tv US House of Representatives Special Orders CSPAN December 8, 2015 7:00pm-9:01pm EST
and there ought to be a law. but there is no law. and here in the house of representatives many of us have been trying for actually several ears to deal with this crazy loophole in our gun safety laws. and yet we've been unable to have a bill come to the house floor where 435 of us that represent all of the american citizens will have an opportunity to vote on whether we believe that if you're too dangerous to fly, you're too so today, our a gun. fellow democratic representatives and i, 135 have signed what is known as a discharge petition, so a bipartisan piece of legislation, introduced by representative
king of new york, a republican, that his bill could be brought to the interior and all of us ce the responsibility of selecting whose side do we stand on? we stand for the safety of americans and prevent people that are too dangerous to fly being able to buy a gun or do we stand with those on the no-fly list and say, you ought to be able to buy a gun even though you can fly. all of you, voters and non voters, don't you think it is time for your representatives to stand before you in this house and say we agree that if you are too dangerous to fly and too
dangerous to buy a gun, or stand here before all the american public and say, no. no. no. go ahead and buy a gun. that's what a discharge petition will do. it will take mr. king to bring it to the floor and put it before the house of representatives, the representatives of the american people, and cause us to make a choice for your safety or for the presumed right of a person who is too dangerous to fly, to buy a gun. we'll see what happens. that issue is now bubbling around here on the floor. there were four motions to adjourn which is a jay to causing he floor and
the attention of the membership of the house and the press and the press box or wherever they happen to be, to focus on this ne, one issue, whether the 16,000 or so people who are on and -fly list can go out buy a gun. and we ought to discuss this no of there is constitutional issue here or there is a stugsal issue, they are on the list but have no ability to get on. not true. not true. when it was first put together following 9/11. e issue was raced that the constitutionality by the civil liberties union said no we
disagree with you and this is an authorized protection of the american public and there is a procedure for an individual to petition to get off the list. so this issue of congress stution nationality was decided some years ago by a federal court. the arguments that you hear about this being an infringement of the rights to buy a gun. you are on the no-fly list, you have a program under way to emove yourself from the no-fly meetsnd the court says it constitutional muster. we know a lot of americans of certainly classes that cannot uy a gun, criminals convicted,
felon, some people who have been involved in domestic violence, ople that have exhibited mental health issues. and so we would add to that calt gore, people that are law enforcement agencies that have deemed to be terrorists or abiding and assisting organizations. can't fly. you can't buy a gun also. my republican colleague, mr. king is correct. the issue is not resolved. sue will be back before us tomorrow. and those of us who believe that if you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a
gun. we continue to push this issue for the safety of americans. 16,000 may not be able to fwy a gun, ,000 people who are on the no-fly lift have been able to buy a gun. aybe they shot quail or maybe, pray not. so, the issue is before us, as are many, many important issues. i don't think there is any issue more important than the safety of the american people. and we know if somebody is thought to be dangerous, they out not to have a gun. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back my remaining time and hope this house will see the wisdom
of taking the small step in denying 16,000 people probably those who aren't american citizens, denying thm the opportunity to buy a gun. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's policy of january 6, 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 0 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. and so much in the news and our
friends here on the floor have en raising questions about responsible, reasonable gun control. we want gun control that does not violate the second amendment of the constitution, the purpose of which is to allow citizens to protect themselves. and to allow citizens to protect themselves. and the thing i noticed, mr. speaker, in my decade as a judge, the criminals that came before me for crimes used with a gun, they did not -- i can't remember any of them. 6,000 cases of felony cases, went through our court.
i can't remember anywhere they went down to a gun store and bought a gun store. and with the 100 million guns that understand that have been purchased and in recent years, doesn't look like there quib any chance to remove guns except from law-abiding citizens. but it has been interesting. we inquire -- my republican friends, coloogs here, we inquired over and over and still seffvench years after president obama took office, we know that shortly thereafter, there was a scheme hatched within his administration to sell guns to criminals that would get to
mexico and fall into the hands of drug cartels and they didn't add equal monitor. there were nothing -- they couldn't betraysed exactly where they were going. ne one of those was killed one of our government agents. and government agents' life who was working for the president and have one of the president's zears or employees and end up lling one american agent and apparently hundreds of mecks ons and we don't know the full extent. eric holder withheld evidence.
i felt like he should have been impeached and thrown out of office. we never got absence answers about fast and furious. we sent amails. even after they got caught, this administration had facilitated weapons being provided and sold to people that would take them to the drug cartels. even after they got caught, they were wondering if it would be foss to use these weapons to create violence to address attacks and taking away second amendment's rights. and apparently, black friday, ast week, has been a record,
but just a massive number of guns being sold. 185,000 requests for gun purchases, on friday after thanksgiving. regardless of what the number was, that's not completely accurate, it's staggering how many people are now in fear for themselves and their families because of the policies of this of nistration now because fast and fewer rouse and how many people in the administration that were contemplating the sale of guns to drug cartels that this administration facilitated as a reason to have more gun control, it questions you the administration's policies. we know the last five years of
george w. bush presidency, his administration was vigorously prosecuting gun violations. but this administration has never prosecuted in the seven years and has never prosecuted as the bush administration did in those times. d we find out, not only were this they were not progress in the last five years of the bush administration, but in recent years, they have been cutting back on the prosecution of gun vigses. we find out in 01, gun violation prosecutions by this administration diminished. and we find out in 014, they diminished even further by this
administration. and we find out in 015, this administration sket a record for the last seven rears of prosecuting fewer gun violation crimes than any administration -- well, this was the lowest year, any of his last seven years. the administration as they have increased the demand for more gun control to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, they have been decreasing the number f gun violations they have prosecuted and promote more george w. bush control and what is the reason this administration continues to rosecute fewer and fewer gun crimes? it's as if this administration
-- and i'm not saying, mr. parliamentarian, i'm not saying a specific person and i'm violating the house rules, but has administration somehow had this policy of prosecuting fewer and fewer gun crimes at the same time increasing rhetoric to have more gun control. it's as if -- and i'm alleging, it's as if they wanted gunning violence to increase to get more gun control as it appears their meet vacation in using what happened with gun violence as a rilt of their 2000 weapons they forced to sell to people they
shouldn't have. . when i heard the policy, nobody who can't fly on a plane should be able to buy a gun, seemed reasonable. i was talking to my friend, tom price from georgia, back here earlier, mr. speaker. he said the same thing. it struck him, wow, that seems reasonable. until you start considering how one gets on the no-fly list. who's been on the no-fly list, the massive abuses of individual constitutional rights by this administration, , of uses of the i.r.s. law-abiding citizens, that richard nixon could have only dreamed of abusing the way this administration has. but the trouble is, there's no due process for someone to be adjudicated, to put on the no-fly list. there's no due process to get
off the no-fly list. nd in fact, one of the men i respect as much as anybody i know, he's a constituent, he's an army veteran, he's a retired general, lives in east texas, we've had to help him a number of times, once again, to get off the no-fly list. and unfortunately we never can find out why he's ever put on the no-fly list in the first place. the only thing i know, he is a devout christian. he is a supporter of mine. he would never knowingly violate the law of the united states. so i don't know, is it because he's a supporter of mine? i mean, a year ago i was trying to fly back from london and an official there in london airport with their security
said, sir, i understand who you are, very sorry, but your homeland security says you're somebody that has to be personally, physically searched along with everything that you have. gee. maybe somebody didn't like the way i cross examined them in the judiciary hearing. when you know that this administration has abused its power repeatedly, and you find out that actually the no-fly list is so obscure, it's like something from a kafka novel, never really enjoyed his novels, but the trial, it makes you think of, wow, you mean, this obscure government entity can charge you with something but you can't -- just like in the trial, you can't find out what you're charged with, you can't find out which you're on
the no-fly list, you can't find out if it's part of an enemy's list, you can't find out what's the best way to convince the government to get you off. are there mistakes made? well, gee, mr. speaker, could it be that a mistake was made when one of my constituent families from texas was going to take their dream vacation to disney world, they felt like the kids were old enough to enjoy it now, and when they tried to check their bags, they couldn't because of their five children, their middle child was on the no-fly list. he was a potential terrorist. i come from a family of four kids. and if i was going to pick one of my siblings, including me, to be a terrorist, i would say it's probably the young one. well, this child was 5 years old. he was the middle child. not the youngest.
