less than 11 thousands of the second to provide for real-time interaction. the third limiting factor is spectrum capacity. because it would 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, a fifth generation, or 5g. and 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 effects of high speed low latency connectivity. and white american leadership in 5g must be a national priority. that example i gave 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 thin client. autonomous vehicles will be controlled in the cloud. smarts see the energy grids, transportation networks and water systems will be controlled in the cloud. the education and entertainment will come from the cloud. but such futures will not come fast, endless the pathway to and from the cloud is low latency, ultrafast, and secure. know that if we learned anything in the generational march
through wireless connectivity, it's that we have always underestimated the innovation that would result from new generations of wireless networks. the first generation wireless, 1g, with voice. in the early 1980s make it to at&t that would be 900,000 cell phone subscribers by the turn of the century. well, it turns there were 109 million. they were only off by about 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 an entire group, teenagers, we communicate, to developing, to a
developing world tool for banking the unbanked, innovators seized on a new capability of texting in unimaginable ways. the third generation, 3g, married a wireless and digital networks to open the door to connecting with other do, the of the new technological department at the time, the internet in a limited way. in today's technology, 4g, completed that digital migration, enabling higher speeds for sophisticated applications including video. again, greater capability in the network lead to unanticipated innovation. without 4g it would not have been ways are uber or snapchat or instagram, or the list keeps going on. but i've listed some examples earlier a 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 your because it is the capacity to use this new capability that will determine what our future looks like. yes, 5g will connect the internet of everything. something ca can be connectedcoe in will be connected in the 5g world. but the 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 unconnected and compete with the uncompetitive. millions of americans cannot access high speed because it's too costly to run the fiber to the home. verizon ceo has begun speaking lately about using 5g connectivity to expand high-speed broadband service to rural areas. and fiber fast wireless connectivity would deliver the long sought goal of competitive high speed internet access for consumers. but let's stop imagining for a moment. here's the key. the interconnected world that we live in today is the result of decisions made a decade ago. the interconnected world of the
future will be the result of decisions we must make today. and that is why 5g is a national priority, and why this thursday i am circulating to my colleagues proposed new rules that will identify and will open the vast amount of spectrum for 5g applications. we call it the spectrum frontiers proceeding, and we will vote on it july 14. our 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-generation wireless networks and redefine network connectivity for years to come. i am confident the actions will lead to a cornucopia of
unanticipated, innovative uses, it will generate tens of billions of dollars in economic activity. but let's revisit that spectrum strategy for the moment. rule number one, is that the technology should drive the policy rather than the policy drive the technology. and technology for 5g is not one thing. it is many things. the marriage of moore's law and wireless inactivity and false smart, new more efficient transmission for but, low energy systems, network virtualization, and much more. and on the spectrum side, these technologies require new access to spectrum in multiple bands.
the wireless future will not be a one size fits all future. so our spectrum trifecta begins with 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 option to make 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] you do, the overlooked middle child. but its characteristics enable
an order of magnitude increase in spectrum efficiency. the commission's recent aws three and uses a broadband rating service and three top five gigahertz were landmarks in using new sharing tools to open up new mid-band spectrum, and we need to continue looking for other mid-band opportunities. and it it's high band spectrum t will be the focus of our actions next month. these vans, the high bands, will offer huge swaths of spectrum for superfast data rates with low latency. and are now becoming unlocked because of technological advances in computing and antennas. if the commission approves my proposal next month, the united states will be the first country
in the world to open up high band spectrum for 5g networks and application. and that's damned important. because 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's a simple 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 do not believe that we should spend 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 than expecting committees and regulators to define the future. we will not wait for the standards to be the first, to be first developed in the sometimes arduous standards setting process or for government activity biggest it will make spectrum available and then rely on a private sector led process for producing technical standards best suited for those frequencies in these cases. leadership and networks leads to leadership in uses, which was across borders your so a result of this national leadership is the creation of a home-field
advantage similar to what we knew in 4g. but the main value of 5g will not be found in your chart or intellectual property. 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. and i would also emphasize that the development of 5g is that anything like an international zero-sum game your rather, it's a contest in which everyone can when. our success and that of others redounds to the benefit literally of everyone in the world. we are already seeing 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 that 5g technology will be a constant evolution. it would be a mistake to think that 5g can be frozen in a snapshot. it's more like a video with many new scenes, all building on each other. assistance and standards for 5g with continuing improving and all. and on the network side, verizon and at&t tell us bill begin deploying 5g trials in 2017. these efforts will of course help inform the standards process by putting stakes in the ground. the first commercial deployments are expected in 2020.
this timeline requires that we act to pave the path today. with the new rules that i proposing and our spectrum frontiers ordered, we take our most significant step yet, down the path to our 5g future. the big game changer is that 5g will use much higher frequency bands than previously thought viable for mobile broadband and other applications. such millimeter wave signals have physical properties are both a limitation and a strength. they tend to travel best in narrow and straight lines, and they do not go through physical objects as well. this means that very narrow and an urban environment tend to bounce around buildings and other obstacles making it difficult to connect to a moving point.
but brilliant engineers have developed new antennas that can a and amplify signals -- aim -- coupled with sophisticated assessing that allows a moving device to pick up all of the signals that are bouncing around, and create one coherent connection. now, to make this work, the 5g buildout is going to be very infrastructure intensive, requiring massive deployment of small cells. but it also opens up unprecedented opportunities for frequency reuse in more localized networks. the ability to use this high frequency spectrum opens much bigger chunks of spectrum. current blocks of licensed low band spectrum are usually five
to 10 megahertz in with. with 5g, however, we are talking about lots of spectrum that are at least 200 megahertz in which. this will allow the networks to carry much more traffic per user. gigabits of throughput in place of megabits of throughput. and the key point here is that by opening up these higher frequency bands we are making available more licensed spectrum for mobile than in the cumulative history, dating back to reed hundt, that the fcc has 224 made available. and we are not done. -- has heretofore made available.
