opponents of background checks who may be in opposition now. these measures comp meant each other and we know that we must fight terrorism abroad. we are at war against isis. we must pursue that war effectively and aggressively and relentlessly. and we must fight the home-grown terrorists who are either inspired or supported by isis. the lookalikes and soundalikes that claim allegiance to isis, whether they are supported or inspired, and for whom isis may claim responsibility. and the defenses must be hardened at home. that is part of what we are seeking to do here, just as we fight abroad against terrorism that would reach our shores, and

threaten our security. those measures must involve some military action, and that military action will include intercepting intelligence and financing air superiority and air aid for our allies on the ground without committing massive numbers of u.s. troops to that effort. that war must be pursued even as we pursue the war against terror and hatred here at home. but hardening our defenses requires this kind of action. and so we must commit as a body to stop the terrorist gap from continuing to threaten our security at home, as well as implementing universal background checks that will keep guns out of the hands of

dangerous people. we owe it not only to the memory of the children and educators at sandy hook and the countless innocent people who have perished since in the mass shooting that so preoccupy our attention, but also the daily shooting, 30,000 of them every year. in downtown hartford and around connecticut, no place is immune. no one is safe so long as there is this threat. these measures are modest and they should be followed by others such as a repeal of the protection against domestic violence victims. the measure i have offered, the repeel of the immunity that is -- repeal of the immunity

that is unique to the gun industry. a began on illegally trafficking and straw purchases, mental health initiatives, school safety steps. these kinds of measures must be pursued as part of a strategy to combat gun violence and terrorism, whether it is inspired by isis or an organization abroad or home grown here. these measures are complementary, and they must be pursued together. we have lived too long, and i have worked literally for decades since i first supported a ban on assault weapons in connecticut in the early 1990's and then defended it in court after it was adopted. these measures of protection will require steps against those kinds of assault weapons that are truly weapons of destruction

designed to kill and maim human beings as will as possible, as many people as possible. those assault weapons, whether they were involved in orlando or not or any of those other examples such as aurora and virginia tech and sandy hook clearly presented threats and implements of destruction there, and we must take action. we must come together. we must unify as a nation to recognize the common threat rather than divide ourselves with the kind of demagoguery that has been all too common in the wake of these tragedies. and so i ask my colleague a question, and i look forward to continuing to ask questions and

working with him as part of this team today to continue the pressure that we feel must be brought to bear at this moment of national crisis when a conscience of the nation can be invoked. when we all owe it to ourselves to search our consciences and convictions and look ourselves in the mirror and look the nation in the eye and say we must act. we cannot allow this moment in our history to pass without action. i ask my good friend and colleague, senator murphy, if he can understand why this body has so long refused to recognize the will of the nation. why for so long the senate has been in effect complicit by its inaction in these kinds of

killings, 30,000 a year. what about the influence of the gun lobby has made it so powerful in exerting this hold over the united states congress and many of our state legislators? and what can we do to address this public health crisis? it is more than just an epidemic. it is a public health crisis, a scourge of gun violence that we must counter. if 30,000 people died as a result of ebola or zika or some other disease, the nation would be rightly outraged. there would be drastic immediate action. why not for this public health crisis and this epidemic that is not only threatening but deadly

to our nation? mr. murphy: i thank my colleague for the question, and i want to reiterate the nature of our partnership that he underscored. he and i were there together in newtown in that firehouse hours after that shooting, and we have spent probably hundreds of hours with the families since then. we have probably spent hundreds of hours together on this floor arguing as a team for changes in our laws. and so i'm so grateful to senator blumenthal, my friend, for being part of this effort today, and he is right in stating that long before i was, shall i say, a convert on this issue myself in the days and weeks following sandy hook, it was senator blumenthal as our attorney general and then as our

senator who has been fighting this fight for years. and connecticut has some of the strongest laws keeping guns out of the hands of criminals in the nation, and it's not, again, without coincidence that our gun homicide rate is one of the lowest. i will just say this to answer the gentleman's question. i know my colleague from new jersey is rising for a question as well. the united states is unique. we have written into our constitution language about the intersection of private individuals and firearms, and so we have to take seriously the words that are in that second amendment. but even in the controversial supreme court case which overturned decades of precedent and held that there was indeed in the constitution an individual right to own a firearm, the author of that