nd they pulled him aside thinking he's, well, gee, his name's on the no-fly list. he must be a terrorist. well, thankfully in houston they had some common sense and quickly figured out, this is not a terrorist. this 5-year-old kid, he's not. not so when they tried to leave orlando to fly back home. he was pulled aside, the 5-year-old, he was separated from his parents, his parents were fit to be tied. they were threatened, they were not allowed to be with their child. they take him off to interrogate him. a 5-year-old child. but he's on the no-fly list. and they couldn't figure this out. they think he's a terrorist. they ask him his date of birth. he's freak out. he's separated from his parents and his other siblings. he knows the month and day. he can't tell them the year. so now they think he's withholding information.
they endured a lot of counseling and nightmares because of the abuses of this administration's policies and, yes, mistakes are made like that. and sometimes when people's names get put on the no-fly list, you don't know what it's for. here's an article, i sure don't read from these folks very often, but the "los angeles times" says it seems simple enough, the federal government based on intelligence or policy -- policing puts a person on its watch list, a suspected terrorist decree, that he or she is too dangerous to be put on an airplane. surely it would be foolish to let that person buy a firearm in the united states. makes sense, doesn't it? that was the thrust of a law -- a proposed law by senator feinstein. goes on down, one problem is that the people on the no-fly list, as well as the broader terror watch list from which it is drawn, have not been convicted of doing anything
wrong. they are merely suspected of having terror connections. i thought it was outrageous that senator ted kennedy was on the no-fly list. i don't know. maybe homeland security knew something the rest of america didn't know. but seems silly to me. senator ted stevens, the late senator's wife, catherine stevens, her name was on the no-fly list. she had those problems. so, it could be that you're guilty of only having a name similar to somebody that was put on the list for who knows why, but that is not a good way to take people's guns away, to say, yes, we want to pass a law so that this administration, behind close doors, with the lowest learners of this administration, can put people's names on a list, they can never buy a gun, can never fly on a plane.
that is a scary proposition. and how about the 72 department of homeland security employees that are on the no-fly list? and then we find out also, thanks to senator jeff sessions, that we've had two refugees in this country who this year have been either charged or convicted -- convicted of terrorist activities. and one worked around o'hare airport, and another worked around here, over, i believe it was a cab driver working around reagan airport. how about we take care of the people that we know for sure are a threat to america? anyway. the article from wyoming says, according to technology -- wimentse, according to -- from "the washington times,"
accordingly, 280,000 are considered to have no affiliation with recognized terrorist groups. all it takes is for the government to declare it has reasonable suspicion, someone could be a terrorist. there's no hard evidence required. standard is notoriously vegas and elastic -- vague and elastic. so an article from adam credo, from free beacon, about the 72 employees, tip of the hat to congressman stephen lynch for finding that information, this article from neil monroe, bright batter, california shooting shows jihad risk from muslim migrant's u.s.-born children. the san bernardino shooter, who killed 14 americans, is jet another name on the growing list of u.s.-born children of muslim migrants who grew up to embrace violent jihad. seems like somebody has talked about that before.
the notorious example was anwr al maliki. he subsequently embraced the violent commandments of islam, complete with its many calls for attacks on non-muslims, his career as a jihadi advisor, recruiter, cheerleader ended when he was killed by u.s. missile strike in yemen in september, 2011. another example is nadal malik hassan, the virginia-born son of arab migrants. who murdered 13 americans in fort hood, texas, in 2009. that attack was down played by federal officials as workplace violence. even though hassan had described himself as the soldier of allah on his u.s. army business cards. the problem is worse among muslims because muslim culture and religion is hostile to
integration, spencer says, quote, islamic law announces itself as a superior model for society and government, so you've got no community-driven reason for muslims to integrate or adopt american values because their way is better. that's what spencer says. i do know muslims here in the united states that don't believe that they should adopt shari'a law. i've got muslim friends in afghanistan and all over north after -- africa and the middle east they don't want radical islam. and in fact in egypt, so proud of the people of egypt, they rose up and said, we don't want radical islam. of course, this president, this administration wants to punish them for throwing out the muslim brother president. but this article back to -- this article, he says, in august, 2015, the f.b.i.