[inaudible] >> not just licensed spectrum. unlicensed will continue to play a critical role in future 5g networks, and our plan proposes a massive 14 gigahertz unlicensed band. consider that. 14,000 megahertz of -- [inaudible] with the same rules that allow unlicensed to become a breeding ground for innovation. opening up the spectrum, offering flexibility to operators -- [inaudible] can do to enable the 5g -- [inaudible] many of the high frequency bands --
.. to make sure that we have this conductivity with high bands spectrum will require a lot more help from small governments. we have to tighten our shot clock for citing application reviews. america's local governments will play an important role in determining how we fulfill this national priority. in addition, all these small cells near to be connected so we will need a lot more.
that's a challenge we will have on our dedicated access that wireless providers need to connect self bones and antennas to their networks. these networks can be as much as 30% of the cost of operating a wireless network. with the additional sites required to support the spectrum, that percentage is likely to increase to as much as 60%. in many areas, competition in the supply remains limited. that can translate into higher prices for wireless networks and higher prices for consumers. lack of competition doesn't just hurt the deployment of wireless networks today, it threatens the will to delay the buildup of 5g networks with the demand for many, many more connections to
many, many more antenna. before the end of this year, the the commission will take up a reform proposal supported by all the nations leading wireless carriers that will encourage innovation in investment in business data services while ensuring the lack of competition in some places cannot be used to hold 5g hostage. as we build the next generation network, lesson learned from our previous experiences is that it must be secure. this is the third leg of the stool. new platforms systems, software and technologies will mean new vulnerabilities. cyber security issues must be addressed during the design phase of the entire 5g echo system including devices.
this will place a premium on collaboration amongst all stakeholders. we continue to prefer an approach that emphasizes the industry develop cyber security standards just as we have done in the wired networks. security is an essential component to where we go on networks and we will have the ability to think about it first as aforethought rather than an afterthought. so in conclusion, in the spirit of the election season, i thought it would close these remarks by referencing a campaign speech from the 60s. now a lot of my friends here think i'm going to be talking about the 1860s but actually i'm talking about the 1960s because on july 15, 1960 john f. kennedy strolled to the coliseum to accept the democratic nomination for
president. he seamlessly challenged the american people to be pioneers of a new frontier. he spoke of harnessing the power of technological revolutionand exploring uncharted areas of science and space. jfk's vision charted a path that took us to the moon and laid out the foundation of the internet. this july 14, 56 years lessone days from when jfk talked about the new frontier. we will have the opportunity to take a historic step to open up yet another frontier that promises to propel our nation and the world forward. once again we are looking to the sky to unlock new discoveries and unleash american ingenuity.
we are the pioneers of a new spectrum frontier. we are working together so we can write this next chapter in the mobile revolution. it's a revolution that is already transformed our lives in society, working together we can unleash new ways of innovation and discovery that we have yet to imagine. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you mr. chairman. i will note that i will use the wireless microphone and you can have a hard wired. >> it's not past of a. >> me, for the american consumer not in this room and, it may
seem that 4g was just introduced so why is 5g so urgently important? >> that's a great question. it goes back, there's one line that really deserves further explanation. all of the things that powerful computing makes possible can't be done on the chip on a handset they have to be moved to a centralized place that we have now come to call the cloud. so that the work gets done up there in the cloud and is connected to the less powerful computing power in our handsets or our pill bottles or automatic watering systems and that connection is what 5g is all about.
it has to be fast, it has to be latency free and a house to be secure. if we can't move at high speeds between that power and its use them we will not be able to bring that power into our hands in other places. >> that leads me to the next question which is you've talked about the cloud quite a bit here. how concerned are you about the fiber cyber terrorism and are we doing enough to prevent it moving forward? >> i think we have to recognize that networks have always been a pathway for attack. i don't care whether they were roads or waterways, it's always been a path for for attack. the current networks are no different. it places on those who build and operate the networks and those who oversee that activity a special responsibility. under the leadership of admiral
dave simpson, we have moved forward aggressively with the program that works with those who are running networks to agree to performance standards if you will, as to how you secure those networks and then to have the ability to check that that is happening and the ability from that experience to be able to share with everybody else. we have been playing catch-up ball. the issue is, look at this, my phone is ringing. this is the power of the connected network. the ever connected network. the issue is that we now, with 5g know the threat and have an opportunity to address it from the get-go.
talked about how the united states is leading when it comes to 5g. >> how do we maintain that leadership spot question. >> so the european union china japan and south korea have signed a memorandum of understanding that they would all work together to develop 5g the european union has put up 700 million euros to do 5g research. as i referenced in my remarks we think that is the wrong way to go. we think making the spectrum available and standing out of the way of technology development is far better than but sit around and wait until we decide what it's going to do and then make the spectrum available and let's micromanage the technology process. that's not the way we are going
to be approaching it. >> are there lessons to be learned from the rollout of 4g technology in the u.s. and elsewhere that will apply to the start of 5g? >> sure there are lots of them, not the least of which is the wireless network relies on base stations and they will have more than ever before they rely on wired connections which is why we are moving on this data services to make sure that those connections are charged and competitive. the interesting thing about moving through 3g to 4g was it was kind of like throwing a switch. it's like we are moving to a new spectrum and there's a new set
of expectations. i think 5g, as i said is not going to be a one size fits on. it's going to be multiple technologies and they will be constantly evolving. i think it will follow the playbook in terms of how we get national leadership and that's why it is a national priority. at the 5g execution on that playbook becomes one of constant innovation and american technology can lead the way. >> americans and consumers are just seeing what 4g can offer. it seems like there's a lot of talk about what the 5g is. is this a branding exercise that you are starting now? will we be able to identify what 5g is? >> i was asked that question in barcelona last year and barcelona is the home of the
picasso museum and i had just been there and i said 5g is kind of like a picasso, different people look at it and see different things but the fact of the matter is 5g is this high-speed low latency activity that is crucial to whether or not we can exploit the increased processing power that is offered by the cloud. >> when will consumers noted acknowledge this? >> as i said i think we will see trials in 2017 and rollout into some markets in 2020. >> you just referenced the moon shots. what most excites you. what is the most exciting
opportunities that may exist under a 5g network. >> as my friend knows, i'm a huge history buff. i actually have looked at studying networks that i think there's one thing that comes out a history networks and that is that it is never the principle technological change that is transformational. it is the secondary effects of that. we don't know what the secondary effects have been. we have some ideas but we don't know what they're going to be. when you take that incredible processing power and you make it available down to the ultimate user, i didn't envision it over
had a 4g. i know there are things we can't envision now. >> let me give you a fascinating statistic. i was out in silicon valley. we heard a lot about the connectedcar. all the activity for the connected car is going to happen up here in the cloud because my car is going to have to know where your car in john car and the school bus that's coming through and where all this information has to be processed with serious capability because you can't do it down here unless you want to put a huge computer the average household today uses about 50 gig of data.
i was told that a connected car uses 50 gig a day and we need to be able to handle that kind of demand. >> i'm familiar with a small town in utah. how does that translate to areas that might not even have 4g yet. >> it is extensive to run the cable or fiber out to remote areas. we have a program that helps with a significant expense in areas that you reference that aren't covered. wireless is helpful in getting there, but has lower speeds and
has been more costly but as i said verizon is talking quite seriously about using these focus high-speed to your home for a price that is far more competitive and realistic than what we've seen before. people who don't cover technology like myself are probably wondering this exact question. how are you able to create new rules for a technology that does not exist? >> that is the $64 question and what is at the heart of what we are trying to do. we are not going to create rules for technology. we are going to open up the spectrumand make sure the innovation that is driven by can
competition is protected and promoted and we are going to say we are not in the spectrum, we are not in the technology rules decision, have at it. >> i like to talk about a few other subjects. you were at the helm of the wireless industry when it went to a specialized service to a ubiquitous part of everyday life business. how did the next evolution relate to your experience than in are we on the brink of something entirely new and different? >> you ain't seen nothing yet. >> i think that's a yes. >> truly, you transform the nature to high-speed connectivity and innovation is always about unanticipated
applications and i think we will see them by the boatload. >> that's a technical term, boatload. thank you. >> the court upheld the net neutrality rules and with this success, will you now publicly commit to stepping down as chairman next year to pave the way for your colleague? i think the reality is this, the commissioner ought to be confirmed standing on her own and i understand that it is traditionally for fcc chairman
for the incoming president to have an opportunity to name the new fcc chairman. i told the senate and i was asked this question in a hearing that as a fellow who started history i understand the president and i restrict the president. but see what happens. there's a little thing that can happen in november and let's see what happens - november 2. do you think the fcc will revisit the decision not to revisit internet rates in the week of the net neutrality? >> we were very clear in saying that we are forbearing from regulation. presidential candidate donald trump has said he will reverse your net neutrality and what impact would that have on
consumers? >> we have just been talking about the spectrum future, the connectivity future and how we maintain national leadership. there are three components. the spectrum must be fast access must be fair. we must make sure that in world utah people are connected so they can enjoy the benefits and access has to be open. access to networks have to be open because we can't stand in a
position where there are gatekeepers who are deciding what will or whatnot be offered to consumers. we are leading and will continue to lead the world because our networks are open and we will remain open for innovators used without permissionfor consumers to be able to access any place they want to go on the web without permission without blocking without prodding or prior authorization so that both the consumer and the provider understand. >> independent programmers presented an alternative that
was a proposal that allow them to ditch their cable boxes while they were addressing concerns about the approach. >> i think it's terrific that the cable industry came forward with this proposal. i've been asking to to do this and i think by coming forward they indicated that a lot of the arguments that had been put up against our proposal really fell by the wayside. the copyright can be protected by consumer privacy. small networks can continue to thrive and you don't have to rebuild the network in order to
do this. i think what they've done a say yes, the the approach that the fcc suggested is an approach that can be taken and what i'm interested in now is engaging in constructive dialogue with them on the specifics of just how do you write the regulations to achieve that? there have been multiple times in the past where there are situations where the industry has said they would do similar kinds of things and it never came to pass. let's make it come to pass now. the 99% of american consumers have no choice but to pay the monthly fee. it runs an average of $230 per household per year. the congress said there needs to be choices.
there needs to be, section 629 said the act cc shall not may or should think about, the fcc shall provide that there are competitive navigation devices for consumers and we will follow through on that session. >> your other big priority of the commission has been business data services. can you explain what of the problems with these services and what are you doing going to do? >> a really arcane area that we tried to change the name. it used to be called special access because it was a way in which a carrier cell to another party, usually another carrier a specific quality guaranteed delivery of service. the competition in that, we
follow the rule that competition, competition and as it increases regulation should decrease in what we are trying to do is look at the market and say how do we apply those same kind of concepts because this is a market that hasn't been revisited by the commission in a dozen years. a few things have changed in technology over those dozen years. we are going to revisit those but as i said in my remarks it is absolutely essential that we do this because this is going to be the 5g well wireless future is going to move on wired networks. those wired networks if not competitive need to at least be fairly priced. >> paid tv providers are famous for their poor customer service. in fact, it's so poor that the senate will investigate it at a
hearing this week. is there anything the fcc or congress can do to force companies like comcast to respond to customer complaints faster? >> so i think it's great that the senate is going to have a hearing on this, the complaints that we hear from consumers on this topic are reaching. as we look at the scope of authority that congress has given us however, it is rather limited in this area. >> i'm in a switch spots for a second. before i moved to the final question i have some announcements. the national press club is the national organization for journalists. we for a free press worldwide. for more information about the club please visit our website. i would like to remind you about some upcoming programs. tomorrow michael middleton
interim president will speak care. wednesday labor secretary tom perez will join us. on june 30, national transportation will address the club and july 14 admiral mike rogers, the director of the national security agency will speak at the press club luncheon. i would like to present our guests with the national press club mug. [applause] >> it's not wireless, sorry. >> is there really one last question question but. >> there is. and i'm going to make it a tough one. public officials are supposed to field the public's pain. with that being the case, can you tell us any personal stories about any nightmare encounters with customer service representatives of verizon, comcast or other telecommunications firms?
>> is there something a little stiffer i could put in there? >> so like i said, we hear hear from consumers all the time about this. and yes, public officials are real people who have real ongoing experiences too. my most recent experience was left less with customer service and more with my wife called me and saying the irs was after us. there had been a spoof incident itch has been happening increasingly where fraudsters from abroad are using the internet to connect over here
and call random numbers and announced to them that the irs and i need to be paid in here's where you send the check. so a, that happened to us. be, last week we started getting threatening phone calls from an individual who had been himself on the receiving end but the phone number was my phone number this is something that is a legitimate concern. this is something that there are individuals that can be held responsible for this and one of the things that we are actively doing right now is trying to
[inaudible conversation] the fcc chairman's comments in all of the coverage from the press club conference is available on c-span.org. on capitol hill the focus of congress today is on gun legislation. the u.s. senate gavels in at three eastern and will take for gun related votes dealing with background checks and the terror watch list. watch live coverage on c-span2 and across from the u.s. capitol at the supreme court justices left in place a lower court ruling that upheld laws passed in response to another mass shooting involving a semi automatic weapon. the elementary attack in newtown connecticut.
those votes are coming up at 530 eastern. you can watch that on c-span2. >> the district court of a columbia upheld the fcc rules for treating the internet. fred campbell, technology director and that would, policy director at free press are on either side of this decision and talk about their views. they're joined by washington post technology reporter brian fong. now that the fcc has for the first time gone further than that and said this scheme that once governed the network now applies to isps, that opens up the door for more regulation that was never part of the net neutrality debate. >> we think of this as the fcc returning to the right law for
broadband. treating it like a communication service and an infrastructure and a transmission system and making distinction between the carriage and the content on the internet. >> watch the communicators tonight at eight eastern on c-span2. >> with the political primary season over over, road to the white house takes you to the political convention. watch the republican national convention starting july 18 with live coverage from cleveland. >> we will be going into the conventional matter what happens and i think we will go in so strong. >> and watch the democratic national convention starting july 25 with with live coverage from philadelphia. >> let's go forward, let's win the nomination and in july let's return as a unified party. >> and then we take our fight for social, economic, racial and environmental justice to philadelphia.