arrested a u.s.-born son of a supposedly moderate imam as he began his journey to join isis in syria. he was accompanied by his young university educated american wife who was a convert to islam. that's the quintessential example of the risk involved because the father is supposed to be moderate and we're supposed to think the son subscribes to a violent islam completely different from the father. but there's no evidence of a riff between the father and son. in october, 2014, two u.s.-born teenage girls were nabbed by the f.b.i. as they began their journey to syria. the left wing southern poverty law center lists at least five additional u.s.-born jihadis or would-be jihadis including james, who tried to detonate a tarik, wally, his
family name comes from the arab term for holy warrior. and nasser jason who planned to ttack fort hood in 2011. so, i also would like to tip the hat, mr. speaker, to secretary johnson, that went back out to the all dulles area muslims society, adams for short, i'm sure john adams appreciated that -- appreciates that very much, don't know if the president's friend, the imam, oh, wait. let's see. this article mentions him. one of the most meaningful discussions on his tour, talking about jay johnson, he called it, was in june with the adam center imam which began with a boy scout troop leading
the pledge of allegiance. that imam is the past president of the i islamic society of america, which is linked to the muslim brotherhood. by the way, it was listed as a co-conspirator in the holyland foundation trial for supporting terrorism and once this -- they got the convictions of the five main people being prosecuted, isna, care, some other folks tried to get their names withdrawn from the pleadings being specifically named as co-conspirators in support of terrorism. but the federal district judge and also the u.s. federal court of appeals, fifth circuit, said, no, there's plenty of evidence to support that you are co-conspirators in supporting terrorism. i was told by a lawyer that the plan was, once they got those first five convictions, they would go after isna, imam, all these other people, but
fortunately for the imam and isna and care and all these groups, president obama got elected and eric holder immediately made clear that nobody was going to prosecute the rest of those named co-conspirators in supporting terrorism. also in the news today, a headline from the "washington times," i'm a proud muslim by kelly. long time confidence anti-to email clinton and the said i'm a proud muslim. and publican nominee
released the proposal. any way. in an email. you don't have to share my faith. doesn't s to and reflect our nation's values. and mccarthy. where it talks about senator mccain's claim that concerns about are based on associations. and actually. michele bachmann a others signed letters. would you do an investigation to see the extent of muslim your rhood influence in
department. five different specific letters and there were not any vage allegations. we said these things are true. would you investigate. well, come to find out a lot and in this article, the letter says members. ree family turns out, that she is connected o a major muslim brotherhood figure, muslim bo brotherhood has been named as a they have asked firnls and why do you not war.nize they are going at you have people advising the
president. i don't have an answer. but the article goes on. urns out she is directly connected and while financing of al qaeda. she worked at the institute. remained active. and secretary general of the muslim world lead and the most significant organization in the world and he founded the trust that was to its support of al qaeda. he ought to be able to stop right there. and he does haven't. and before you start probing the ties of family members, she
should have been ineligible for my government position base on er ml connections. and she was assist anti-editor. aand neral was the i.m.m. held a position from 1996 to 2008 when she began working as an intern in the white house. again, this article is written in 2012. by the vice nd president prestigious king. and it goes on to talk to about the ties with civilization,
jihad, the muslim world league nd with whom she had publication. and she worked with hointhoint she managed. destroyed the west from within 's and the brotherhood long history of the deep involvement. so then we find out actually that this article today spinning up as we speak, the pentagon was ready to roll. don't know know who stopped the military and help our people, somebody stopped them. and we don't know.
what this advice that reached the president? we don't know you take care of it and if you go next door and when osama bin laden, he went in the next room and played cards. we don't know what they were doing. this report, from robert, the isis trail of death pointed out there are a thousands of cases. and i'm not advocating that we get rid of the muslims in the united states. but we need to look if people slya law place with and ke become to yemen teach chair child to hate
america. americans have died because we have allowed this to happen and it gets so bad that even president obama has to take out an american citizen who was born here to parents who was trind to hate america. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas have a motion. mr. gohmert: i move that we now's journ. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the swreist have it.
being updated on this investigation and who is updating him, director comby of the f.b.i., the secretary, walk us through the discussions? josh: the president is being updated. the president gets a briefing every morning. and i know there is an ongoing threat in this act of terror as a part of those discussions and the president's national security team participates. they participate in those conversations. so there is a mechanism for him to get regular updates. i'm confident if he is seeking more information for r or feels a desire for more information, he can call his attorney germ or is f.b.i. director are the
director of the counterterrorism center sm. reporter: calling on the omni must discussion, there is discussion on hill that would lift the ban on crude oil exports. is the president going to include those measures? joshe josh: there are ar host of things that are being included in the omnibus. there is a legislative provision that the administration has consistently opposed. our position on that is -- we continue to oppose that legislative position. i'm not going to get into a detailed list that we are going to veto or not veto. our position is firm. we will viet o'ho.
that have b aggressively they should focus on the priorities of the country and not try to advance aagenda after that have been stalled in other places. so ultimately what we need to see, we need to seekonk pass a budget before the end of this week so the national security and economic priorities can be fully funded. reporter: you are not saying yet . josh: i'm not going to say at this point on a one-off basis ally the things that have been included in the bill whether or not they would be potential deal
breakers. ur position to be that the republicans shouldn't advance agenda. ogical reporter: the rhetoric is harmful to national security. josh: and the president described this. the fact is isil is trying to advance a narrative that suggests that they represent the religion of islam in waging a war against the united states and the west. that narrative is false. that is a fantasy. the fact is that millions of muslims are on the side of the united states in trying to
destroy isil. there are millions trying to put their lives on the lines. nd to suggest otherwise. reporter: his rhetoric, do you fear his rhetoric is actually will turn some muslims in this country against this country because of the way he is talk binge -- who normally would not be involved in perhaps the radicalism. will that hurt the country. josh: this is harmful. does ensive and toxic, it not condone any act of violence t the concern that we have
they are going to be most effective if they work in the partnership with the muslim-american community to isil t those who are this ideology. so and rhetoric like the bluster we hear from mr. trump makes it much harder to build and sold file that relationship. reporter: any way in his plan practical and the dministration.
imposing some religious quest runs count are to the constitution. april. reporter: and national security. and talk to world leaders about what trump has said. some of the rhetoric and some of the hype of this anger and talk to world leaders about it? josh: in the last 12 or 18 hours, i'm not aware of any conversations. reporter: what are you getting from leaders?
hat are hearing? they're not sure paying much attention to him. reporter: and mr. trump and what disfallone, what really quice himself and talks about mexicans. what is the final nail in the coffin for him to disqualify him s a presidental candidate? sh: there has been a accumulation of comments and this is the latest. your first act of president is to put your hand on the bible to
preserve acknowledge protect the united states. he is inconsistent with the oures that are enshrined in onstitution. >> you don't like doing it and been clear where he stands? josh: i'm not aware of the president to direct this. reporter: trump was saying something controversial and on the scale of controversy. it is all rhetoric. i believe in a robust debate and good for this country ap good for democracy. is trump not good for this country and not good for democracy?
josh: this is not the first time trump have addressed that has had to say. and coming on the back end of an accumulation of offensive comments, it is clear that what foraid is disqualifying and the other candidate that have pledge pledged to support him it is support somebody for the presidency to articulate these views, you don't have the right judgment to serve as president of the united states. you don't have the courage of your convictions to stand up and
spy out in something so ffensive is uttered. >> that is what put you over the edge. in terms of this not being rhetoric. josh: the secretary of homeland against ourd it was national security. >> is this good for america? josh: we should have a robust debate and the president made clear we should have a debate should be st and about policy that reflects the said.y and what mr. trump
itunder mines them. so rnishes them and why many americans find it offensive. people will -- it will -- let me go to back to where i was. which is that what mr. trump said is deeply offensive and has conquens cease. t the are they going to be going in donald trump. and if you look ti current state, one of the leaders in congress, reportedly bragged to a reporter. you have someone at the republican senate campaign
share the stories of america's first ladies. ladies" isook "first available online or from your favorite bookstore. be sure to order today. >> tonight on c-span, senate minority leader harry reid talks about donald trump, followed by comments by house speaker paul ryan. members of the house gun violence task force hold a hearing on gun violence. senators propose a bill to bar those from the no-fly watchlist from purchasing guns. responding to a monday night campaign speech by donald trump,
senate minority leader harry reid condemned the republican front-runner's call to bar the entry of muslims to the west senator reed also commented on other republican's view on immigration. sen. reid: donald trump is standing on the platform of hate. i am sorry to say, hate that the public and party has built for him. -- the republican party has built for him. just last week, republican party running on a party of hate. donald trump provided strong evidence yet. trump proposed to ban muslims from entering this country as hateful, and vile. we are a country founded on religious liberty, not one that proposes the just -- religious
tests. this statement is a slap in the face to peaceloving muslims living here, and those that want to travel and live here. say donaldall and trump is not america. donald trump has become the republican party. it's just not him. many of the leading candidates of the nomination have said the same hateful things, especially about muslims. jeb bush proposed a religious test for refugees. you can't condemn trump when you want to impose a religious test on women and children fleeing death and persecution. ben carson has called muslims rabid dogs. said they should be tranqued.
today donald trump offered the only true statement he has made for some time, referring to some of his fellow republicans, those running against him -- "they have been condemning a most everything i say, then they come to my side." it's disturbing, but it's true. republicans condemn trump's remarks and adopt his racist policies as their own. this sort of racism has been prevalent in republican politics for decades. trump is just saying out loud what other republicans merely suggest. leaders must condemn these hateful statements with their words and actions. silence only empowers bigots. >> on the house side of u.s. capitol, speaker paul ryan also criticized donald trump's stance on muslim immigration. he spoke to capitol hill reporters for 15 minutes.
>> good every -- good morning everyone. i would present the 23rd district of texas. i and a freshman up here. i spent nine years as an undercover officer of the cia. i was the dude in back alleys in 4:00 in the morning, chasing the taliban, nuclear weapons. when you talk about the threat of isi,s it's a clear and present danger to the u.s. there are many things that we need to do to stop this threat. one thing is tightening the visa waiver program. our task force looks at the threat of isis to the homeland. many of our european allies are not sharing information to the way they should be. these are folks -- the europeans
are only checking one out of every 3 travel documents of those coming to their countries. this kind of stuff needs to stop. we need to make sure our european partners are sharing information with us and using the information we are giving to them. something i learned in the cia, if you get the right information to the right people, you keep terrorists on the run and off of our shores. think you very much. -- thank you very much. speaker ryan: six days ago we witnessed the worst terrorist attack on our soil since september 11. i know that many americans feel unsafe and unsure. the people that deserve to know that we are taking decisive action to protect ourselves and tackle this threat. the day after the paris attacks, leader mccarthy put together a task force to weigh new actions that congress could take, including regulations made by homeland security.
first, the house voted to strengthen the certification requirements for syrian refugee programs. that was a big bipartisan vote. a veto override majority bipartisan vote. the house will vote to strengthen the visa waiver program. this will help neutralize the threat from a foreign terrorists entering our country. we expect this to be another big bipartisan vote. we are coming together to tackle this threat. we are ready to do more. that is why we need the president to put forward a real, comprehensive strategy to defeat, defeat, not contain, isis. on sunday night, we heard the president defend staying the course. but why would we stay the course when the enemy is evolving? if we lead from behind, we will remain one step behind. defeating the enemy is going to
take time. it's going to take all of our heart and might. we will persevere, and make a mistake, we will win. pausey, when we voted to the refugee program a few weeks ago, i made very clear there would not be a religious test. there would be a security test. that is because freedom of religion is a fundamental constitutional principle. it's a founding principle of this country. normally, i do not comment on what is going on in the presidential election. i will take an exception today. this is not conservatism. what was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for, and more importantly, it's not what this country stands for. not only are there many muslims serving in our armed forces, dying for this country, there are muslims serving right here in the house, working every day
to uphold and to defend the constitution. some of our best and biggest allies in this struggle and fight against radical islamic terror are muslims. the vast, vast, vast majority of whom are peaceful. who believe in pluralism, freedom, democracy, individual rights. i told our members this morning to always strive to live up to our highest ideals. to uphold those principles on which we swear every 2 years that we will defend. that his wife we are here -- is why we are here, and why we will stay here to do the people's work. speaker.k you a couple points you want to make? we will talk on suspension today. we will have the visa waiver program. if he's of legislation
introduced in the last congress, passed months ago in march unanimously. we took the task force that served on homeland recommendations. 38 countries in this program out of 196 around the world. but the program allows an individual to travel to other countries, not by ever getting a visa or having communications or interviews, simply online. if there is a visa lost or stolen, who is that person coming into your country? if you don't have an eps port biometric -- e-passport biometric like america does, did you really and is? -- do you really know who that person is? the biggest fear is that you have more than 5000 individuals with western passports that a gone to iraq or syria in the last five years. gaps that we need to fix.
when the speaker asked us to put together the task force for counterterrorism and homeland security, we picked the committees with jurisdiction. we will meet again this week. but we are looking at short and long-term gaps that we need to fix. making sure that we are keeping the homeland safe. we will vote on that today. i believe that bill will become law. bipartisan, that is why it is on suspension as well. a few outstanding items to take up this week. for scheduling purposes, we told our members that there is a good chance they could be here through the weekend. friday, for sure. we know we will have to deal with a short-term deal. we will not allow the government not to be funded. we will finish our work. when we finish the omni, the extenders, we want to make sure there is a lot of transparency, for the country to be able to see what is inside those ills before any -- those bills before
any vote takes place. to defeat isis, it's going to take a strong strategy. and it's going to take strong leadership. our intelligence community tells us that isis is not being contained. if you look at president obama's speech sunday night, all he talked about is the existing strategy that clearly is not working. while we know from our own intelligence community that isis not only is being contained, but is coming into america, the american people need to see a clear strategy. rather than trying to take away the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, president obama needs to lay out a clear strategy that confronts this direct threat. the american people deserve to know that our government is doing everything in its power to keep them safe. that is why the house is going to continue focusing on this direct threat by the legislation that we are moving forward, working with our members that have the best expertise, and you
have been working on this for years. today when you see us, take on a bill to reform the visa waiver program, something that president obama himself acknowledges, has loopholes that need to be closed, that is an example of the house moving forward to do everything in our power to keep american families safe. you've ever visited the 9/11 museum and memorial, when you first walk into the museum, you see the pictures of 2977 people who lost their lives that day. when you emerge out of the museum, you have a lot of clarity as to those that would do us harm in the fight that we have against those that want to destroy our way of life and the values that we live every day with as americans. i was also reminded that we need leadership today more than ever.