>> every minute of the republican and democratic parties national conventions on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> now from "washington journal", now on the gun debate focused on orlando and efforts to curb gun violence. this is 45 minutes. >> joining us now is the executive director of the coalition to stop gun violence. he is here to talk about his position on gun control measures and in the wake of the attack on the orlando nightclub. thank you so much for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> can you tell us about your organization and who you represent question at. >> we represent a number of organizations in washington but we also really represent our members and we have thousands of members across the country whoms are very concerned about this. our main goal is we really want to translate research into
policy success. we do that through policy development and through advocacy and community engagement. >> i should also note that you wrote the book guns, democracy and you are a founding member on the gun control committee and you also have written for the huffington post. you been working on this for impo long time. what have you seen since the attack in orlando? how has the conversation around gun control changed question ask. >> i think it has change in a couple important ways. one is there is an enormous amount of energy that's involved. i think this really started, in my view after the virginia tech shootings.
there have been disappointing votes in congress after the sandy hook nightmare. they think this movement would disappear and go away. they were wrong. that was the beginning of the development in a very powerful movement. now, millions of us are strongii an have a whole coalition of organizations that we work within those people are incredibly energized. the other thing thing that's very interesting is because of the awareness of this location where the shooting was in this nightclub, the lgbt community is incredibly energized. year of seen the historic coming together of a number of powerful social movement groups and that's really changing some of the dynamic that we are seeing out there. this is evolutionary. were not going to get everything we want right now but this feels to me with a lot of momentum in a winning cause. i've been doing this for a long time and i was here during the brady bill. i participated when we passed the brady bill. i was also here during the low years of the bush administration so i know what momentum feels like and i feel it very strongly. i get calls constantly.
i want to join, what can i do. i need to be involved. there survivors who have never talked about the loss and they're coming out and saying i've had it and i'm going to get involved. >> what does your group and your members feel should be done? what policy proposals have you put in place and what do youxt think is important? will talk about what will be voted on in the next couple days but we were talking about is background checks and were talking about closing the tear gap which is something that is important but overall we support an effort on a band which we support. were also very involved with the risk-based policy. it's important have background checks but it's also very important to understand who's iv the system. who should be prevented from having a gun. you mention a consortium policyz
that is an organization that we formed out of academics who come and advise us about who's at risk of increased violence. were very focused on people with a prior history of violence. we are very focused on people with a prior history of domestic violence. the other thing, california just passed a law law called the gun violence restraining order which is a law that allows family members or friends to temporarily remove a firearm during a crisis. that is something that we think hiery state should have. >> i want to let our viewers know they can join in thers to conversation with josh and the number to call (202)748-8001. we also have a special line open on the segment for those who own guns, gun owners can cost call us and send us your comments on
twitter. i also want to let you know we had on this program yesterday larry pratt. he is from the gun owners ofyatm america for the other perspective in this debate. if you want to see that you can visit our firstname.lastname@example.org. let's.org. let's go ahead and get to our callers. go ahead robert. >> yes, good morning. i have a suggestion. i think it would help in this debate. it's very simple. it's just make everybody's medical records public information.th this way you will find people who should not possess weapons. i think there are some privacy rights that are concerning about that. that's not something that we advocate. people often ask us, shouldn't we have the records of people who are mentally ill and use
that. my position on that is that there are millions of people who are mentally ill around the united states were never going to be violent and we want to make sure were using evidence-based criteria to crderstand when potentiallysese people and not community toth become violent. first of all he just want to say that's a rare occurrence.s is rl most people with mental illness are not going to be violent. only 4% of the violence in the united states is related to mental illness alone. we do have evidence-based criteria so for instance when someone is committed to a mental institution because of injuring themselves or others, that is a criteria we should know about that there is a court adjudication and we can use as a record for disqualification. but just going through people's medical records is not a good idea and there's a lot of privacy concerns for that. >> you mentioned there are proposals that have a lot of momentum after the orlando shooting. walk us through some of those proposals.
tell us about them. >> i think the one that people talk a lot about is the terror gap which makes people who are suspected or reasonably likely to be suspected of a terrorist act or participating in a terrorism plan to have their firearms removed while that investigation is pending. that's a bill by dianne feinstein and it's referred to as the terror gap. there is an alternative proposal by john cornyn which we consider affect lifts they would have to make the courts determine within three days if that person is a threat. we think that is a really bad bill. >> what about this bill from gop
senator who says these senators are looking for a bipartisan gun compromise. what would that proposal due and you think it has any hope for passage? >> i don't know the specific proposal because we have for that we are focused on and i can explain the other two for monday. there is a lot of discussion about compromise right now and we avidly welcome that.sese this is clear that the senators up for reelection, if i were he. and didn't vote for backgroundbo checks, i would be looking for some kind of compromise. she's in a a really big box and i thinthat shows to me the type of change that we have seen in the gun movement. she voted the wrong way and background checks but she has taken a lot of heat on that in new hampshire. she is looking for a way to get
right and not get right with the nra but to get right with us. if she wants to get right with us she needs to go to the floor on monday and vote for chris murphy's background check bill and diane feinstein's bill. >> go ahead tom. >> hello. >> you're on the air, turned on your tv. >> right. >> it's down. okay go ahead with your question or comment. >> my question is, we have a great country here and we have the right of the second amendment. it takes a gun to stop a gun and yet we put these no gun freere zones up. that's for all these cowards go. we have to stop that.. no more gun free zones and after all, the people with concealed carry are very investigated. so they are exemplary citizens
so let's face the facts. it takes a gun to stop a gun. >> let me just make a point, thr shooter in orlando had a concealed carry permit and was not an exemplary citizen. it turns out there weree law-enforcement officers in theg club that evening when the shooter walked in with an assault weapon and it outmatched the law officers who were there. they had weapons and other people in the club may have had weapons that we don't know. i think the whole idea that the people of partying at two am in the nightclub should take out their weapons is juvenile fantasy. a thickets victim blaming and i think the bottom line here is that we need to make sure we keep dangerous guns out of the hands of dangerous people. >> a color from kentucky is next. what is your perspective? >> what i want to say, the
terrorists have guns and they kill people easily. this guy is lying. he's a liberal who says this is gun confiscation. they want to compensate all the guns. they don't want to control guns per they do not want to control tears they want to control the american people. you talk about the second amendment, you're going to do away with the first and third amendment.ti these are constitutional rights and they're trying to take them away. you don't have the guts to come take my gun away. >> all right, thanks for calling me a fascist and sang the other nice things about me. i appreciate that. the bottom line is, i've already talked about balancing different rights appropriately. i think that's what this is about. about it we have a supreme court that says we have the right to bear arms and protect yourselves. i'm a member of the bar and i'm a lawyer and obligated to
understand and work with the laws of the united states and honor them, and i do. what what we're talking about is how do you balance rights of individuals with the idea that there are dangerous terrorists and other dangers people out there? every right get balance and were trying to find the right balanca for the second amendment. i think that's what a serious discussion needs to be about how we balance those rights and responsibilities with the evidence and understand when it's appropriate to remove someone's firearm and obviously we have a supreme court rule ane were trying to understand and keep america safe. host: you mentioned that omar a teen had a permit to carry and had been investigated several times be the fbi and those investigations were dropped. are there any proposals that would have stopped the orlando shooting had they been in place before the attack?
guest: he had a very powerful weapon and that was designed for law enforcement and combat. the fact that were allowing civilians to have the rightt foods like that is a terrible idea think you could've stopped that by keeping our assaultt weapon ban in place and having states have their own type of band. the other thing, he had a very violent past. we can debate whether he was a terrorist and how we gotot radicalized and all that, but if you look at his pasty was extremely violent. he beat his wife and his coworkers were scared of him. there is a gun violencescared o restraining order that would allow family and friends to mention the removal of firearms. that's the law we need in place so that when someone is in crisis we can get the gun out of their hand and get them some treatment or whatever else we need to do, but right now what's
interesting is immediately after the shooting the fbi would say if you see something say something, but you know what even the fbi doesn't have the tools to remove firearms from someone on the terror watch list. we need far better tools.me we need to close the terror gap and get background checks and that all starts the ability to make sure that dangerous people don't have access to dangerous guns. >> you've also mentioned theo term assault weapon severalult times. can you define what that means. you mentioned the assault weapons ban but that hasn't been brought up as a solution. we see it as. >> actually the president and vice president have been out there a lot talking about this band. i think it is a heavier lift why h is why it's not one of the four bills that will be considered. you asked me what an assault weapon is. o it's a short battled style c rifle. it takes centerfire ammunition which is a more powerful type of ammunition. it has a pistol grip and itif
often has a forward grip so you can put your hand on the file without getting your hand burn. the reason for it is these weapons are to kill people.arre they do that by keeping them at the muzzle and the bow on their target round after round after round. you should them once you get what you call muzzle creep.t. it's hard to keep those types of rifles on the target. these weapons are designed to kill people and keep the muzzle on the target round after round and that's why the pistol grip and you see these weapons being used by people and shooters tha want to kill a lot of people. that's what they're designed for. the fact that we have allowed them to proliferate with large capacity magazines is a morallh: problem in this country. host: our next collar is from indiana. a gun owner calling on the republican line. go ahead.
>> caller: first and foremost i have to comment on what he said on muzzle creep. if you have a military weapon there are three selector switch is on there. you have semi auto and full auto. the reason why they have the selector switches is because if you try to shoot in rapid succession with any rifle you will have creep. it can have a pistol grip or 50 cufflinks on there, you're going to get muzzle creep if you shoot rapidly so that's why they tell you, if you're going to shoot one target it is one round only. so i wanted to touch on that. my comments are as follows, first and foremost, i want to give my sincerest condolences to all that have suffered around the world, especially in orlando
and i just want to know two things, one, why is why is it that every time something bad happens everybody gets on theon knee-jerk bandwagon that we need tough gun laws and more laws. why do you need more laws to keep and what enforce what's on the book. he went through fbi hands twice and it did nothing.. we can even enforce what's on the book so what made everybody think that more laws is going to do? secondly, i wanted to say, we can even define assault weapons. he gave a little speech on itev might be centerfire or have a pistol grip. everybody says every time you see assault weapon on tv, saw the ar-15 and others, have you ever heard of a mini 14? it's the same gun it just lookst different and looks like a traditional rifle.e. you never hear anybody speak about those because it looks
like a conventional weapon. it doesn't look like your typical military styled weapon. so blows my mind that any weapon is an assault weapon.guest: >> it's just another step toward gun control. guest: okay first while theywi can't shoot 103 people in a few minutes. this is a weapon that was designed to do that and it did that. as far as the ability and the knee-jerk reaction, i will say, i will say been doing this for 27 years and i thought a fair amount about in that time. this is sort of the policy development process that's gone on for a long time and a grassroots development process.s when you work with survivors like i do and you have to talk to mothers who have lost their kids it's not knee-jerk. it's from the heart and it's something that is an important piece of change that needs to happen in america because we
have 33,000 people killed every year by guns in america and it's something that we absolutelyly need to do about it and i will g challenge the caller to look in the eyes of a survivor of this shooting or any other shooting and say there's nothing we can do or we shouldn't do anything. enforcing the law is part of this. i totally agree with that. we need to do a better job of that. t i don't exactly know what was going on with the fbi but i can tell you they don't have all the tools they need to keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists. if you care about enforcing the law, the terror gap legislation would be incredibly in inline fg callerant. >> caller: thank you cspan. while i think we need stricter laws any think we need enforcement of laws, i think there is something very wrongg with the mentality when it come to gun owners. just listening to the people who have been calling, they are so a
frightened and they have a cowboy mentality that because the second amendment says we have the right to bear arms that we don't have the right to have common sense mentality. i was wondering why we don't do more psa commercials. if you size many anti-gun commercials as we see geico commercials, perhaps that would have an effect., compared we all stop smoking compared to the 50s. we've all wearing seatbelts now. i just wonder if there's something we could do aside from all the laws and bills to just get people seeing the danger. it's very nice to offer prayers and condolences, but why don't we show, as you talked about the victims and how their suffering, to think that a man or woman who is beating their spouse is allowed to get a gun, is that really the way we want our
society to be? >> right, thank you so much for calling. that's a great question. i think education and cultural changes incredibly important.ite we have a lot of efforts out there but you are right, cultural change is part of policy change and vice versa. these things go together. i was fortunate to be able to be at the white house on wednesday for a screening of a new movie about sandy hook. it's the story of the families after the shooting at newtown. when you watch that and the pain that these families go through when the empty chair at the breakfast table and around the christmas tree when they're trying to celebrate the holiday, the pain is unbelievable. when that movie comes out it'll be a documentary in on pbs and in theaters that urge everybody to see it. when you talk about public education it will be an important moment.