our enemies are constantly adapting. our focus must be clear. in the speech that the president gave earlier this week, it was just more of the same. pointing fingers instead of taking principled action. what you are going to see again this week in the house is important action. as we wait on the president's strategy to destroy isis, the reforms of the visa waiver program is just one of the tools that we believe we must be moving forward on to ensure that we are taking the steps, so that america can be safe. more importantly, when a threat emerges, we have an obligation to targeted and keep the fight against terrorism out of america. that is our fundamental obligation. protecting the safety and security of every american in this country. >> the safety and security of
americans must be our top concern. it must be our foremost priority. that is why congress passed the national defense authorization act, requiring the president to create a company has a strategy to defeat isis. this important defense bill, which is now signed into law, stops the president's plan to transport terrorists from guantanamo bay to possible locations, such as the u.s. disciplinary barracks in fort leavenworth, which i proudly represent. i urge the purpose -- the president to listen to the american people and drop this reckless and expensive plan altogether. we should be focusing on stopping terrorists from entering the country. that is why the house is already working to protect american lives in a bipartisan fashion by updating and strengthening our visa waiver program. this is another step to ensuring the safety and security of
americans from those who seek to destroy us. >> questions? >> are you concerned at all that donald trump's could make american -- plan could make americans less safe? speaker ryan: i have already given my thoughts about his comments. >> do you think there could be lasting damage to the party from such comments? speaker ryan: i'm not concerned about lasting damage, i'm concerned about standing up to our country's principles. our party is dedicated to these first principles. that is why it is incumbent upon leaders like myself to stand up and defend what conservatism is, and what to the republican party stands for. >> we are still working towards an omnibus bill. some of those decisions have to be made by the leadership. where are we?
ryan: my answer will now evolved. that means i will not negotiate to the media as to what it is we will or will not do. these negotiations are ongoing. we know that we are going to get it right instead of fast. we are not going to waive the three-day rule. will make sure members of congress, and therefore the public, will have time to read what is agreed to. we will not let the arbitrary december 11 deadline stop us from getting this right. we will get the best agreement we can get. i will not negotiate through the media. we filed a two-year extender last night. that is what we will do if we cannot get agreement on a long-term extender package, which obviously is our preference. >> how long of a short-term continuing resolution to you need? speaker ryan: that is something with the leaders, along with
those on the other side of the capital will look at. it will be a handle of days. we don't expect to do this for the long-term. we need to get it right. i don't want to go home until we get this done. >> in your role as a speaker, were you provided as a first-- [indiscernible] speaker ryan: i will support whoever the republican nominee is. >> on the next washington journal, we will talk to congressman robert wittman about national security threats and the fight against isis in iraq and syria. representative joseph crowley on newly proposed gun control legislation and homeland security. elizabeth grossman discusses her article in the magazine "in these times" about lax regulation of toxic chemicals. washington journal is live with your phone calls, facebook comment and tweets on c-span. >> she was such an authentic
person. i've always thought there was more to these story of lady bird then i had covered. she became, i think, the first modern first lady. she had a big staff, she had a very important project. she wrote her book as soon as she left the white house. she really invented the modern first lady. >> sunday night on q&a, historian betty boyd discusses her book "ladybird and lyndon." recently released pages of her diaries, giving an inside look at the marriage and political partnership of ladybird and lyndon johnson. >> ladybird is the perfect example of a conclusion, which is those women saw something in those men -- the ambition, the opportunity to really climb and make a mark in the world. they married to them in spark of parental objection. -- in spite of parental objection.
she is a good example of that. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific, on c-span's q&a. >> house minority leader nancy closer -- nancy pelosi and democratic members of the house gun violence task force held a forum on reducing gun violence. we heard testimony from gun violence experts and the gun safety advocates. this is 35 minutes. >> september 5, 2010, jonathan williams was sitting in his vehicle when he was shot in the head and killed. williams was struck by gunfire directed at individuals in the area of his vehicle that he had no association with. during the incident, nine shots were fired on michael hilton. hilton was convicted of murder of williams and was sentenced to 25 years in the department of
virginia corrections. friendsman was visiting when he was shot and killed. rhodes was involved in an altercation with an individual who has yet to be identified. the offender shot him one time before fleeing the area. rhodes, a star high school basketball player attending virginia state university, was gunned down in the prime of his life. a high school athlete with the potential to have the world in the palm of his hands. unfortunately, due to senseless argument settled by gunfire, his true potential will never be known. rossy 4, 2015, shakira was shot four times and killed sitting in her vehicle. ross was waiting for a friend to return when the offender approached the residents that her friend was in. the offender noticed ross in the vehicle and began firing. a total of eight rounds were
shot. the offender has been arrested and is awaiting trial. ross was a 2014 graduate of the governor's school in richmond, virginia. fornt to thank you all letting me have this opportunity to be here. secondly, let me thank the men and women across the country who risk their lives every day, sometimes against unmatched eyes, superior training, and firepower, in order to keep our communities safe from those that need to do us harm. we are expressing -- we are experiencing mass shootings to frequently. -- too frequently. we seek horrific gunfire every day. we are speaking out because enough is enough. background checks are critical for the safety of our communities. they keep guns out of the hands of those who are prohibited from possessing them. we know that the national instant background check system works since the brady law were enacted.
background checks have blocked over 2 million primitive purses -- 2 million prohibited persons from buying guns. no policy matter has this much public support. poll after poll shows over 90% of the public supports background checks. 80% of gun owners, 86% of an array members supports this manager. --86% of nra members support this measure. high capacity in the nation must be limited to 10 rounds. we as law enforcement professionals have looked at this very seriously and have concluded that 10 rounds would help reduce the number of senseless deaths in mass shootings and give law enforcement the opportunity to respond if confronted by a person intent on committing such acts. a 10 round limit may also provide someone on the scene and opportunity to take down the
shooter when they stopped to reload. we also support restricting the sale of new military style semiautomatic weapons. this will not affect those who already legally owned these weapons. these weapons are designed for war and designed to kill as many people as fast as possible. for the sake of our communities and the safety of our officers, we urge the passage of sensible legislation. again, thank you, god bless you, got bless this great country, and enough is enough. muchelosi: thank you very and for your informative statement. also, thank you for how you described how our first responders are being trained to reduce violence and the odds that they are up against. thank you for being here. ourwe're going to hear from next guest.
welcomingjoin and you. >> thank you. it's an honor to speak with you all today. growing up in arizona, i been exposed to a rich culture of firearms. i have fond memories of trapshooting with my brothers, duckhunting camping trips, and spending time with family, law abiding gun owners. several years ago, i paid my ffl, it was a business i knew about. my father-in-law was down on his luck, which was something that i could invest in, builder around, and get back to someone. -- build around, and give back to someone. everyone has a turning point. for me and so many others it was that december morning waking up to the sandy hook tragedy. i was so disgusted with this industry that has caused so much pain that i was going to walk away. i had a conversation with my wife and other trusted advisors
of canceling my license. however i realized all that would do would contribute to the problem. someone telling me, you can't blame anybody, not expect anything, but do something. that is when i decided i would resolve to do everything i could to be a reasonable gun dealer and to speak out for common sense gun laws. to go above and beyond federal law to make sure that guns are kept out of the hands of these people. back on checks, brady background checks keep millions of guns out of the hands of limited purchasers. as if you were in arizona, i run a lot of back projects. -- as a dealer in arizona, i run a lot of background checks. they are done in less than 90 seconds. when result takes more than three days, an nra to pull allows dealersle
to make the sale anyway. the charleston shooter was one of them. we have intimated the policy -- implement it to the policy of new completed background check -- no completed back unchecked, no sale. walmart hasn't lamented this policy since 2002. not only is this the right thing to do, the commonsense thing to do, it will also have no material financial impact on dealers. as a dealer, not exercising your ability to transfer a firearms were present, after the three days before the check is completed, will have no material financial impact on your business. less than 10% of the back unchecked that i have run come back to late. of those, an overwhelming majority, upwards of 90%, receive a definitive proceed or deny result within the three days.
i'm talking about less than 1% of the business. this 1% is so important. there are potentially dangerous people seeking a firearm. we have the potential to close this loophole, one that is forever changed the lives of so many around this country. we have also provided a platform for private sales. every licensed law-abiding dealer is at the material disadvantage due to the private laws, or lack thereof, when it comes to the sale of iran's -- sale of firearms. it costs the dealer nothing to run a background check. we have divided -- provided an environment. common, transport your firearm -- come in, transfer your firearm at no cost. we have done the paperwork to make sure that you are transferring to a safe, not prohibited purchaser. you need to train employees, ask questions, screen for the state of mind in which the person is
trying to purchase. so much can be told by one demeanor. areof the crime guns originating from 5% of the licensed dealers in this country. how many of those guns are taking advantage of this default proceeds loophole? i advocate for small business owners. i support the second amendment. but a majority of americans know that the current system is not enough. it's just common sense. things need to change. i urge those to adopt a code of conduct, implement a simple policies to make sure that prohibited purchasers are not getting easy access to weapons. there is material, atf provides an online. -- it online. caness webinars that people train their employees with. we need to put people about
profits and stop the nonsense taking place. thank you for your time. ms. pelosi: thank you very much chris, for once again providing testimony to us. thank you for your courageous action and statement here today. is very valued by us. thank you for joining us. welcome. >> thank you very much leader pelosi, chairman thompson, and vice chair kelly. i am delighted to join you to discuss this important topic in the lives of the american people. i want to thank you for allowing me to join this distinguished panel. i would like to take the opportunity to make the case for public health approach to gun violence prevention. funds to support gun violence research using the public health approach were removed from the
cdc budget in 1996, while i was serving as cdc director. at that time, congressman jay dickey from arkansas made the efforts on behalf of the nra to remove the funds so that for 20 years, there have been no funds available for gun violence prevention research. using the public health approach, we have reduced smoking among americans from 43% at the time of the first surgeon general's report on smoking and 18 of in 1964, to americans smoking today -- 18% of americans smoking today. we have saved over 8 million lives from issuing the public health approach to issues and smoking. since 1970, using the public health approach, we have reduced deaths from motor vehicle crashes by more than 70%.
from approximately 55,000 deaths 30,000 to less than deaths today. deathsthat same period, from firearms have continued to rise due to homicides, accidental gun deaths, and suicides. what is the public health approach, and why is it irrelevant to this issue? -- why is it so relevant to this issue? it begins by defining the problem, including its magnitude, its nature, and its distribution in the population. then it goes to defining the cause, the risk, and protecting factors for the problem. for example, what are the characteristics of persons who are at greatest risk for gun violence? and what are the characteristics of the present who are at greatest risk for committing gun violence crimes? how can we intervene to prevent or ameliorate the problem?
for example, does educating people about the risk of guns that come with gun ownership and how to reduce that risk make a difference? and finally, we move to develop and widely implement programs using proven strategies to prevent the problem. for 20 years, we have not been able to apply the public health approach.to gun violence prevention . even congress meant dickey today says it was a mistake to remove the funds. he has now called for their restoration. using the public health approach, we have eradicated smallpox, eliminated polio in most countries. reduced motor vehicle deaths, and reduced smoking by more than 1/2. we need to bring the public health approach to bear on gun violence deaths, and we need to do it now. , -- almost 200 deaths occur
each week in america from gun violence. these mostly occur in poor communities, a moment young minority males -- among young minority males with easy access to assault weapons and drugs. another major concern is the increase in mass shootings, which we are seeing throughout the country, and in some ways, throughout the world. make no mistakes, while there are over 200 deaths a week from homicide in the streets of america, we have had less than 500 deaths total from mass shootings in the last 15 years. they are both important, but we need to keep that in perspective. we make the following recommendations. following the advice of now former congressman dickey to removing the funds from prevention surrounding guns, congress should restore those funds immediately and attempt in
some way to compensate for all of the years that we have not been involved in this very important research. secondly, we need to educate the american people regarding the magnitude of the problem of homicide, accident, and suicide by guns. it's important to appreciate the fact that there are suicides -- more suicides in this year than homicides. more than half of the suicides are carried out with guns. it's also worth noting we are losing 22 veterans a day from suicide, mostly from used. when other means of suicides are used, they are completed less than 5% of the time. but when guns are used, they are completed almost 90% of the time. thirdly, we need to reduce the use of access to guns, especially assault weapons and others. with a specific emphasis on keeping them out of the hands of children and those who suffer
from mental illness. it should be more difficult to get access to a gun than to get licenses to drive a car. finally, as you have pointed out, we need a bipartisan approach. i have some great summaries from my tenure in government. mbermove or when -- i reme when we came together across party lines to sponsor the mental health parity act, which was recommended in my report on mental illness. i remember the partnership between senators to pass the health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996. i would number the commitment of senator kennedy for the child health insurance program. i have great memories, but i call upon you today to respond to one of the major tragedies of our time, occurring on the street of america every day. and aggressively promote
research using the public health approach to prevent, violence. thank you very much. -- prevent gun violence. >> thank you madam leader. thank you for your testimony. you brought up the jay dickey letter. i've had conversations with the former congressman last week. we had a press conference on the hilt with a number of medical professionals that brought us petitions signed by thousands of professionals asking us to remove the dickey blockade. he sent us a letter similar to what you said today. he used the analogy that you alluded to, atuto deaths. we studied to reduce those, but it was nobody's intention of doing away with all automobiles. although automobiles could clearly anend auto death, he
was concerned with guns. this would be an effort to do away with all guns. ridiculous, but would certainly solve all gun violence. clearly something that most people don't want to do. he called for the repeal of his previous action. i like to ask unanimous consent to deliver that letter for the record. ms. pelosi: thank you very much. chairman thompson, it's an honor to be working alongside you in this effort, and i thank the witnesses.