that will be developed and coming out in the fall. it is exactly the type of public education we need. >> the american rifle association has called gun violence a public health issue. >> it's great to see them get involved. think it's something that we needin the medical community. it's great to see the doctors involved. i was really struck after the shooting in orlando and the terrible tragedy to see the surgeon come out and talk at a press conference early on and to me that was a really important moment. the surgeon coming to that my can sing we have to do something, this is a terrible tragedy, this is what we been going through. i think the doctors and medical professionals in general are an important factor. i think it's something that is so important and the ama coming out finally on this is just
incredibly important. are s i think it's indicative of the cultural change that we are seeing. drive cultural changes are going to drive the policy change and vice versa.ed you have to see these types of mainstream organizations but i will say from my perspective of being involved with this for 27 years, the type of allies that we have today didn't exist years ago. this is a coming together of many, many different communities. what's important about that is that the gun lobby is now being isolated and i think that's incredibly important. >> i do want to go back to one thing. the last caller said something about gun owners. i think what were seeing is not necessarily indicative of all gunowners. many support background checks and want to make sure terrorists don't have access to firearms. i think there's a lot of room to work with gunowners on this. they are not the enemy per se.hn
i think that there is a way we can come around this in a bipartisan manner and i think you're starting to see a lot of gunowners come out and talk about the need for rational legislation because otherwise time after time, this whole notion is going to be suspect. we've heard some of the callers and the anger today. that's not indicative of most gun owners. i think most gun owners want to figure out a way to keep the violence down and stop gun violence. >> patricia is a gun owner. what's your perspective? >> caller: hello, i was listening earlier about the laws and new town in california the domestic violence in the problem i have is that there is due process, anybody could say my
husband hit me and maybe he didn't and they just want to get him in trouble. i mean there has to be due process. : necticut. connecticut has -- is one of the strictest gun states. you need a permit now to buy ammo. i am so tired of hearing their needs -- of background checks. i was trying to buy a rifle in virginia at the gun show -- "you need a background check." they tell the people in the united states that there is no ba there's no background checks at gun shows and there is. i'm a peruvian citizen so i have a green card so every time i buy a gun i have to show my green card. i just tried to buy a gun and i had to show my marriage
certificate because my green card is different from my passport but you know, it takes a long time to purchase a gun and it's one of the most empowering things i've ever felt as a woman , to go through the whole ballot ground check it took me about a year to get my gun permit and to be able to go into a store like a bellows and buy my own pistol, it was the most empowering thing, the most independent thing i've ever felt as a woman and you know, i feel that if like just like we respect cars because cars can kill all the time, we have been taught to respect and be trained by the car. i think people should be more educated and trained. as children, we used a, kids used to shoot in schools and i still do myself and i think there needs to be more education and there needs to be more respect for the guns and i think that's a little bit of the problem. will have to leave it there
to get some other colors as well. let me talk first about two things, the due process issues, i totally completely agree with the caller. we have to have due process and that's why the domestic restraining orders are a marker, we have a domestic restraining orderagainst you , if you have a permanent restraining order you have to give up your gone during the dependence of that order. that's the judge making that decision. if you've been convicted for domestic violence or a felony you have to give up your gun for the dependency of that and a judge makes that determination so it's part of the due process. it's not just that person did something. there has to be due process. i think the caller didn't quite understand that but there is a lot of due process in the domestic violence era and the young restraining order. the second thing about the background checks. i live in virginia and so i've been to many gun shows.
i also go on sites like arms list .com and in virginia, if you go to a gun show and purchase from a licensed dealer, you have to do a background check. if you go to the next booth where there is not a licensed dealer but someone selling guns which happens all the time, you do not have to do a background check you can you can go to one booth and do the background check but walk right next door to a booth and not have to do a background check, even though there are many guns for sale. that's what we are trying to stop. were trying to stop sales without background checks. they happen on the internet, gun shows and they're likely to produce gun ones that end up being used in crimes >> what's the difference between the license dealer and the booth next-door that is not licensed? >> a licensed dealer is quote unquote engaged in the business and it gets a license from the federal government and can send guns through the mail and things like that. unfortunately, the laws engaged in the business is defined somewhat narrowly so
people who are selling guns every weekend at gun shows from what they call their personal collection although there making money on it, don't have to background checks. so we need to tighten up, what we really need to do is tighten up and engage in the business standard so it's more of a commercial standard if this is a commercial enterprise for you, you shouldn't be able to self without a background check. our basic position is that all sales should go through a background check. it's a lot safer. it is more responsibility to the seller.people talk about , criminals are going to follow that. every gun store is legal and there's legal seller almost always result that gun into the secondary market. this is about holding the sellers responsible and making sure they are selling through the background checks so they are not going to felons. >> next up is robert from randolph massachusetts. good morning, robert . >> thank you for taking my
call and thank you mister horwitz for your efforts because what i don't understand is that people don't understand the right to bear arms but we have the right to be safe also. and other people, we must not, we got to focus on what we are fighting for. because the partisan thing in this country is tearing us apart because what happens is , you've got people that are abusers, stalkers. in the parents gap we talk about. all these things we have to take to concern that we must have a lot because what happens is people are buying guns illegally and committing all these crimes. look at the paragraph we talk about. even people who have open carry are required to have a clean record. you have training so we can have a comprehensive country. we have one nation under god, not under satan. we have to stop the partisan
thing and stop calling people fascism. >> robert, we hear you. let's get one more color in and we will hear from our guest. next up is jane from river edge new jersey calling on the democratic line. go ahead janie. >> morning mister horwitz and thank you so much for your efforts area yes. i was wondering if you might comment on how the nra works and their lobby, why their lobby is so powerful and by that i mean, they actually instead of, well, when a politician is up for reelection, what theydo is , they will donate millions and back any opponent who is pro and ra to defeat that person. that politician and paralyze them.