these incidents represent a small fraction of gun violence in the u.s. while some policies could reduce the number of those killed or wounded, my comments today focus on what research tells us about how to prevent more of the 33,000 firearm deaths in the u.s. every year. there are three major ways in which changes to the mosque reduce violence. -- to gun laws could reduce violence. currently, a person can legally buy as many guns and as much ammo as they would like, and carry that amount with them in most states almost anywhere they would like, even if they had been arrested and convicted for numerous crimes involving violence, guns, and alcohol. as long as those acts have not resulted in a felony conviction. in individual can also have numerous prior restraining
orders, or even a current restraining order for domestic violence, and that is not a legal barrier to carrying guns in most states. when states have raised standards for illegal gun ownership, research has documented reductions in violence. second, congress could heighten accountability measures for federally licensed firearm dealers to reduce the number of guns being diverted to criminals. the number of guns diverted to criminals is closely linked to whether gun dealers face consequences for not complying with gun sale regulations, according to several studies i have let myself. congress has shielded gun dealers from such consequences. finally, and most importantly, background checks and record keeping for all gun transfers is fundamental to any system designed to keep guns from described individuals. universal background checks
prevent him from being diverted to criminals. when you couple those universal background check requirements with handgun purchaser licensing, not unlike what we get when we go to get a drivers -- you -- they reduce have to go right to law enforcement to get them. these measures reduce homicides and suicides. i will give you some quick examples. research that i lead found that when connecticut adopted such measures in 1995, it led to a significant reduction in both homicide and suicide committed with guns. conversely, misery had such a policy -- missouri had such a policy in place for decades, and repealed in 2007. our research found that quite abruptly, gun divergence to criminals, homicides, and
suicides immediately increased significantly. if the mice were irrelevant to criminal usem -- if gun laws were irrelevant to criminal use, we would not find these relationships. we would not see the applicable flows of guns lacking universal background checks -- from of guns from states lacking universal back on checks to states that have taken these important measures. states benefit having important -- stronger laws. stronger federal laws would more effectively reduce gun availability to dangerous people and save more lives. pelosi: thank you very much mr. webster. thank you for your support of johns hopkins in similar ways, but importantly the work that you have given such valued testimony today. , what ioceed for youward
would like to do as quickly as possible is to acknowledge all of our members who are here, then take them three at a time. 1 when questioned each. sometimes we have multiple questions, which deters others the opportunity. let's see how we can do it. user time whichever way you want it. -- use your time whichever what you wanted. a speech, that question, may be a speech disguised as a question. one or the other. we are joined by our distinguished chair of the house and by thecaucus chair of the steering policy committee. joined byo congressman david cicilline went to the floor to make a statement about gun violence. congresswoman hahn from california.
force,r of the task congressman este of connecticut. congressman peter's of connecticut. congressman takano of california. congressman scott of virginia, another member of the task force. este andvice chairs -- scott are vice chairs. , swimming nuts are you of california. congressman conyers. katherine clark of massachusetts. yvette clarke of new york. congresswoman catsup of california. harvest woman-- congressman velasquez from new york. congresswoman lawrence from michigan. congresswoman jackson lee of texas. congresswoman torres of california. congressman angles of new york.
members will be coming and going. we have for action on all of this today. -- floor action on all of this today. i will recognize our chairman and 2 vice chairs of the task force. congressman este and congresswoman bobby scott for us to put their questions or statements on the record. rep. becerra: thank you with your testimonies of that we can do a better job providing -- preventing gun violence. it is crazy that we can't do the basic research that gives us better answers. thank you for having me that clear. chief dixon, i will post my question to you. bystander an innocent and some he pulls out an assault weapon, you feel terrorized.
it should make a difference who the perpetrator is. if it's someone who hates america, were he to because of the color of your skin, or because of the content of your character -- at the end of the day, that person is being victimized and terrorized by someone by use of weapon. i am hoping that you can clarify. some people think that terror only applies when it someone coming from some foreign country trying to do all americans harm. when day today, some of us living communities where people live with the thought of terror because their neighborhoods are not as safe, or there are too many people carrying weapons for the wrong reasons. i hope you can talk about. >> terror comes day-to-day. we see it in our communities. talking to those that live in our neighborhoods stricken by gun violence, they say they have to sleep on the floor. they are afraid that gunshots will come through their windows, strike their children, strike themselves. they live with terror every day.
when they can't walk to the stores in their neighborhoods because they are concerned they may be accosted by someone with a gun on the way. we have to take a look at how that happens every day. some of the colleagues have already mentioned, we have mass shootings, but we live with this every day in our communities. we have to put something in place to slow it down and bring it to a head so people can live without terror and feel like they are in their community and don't have to worry about these types of incidents. we will go to comments woman este from connecticut, vice chair of the task force. rep. este: i want to thank you so much for your expertise, passion, and commitment as we approach the third anniversary of newtown, connecticut. it is particularly shocking and disappointing that this body,
the house of representatives, which is supposed to defend the american people, is not taking action. you have done a good job already laying out actions that we can and should be taking. if you can try to help us prioritize as members of congress, what are the most important things we should be doing? touching on federal law, i know that talks to webster talked about -- dr. webster talked about the steps connecticut has taken. we have tough loss in connecticut -- laws in connecticut, tough laws in california, but people go across state lines, or they are not enforced. if you can talk a bit about those pirate. -- those priorities. federal law, that are enforcement to hocus-pocus -- better enforcement to help us focus on saving lives not only from mass shootings, but the every day shootings, that
homicides and suicides that we have an obligation to address. thank you very much. >> i will take a crack at that. i think the most important thing to do as i indicated a few minutes ago is to extend background check requirements across the board federally. reason not toy no do that. 90% of the american people want that. we have evidence that it does affect the versions of guns to criminals. -- diversions of guns two criminals. it will help underwrite of states reduce levels of gun violence. that is clearly the top priority. i think the magnitude that you get is directly correlated with whether you raise standards for illegal gun ownership. -- for legal gun ownership.