what are your comments or thoughts about that please? >> well, my thoughts are that the nra's power is way overblown. they spend little amounts of money around the country and a lot of their candidates are incumbents area if you look at what they've done in contested races, they haven't done particularly well. they will throw a fair amount of money into one or two races as a showcase their record and an independent analysis of that is their record isn't particularly good in contested races. what's interesting now is that there are now the same amount of political money coming into people who support gun violence prevention so that the money is really equalized and i think you're starting to see, one of the reasons the democrats were so emboldened on this is because they know it's a winning political moment and they know that swing republicans if there are such a thing or people in swing districts with republicans like kelly i ott is a great example, kelly kurt is a great example are really in trouble and the nra
has become a branchof the republican party. the democrats who did not vote for background checks after sandy hook, the nra targeted all those folks so they go after their friends . they are just about any republicans elected and at this point people need to understand that if you are in a tight race in most districts in the united states, coming out for gun violence profession is an win-win issue and the nra becomes rather irrelevant and it's good to see so many donors up to equalize or even exceed what the nra is spending these races so i think it's a new political day. it's a great point but you are seeing this rapidly change. >> you mentioned earlier the influence of high-capacity magazines and efforts to limit those sales instead. explain what's happening there. >> these assault weapons are sold oftentimes at 30 round magazines which seems like a lot but you can go in the aftermarket and by 50, 100 round magazines and in some
of these issues they have been stopped, for instance in tucson where gerald lautner had high-capacity magazine on his glock: he had a 30 round magazine. pat mays and a number of other people, they call it the hero of tucson jumped on the shooter there, on gerald lautner. if you don't have to change a magazine, you don't have that time, the intervening is gone and we think there's a reason that shooters use high capacity magazines. people say a lot of people got shot in tucson but if you , if he had high-capacity magazine, more people would have been killed and is the work of heroes were able to jump in and stop this guy. another interesting issue about tucson is or was a concealed carry holder with his firearm very close to joe walker. he pulled his gun but he was confused about who to shoot because pat had jumped on gerald lautner so he didn't. that really shows how complicated this situation is
for novices. the idea that we are going to have someone who's actually going to stop one of these with a firearm, it may happen sometime but the vast majority of these times are too complicated. getting rid of these high-capacity magazines offers an opportunity for intervention. >> ndoba then is from cc alaska calling on the line from gunowners. thank you dennis. >> hi, i wanted to make a simple point. you know, problems have to be addressed logically, succinctly and i think if you go back instead of the constitution and the second amendment, yada yada which we always here, you need to go all the way to the preamble because the preamble plainly states tranquility. then see if the second amendment does not fly in the face of the preamble. as it's being used. i was a member of the nra or
50, 60, however it was, it was a great organization. it taught me gun safety and how to handle and respect. okay? beyond that, they become the other coin and if i may add one more thing, a little duck tape, you put two of those babies together back to back. just strip them upside down to get to combat vietnam stuff. >> dennis from alaska, let's hear now from medina from apollo pennsylvania calling a republican line. go ahead regina. >> good morning. i want to say that number one, the situation in florida a man that did the shooting, he had a federal security license so don't give me this baloney about we need more licenses and all this background checks. there's a lot of this situation that is where the and cis, the national check system is denying gun
purchases because of rampant mistakes in their system read this is what we need straight now and the people that were in that bar as any other place, if theywere armed , the man that did the killings would not do as much killing quick taking the rights away. i understand there's 2000 veterans that have already lost their guns. there's a social security gun band that mister obama has put on and it's all tied up in his desire to get rid of our second amendment while this and cis check system needs to be remedied and hr 4980, firearm due process act and s202 protecting guns rights and due process act needs to be passed so people need to call their representative and quick taking the problem. gun free zones mean more people died.
>> i would just say that the club was not a gun free zone. there was a law enforcement officer with a weapon there and 103 people were killed. i said this earlier in the show. the idea that a bunch of revelers drinking are going to, in that type of dark environment with people going, it seems like sort of a juvenile fantasy. there are trained people who can handle weapons appropriately and are trained for situations and they happen to be on scene and they couldn't stop it so we're not here to argue about gun free zones. what we're talking about is making sure that people on the terrorist watchlist don't have access to firearms and we can all agree that having wall enforcement, trained people with firearms is fine. making sure that people who are suspected terrorists and dangerous individuals with severe anger disorders don't have firearms is fine also. i think that's where you really need to be in this country and this is not an either or. this is how do we stop people who are dangerous people from
getting dangerous weapons? that's what this debate is about. and i will say that it's the nick system, the national check system you are referring to and there is a pretty straightforward process for coming off that list if there's been a mistake so i just, i understand the color might fear losing her firearms but the reality is that we are selling 10 million firearms year in the united states, we're not having any type of gun ban in the united states. we are trying to increase safety, balance rights and responsibilities and make this country as safe as possible. >> next up is marjorie from west virginia on the democratic line, go ahead. you are on the air. >> thank you so much for discussing this topic. i would like to offer a few suggestions that may you could share with members of congress and maybe even the president that i think the way, i don't agree with donald trump's temporary ban on muslims as he's been
talking about but i wonder if there should be a temporary ban on these war weapons, not on all guns but on these kinds, like the colorado shooter use in the theater there and like the one there at sandy hook and of course the one in orlando and i think that if congress and the president were to appoint a commission made up of fbi members, gunowners , people from your organization to come together for some kind of a way to establish how while that temporary ban is going on, while that's happening, you guys could come up with illusions because i think everybody can get together and do that without the threat of the nra, please don't stop yet, i have two more. >> we are just about all out of time. >> and i will remember them all. i want to address this wanted such agood point . >> ... this is critical.
purchases of high ammunition need to be flagged and if they're going to buy body armor, that needs to be flagged. thank you. >> all right. >> i agree with all you just said. instead of talking about banning muslims from coming to this country, i think a temporary ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and lighting people buying lots and lots of ammo over the internet, great ideas and i do think that people can come together. it's on us and the administration, congress can come together but we need to hear from the american people. they need to make this clear, find a solution. >> last color for this segment will be very from wisconsin on the republican line, go ahead. >> i might find it a little bit easier to side with you if this administration wouldn't stop protecting sanctuary cities, promote open borders and let drug-related criminals which is tied to guns and also
photo id cards. we asked them to get a photo id card and they go through the roof with suppression but at the same time we are supposed to abide by all of these so it seems a little bit hypocritical to me. one last thing, can people on the terror watchlist boat? if you can't get a gun, they should be able to vote. >> thanks gary. josh, your final comments. >> i think that is not necessarily an issue of border control, that might be something beyond my expertise but i'll tell you this. the shooters in the last number of massacres we've seen have all been born in america. they haven't been someone who's crossed the border just to destroy our way of life read that people who are angry, they have issues of violence in their path and the other thing is that there are 33,000 people killed every day. it's the equivalent of a mask orlando style shooting every day in this community that
doesn't get the attention it deserves . we had a terrible public health problem that affects all americans and it's time this time to deal with it. >> josh horwitz is from the coalition to stop gun violence. thank you so much for joining us this morning. >> thank you for having me. >> in about 13 minutes or so, the u.s. senate returns for general business for the first 2 and a half hours or so. they will be on the debate initially for the congress justice and science spending bill. as part of that they will consider later today for don -related amendments, two of them dealing with background checks and the other to dealing with those on the fbi terror watchlist. those votes will come up at 5:30 eastern. they only 60 to advance and of course live coverage of the senate here on c-span to as always. as we wait for the senate to come in, more about the gun debate and gun violence from the washington journal. >> larry pratt with the gun owners of america, the senate will be voting on gun legislation monday, what do
you think? >> well, it's a failure of the republican leadership really that even have to bring something like this up. but i don't think it's going to help the democrats and i'm still puzzled, i still haven't figured out why the democrats continue to push gun legislation when every time they done it in the past , it rebounds to their electoral troubles starting in the 90s with bill clinton who was a pretty accomplished politician, observed it and pushing the gun-control measures that he did was bad and it causes party to lose control of the congress. and that's been similar results in other occasions when democrats have pursued an anti-secondamendment agenda , having one of primary based on how anti-second amendment he was and in the general election came along and even against
the lukewarm candidate he was able to lose area so i'm still puzzled, maybe the democrats are continuing to sort of like that little boy with a manure pile and he's told there's a diamond at the bottom of it, they keep digging through but in the meantime they're getting kind of dirty. >> what's the downside to people who are on terrorist lists not being able to buy guns? why not? >> if there had been a court procedure saying that somebody on a list had, even had charges brought against him in a regular court, not some special national security court on a regular court of the land where he had an opportunity or she had an opportunity to have representation from a lawyer, then i would say maybe we can talk about that but just to have a list that has people's names on it, we don't know how the names get there and
what do you say about a list that says teddy kennedy is on the no-fly list? arguably he should have been on a no drive list but to put him on the no-fly list is just preposterous. representative mcclintock recently was on this list. that tells you there's something very wrong with this list and the fact that none of us know how that happened, i'm not sure even kennedy knew how his name got on the list. >> are there any restrictions, is there any middle ground that you would support? when it comes to guns and ... >> we got a lot of experience in this country with gun-control legislation. it's not been a very satisfactory experience and where you have the most intense efforts at control, laces like chicago, you hear these dreadful weekend
reports of murder committed in those places. you don't have a problem like that coming out of vermont or wyoming or arkansas or alaska or arizona, places where people can carry a gun without even upper. they don't ask anybody's permission. they put it in their purse, put it in their pocket and they're good to go. so it seems we are having trouble digesting the fact that the government not only should not be regulating this but has done a very poor job. >> larry pratt is our guest, gun owners of america is his organization. we're going to put the numbers up on the screen divided by political affiliation. fourth line set aside for gun owners, we want to hear from you as well. 202748 8003 is the number for you to call. how many people in america own guns? >> happily, nobody really knows but i would guesstimate maybe half of the country at least. has access to a gun in the house. >> what about standard
background checks for the sale at gun shows or anything like that? >> well, in the last year of record, at least that i know of there were some 18 million background checks done. there were 14 prosecutions that resulted from that. not exactly what you would call a stellar performance of a crime-fighting tool. so it's been a crime-fighting failure but more than that, it's being conducted by a government that can't be believed. the government was not supposed to be listening in on our phone calls and yet the meta-data was collected by the nsa against the law. and nobody was punished. the government was not supposed to be getting guns to the mexican cartels and yet they did area and nobody's been punished. and people actually died from that area a lot more even than inchicago on a weekend . so government as a very poor
record and to entrust something as critical as who can own a gun which is a constitutionally protected rights in very absolute rank language, shall not be infringed, we don't see any argument that going to pertain that we should yield any ground there because the government doesn't even deserve having an argument. >> cbs news poll, 57 percent of americans support a ban on assault weapons. what's your reaction to that and how do you define an assault weapon? well, we don't in our form of governnt, the government by pulling. we do it by elections and then you have a chance in that election district or state to have it out and have a debate and that's what produces the congress that we have, obviously an imperfect process but it's certainly a far cry from government by
pulling. pulling is not even a science. polling is a guesstimate at best. it's, are these people representative in the poll of actually those who might go to vote. frequently they are not. polls are frequently wrong, sometimes their right and it's like flipping a coin. sometimes you're right and sometimes you're not. not a good basis for making law and i'm sorry, the rest of your question is ... >> what's your definition of an assault weapon? >> an assault weapon is something that was invented in the media. if we are talking about a real assault weapon, it's something the military issues to soldiers and it's capable of firing. automatic. it has a switch on it, generally that enables the person with a gun to opt between semi automatic and fully automatic fire. there are a few of those in private possession butvery few .
most of the firearms owned in this country that are called assault weapons are actually semi automatic and they are the same as the hunting weapons that lots of people have. they may look different, they may have a black coat of paint but the internal function of the gun is the same so it's been a very interesting debate using words that have been brought forth by the likes of the senator kennedy's of the world that are interested in banning guns and it doesn't have a real basis in what goes on. we're often talking about something in a debate conducted by people who really don't know what they're talking about. >> can you defend omar mckean's ownership of the ar
15 that he took into the pulls my club. >> i can defend my teams being able to buy the gun because there was no criminal record that was available on him. but what i could never defend and what i want to attack relentlessly and unceasingly is the fact that he was able to find a place where nobody had a gun. so he went into a gun free environment that was imposed by law and the people that died there, partly died at the hands of the legislators who put that wall in the books. obviously they didn't pull the trigger but they facilitated what he was able to do and that's something that we feel very intensely as gun owners of america should be taken off our books. that's really the task in front of us at the moment in the congress is to get rid of gun free zones. >> john in rio rancho new mexico on our republican line, you're on with larry pratt of the gun owners of america. >> mister pratt, you're a
great american. let's start with that. there's a bigger picture going on with our government though it's not just our guns . there's an epa law that any little table on your lan is formative of wetlands and what they want to do is they want to take our land area they cannot take our land until they take our guns and if they come after everybody's property at the same time, you're looking at a violent revolution. so i think what the government is really after is to disarm the population so that they can then use focus laws that they've written into code and come onto your property, take your title and take your land, basically the cattle or degradation to the property which they're going to claim his wetlands and they're going to make legal arguments to take our property.
guns are the first step. >> i think we've got your point, larry pratt. >> it's a concern that particularly acute among people in the west and the caller from the west, i think represents well the concern that many have. you've got not only the epa but you got the blm and many other federal agencies that are telling people how they are supposed to be making a living using federal regulation to make a living increasingly difficult and then you add on top of that gun control and it becomes a very oppressive burden of federal regulation and when you get people and forcing that, that don't behave well and act as petty tyrants, it makes the situation near intolerable. that's really, i think ...
>> what all of this online at c-span.org. we have the senate gavel voluntarily. later at 5:30 they will take for gun related votes on amendments dealing with guns. 5:30 eastern, amendment by chuck grassley: his room for murphy, john cornyn and dianne feinstein, only 60 to advance and we expect those votes to get underway at 5:30 eastern. live senate coverage here on ... 12. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order.