there are currently a number of individuals with fairly risky backgrounds a background check because the standards are so low. -- risky backgrounds that can pass a background check because the standards are so low. if we had stronger standards, we could focus on risky behavior, histories of risky behavior. esty: could you ever fight on that? -- could you amplify on that? we have talked about domestic violence, but do you have any other ideas? >> domestic violence is a good example. federal law covers a victim if they have a final restraining order for domestic violence. we know from research, however, that the time the victim is at greatest risk is at the emergency level where they are seeking protection. that would be an important gap
to fill. the other important areas, focusing on misdemeanor violence. quite a lot of serious acts of n, annce get plead dow someone agrees to a lower level misdemeanor act of violence. you don't necessarily have to have lifetime prohibitions for all of these matters. risk of violence goes down fairly dramatically when someone gets into their 30's, 40's, 50's. even temporary measures on individuals based upon their not be lawful, their violent acts, you would expand the effects of gun policies, including background checks. rep. esty: thank you. >> thank you very much. dixonant to welcome chief from the 31st district of
virginia. rather than wait for him to get activated, if either of you could talk about the importance of using a public health research based approach and what we can expect in terms of solutions using this approach. >> let me begin. we have to remember how far we have come in the heavily -- the public health approach to deal with issues such as smoking and health. whereas i said before, we now estimate we have saved a million lives in this country -- 8 mill ion lives in this country by using the public health approach. we worked with federal, state, and local governments to find interventions. from stash people some of the efforts -- some of the efforts started at the state level.
california may have been one of the first to restrict smoking in public places. when i release the surgeon general's report on smoking and women, california was the only state in which lung cancer deaths were not increasing in women. i think when it comes to gun violence, it is really critical that there be leadership at the federal level. the fact that the money was taken from the cdc budget to do research in this area -- i hope you remember what happened was, we had funded research that showed when you compare cities where people had guns and owned guns with cities where they do not, contiguous cities -- the risk of death in homes with guns were much greater. three times as great for things like homicide, spousal homicide, accidental death. and five times as great for suicide. as i mentioned before, when it comes to suicide, when people
use guns they are effective almost 90% of the time. when they use drugs, they are effective 5% of the time. i see many patients that of taking an overdose of drugs. we pump their stomachs, we refer them to mental health specialists. many of those people are doing great today. they had a chance to do with their depression. but if there is a gun involved, 80-90% of the time, it is fatal. persons having business before the honorable supreme court of the united states should give their attention. >> monday, on c-span's landmark cases. >> you are under arrest. you have the right to an attorney. anything said can be used against you in a court of law. is not clear? miranda was 20 years old in 19 to three when arrested in phoenix on suspicion of raping and kidnapping a young woman.
after two hours of police questioning, he confessed and said he gave it voluntarily. at trial, miranda sentenced to 20 years in prison. but his lawyer told him he was not told of his right of an attorney or to remain silent. the case went all the way to the supreme court. follow the case of miranda vs. arizona and the evolution of policing practices in america. that is live monday night at c-span3,ern on c-span, and c-span radio. for background on each case while you watch, order your copy of the landmark cases companion book. available for $8.95 plus shipping, on c-span.org/landmarkcases.
>> c-span takes you on the road to the white house and into the classroom. this year, our students ca documentarym contest asks students to tell us what issues they want to hear from the presidential candidates. follow c-span's road to the white house coverage and get all the deals about our student cam contest on c-span.org. senate, members introduced a bill that would bar gun sales to those on the no-fly watchlist. here is debate on the measure, beginning with senator chuck schumer of new york. this is 35 minutes. president. >> the senator of new york. >> i ask unanimous consent that for the next 20 minutes, i be given 4 minutes, senator sheen 4 minutes, senator blumenthal 4 minutes, senator murphy 4 minutes, concluding in a
unanimous consent request. >> without objection. rep. schumer: thank you madam president. like so many americans, my thoughts are with those affected by the attacks in san bernardino. our hearts go out to the victims and families. as we learn more about the suspects, it's becoming clear that san bernadino will serve as i said, but also a shocking reminder. sad, buterve as a shocking reminder of what needs to be done at was being called the terror gap. i rise today in support of that most common sense proposal to bar individuals on the terrorist watch list from being able to legally get a gun. 14, gao found between 2004-20 suspected terrorists attempted to exploit this loophole. people say, well, this never
happens. listen to this. they tried to purchase guns, 2223 times and succeeded in 94% of those. madam president, it is absolute insanity that this is not already a restriction that we have in place, given what happened in san bernardino. it is extra insanity that we will not move on this. it makes no sense. we can't let a small group, and influential, powerful lobbying group make america less safe. and yet many of my colleagues, on the other side of the aisle are doing just that, because the nra says no. they say no, even though terrorism is a scorch we have to deal with on many fronts. i appreciate my friend from
texas. he says, there are certain people on the terrorist watch list that don't belong there. there are a few, but this newly for the civil liberties of those who might be causing trouble is surprising. we don't say abolish the criminal justice system because not every single person we convict is guilty, although 99% probably are. why we doing it here? are we saying if there are 2-3 people on this terrorist watchlist, 20-30 that should not be there, and have the right to appeal and corrected -- i have done it for constituents -- that we should let the other thousands on the watchlist buy guns?> it makes no sense. i'd ask my friends on the other
side of the aisle, why should terrorists like the one who perpetrated the heinous attack in paris, or the ones who did in san bernardino be allowed to buy a gun? no red herring argument will work. this is plain common sense at a time when we need common sense. and it should not be a partisan measure. guess who introduced this idea originally? not barack h. obama, but george h w bush in 2007. the best majority of gun owners may have a right to own a gun, and i would protect that right if they are not a felon, adjudicated, mentally ill, or a spousal abuser. everybody is for it. asked unanimous
consent for 30 additional seconds. now it's become clear since her last vote that the 2 in san bernardino had terrorist ties i hope when. senator murphy makes the unanimous consent request, the other side will support it. >> just a president. >>i come to the lord to join my colleagues because i also believe we should keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. i don't think that applies to law-abiding citizens, but it does apply to terrorists. i have been a strong supporter of the second amendment. in new hampshire, we have a rich tradition of safe and legal firearm ownership. we have a rich tradition of hunting, and sportsmen's activities. like most granite stators, i also support pragmatic and