decision, justice scalia, said definitively that it is not an absolute right. that, yes, the majority of that court was holding that there is an individual right to a firearm but there is not an individual right to any firearm under any conditions at any time that you want. and so i think part of the problem to my colleague from connecticut is that the gun lobby has i think managed to convince many members of the public that that second amendment right is unconditional when it is not. it allows for reasonable limitations on the right to own a weapon, and what we know is that in states that have imposed those reasonable limitations, there are less gun crimes. there are less homicides. there is no truth to this mythology that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun. there is no truth to the mythology that if there is more guns in a community there is less homicides. i think it's the exact opposite.

so i think the gun lobby has able to convince not just colleagues but many of our fellow americans that the second amendment is absolute in its terms. it isn't. and i think they have also been successful in perpetuating this mythology that good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns, when in fact most of the time when you have a gun in your home, it's going to be used to kill you, not to be used to kill an intruder. so i don't know if the gentleman has another question, but if he -- if he does, i will yield to the gentleman for a question without losing my right to the floor. mr. blumenthal: i will pose an additional question, and then our colleague from new jersey is here to ask a question. but on the issue of second amendment rights, which senator murphy has just pointed out so well is the law of the land, there is a second amendment

right for law-abiding people to buy and possess firearms, but is it not true that in these measures, we are talking about people who are dangerous and are recognized to be dangerous -- that's why they're on this list -- and there is also a right on their part to remove their names from that list if there is an error, a mistake of fact that has caused them to be on that list without good reason. and so this -- these measures that bring us to the floor today acknowledge and recognize the importance of that second amendment right, and the potential impact of our opponents in their arguments against it saying there is a lack of due process, people will be denied that second amendment

right is really mistaken. is that not correct? mr. murphy: correct, and i thank the senator for making that patently clear. what we are suggesting here is that the way that we can come together in this body is around the simple premise that individuals with serious criminal records, individuals that have been seemed mentally incompetent or incapable and people on the terrorist watch list shouldn't be able to buy firearms. that's it. that's what we're talking about here today. and to build out that system in an effective way that is as full proof as possible. that has nothing to do with the limitation on an individual's second amendment right. if someone wants to go buy a firearm and they are not a suspected terrorist and they don't have a serious criminal record and they have not been judged to be mentally incapable of making their own decisions, then there is nothing in what we are proposing in this body

coming together that would restrict that. i would at this point yield to my friend, senator booker, from new jersey for a question without losing my right to the floor. mr. booker: i want to thank the senator from connecticut, chris murphy, and the senior senator from connecticut as well. i do want to echo his really spirit and the deference he gave to senator barbara mikulski and senator shelby. both of these two senators are people i respect a tremendous amount. in fact, i would go beyond that with senator sheb and senator mikulski because i have a deep affection for them both. they are great, strong legislators, and they have produced legislation that is important to this country. i have a reverence for their work, the attention to detail and the focus they have done preparing legislation to move

forward, and i ask for indulgence from them to understand why i stand on the floor today preparing to ask a question to senator murphy. senator murphy and i last night talked about the tragedy of what happened in florida. it was painful to both of us because we knew that this was not in any way an anomaly, that this was something happening with terrible, savage routine, that in this nation we are seeing mass killing after mass killing after mass killing after mass killing, and we both understood that our nation right now, as with other of our colleagues, stands at a point of vulnerability to those who seek to do us harm, those who seek to inflict terror, those who seek

to inflict grievous bodily harm, those who seek to kill americans, that they have the ability to exploit loopholes in order to have access to weapons. and so i stand here today in preparation to ask a question to senator murphy wanting to say that the motivation for his presence on the floor right now is that we just can't go on with business as usual in this body at a time where there is such continued grievous threat and vulnerability to our country, where you see again and again mass shooting after mass shooting.

there is a saying that the only thing necessary for evil to be triumphant is for good people to do nothing. i'm grateful to senator murphy for his conviction in our conversations yesterday and into the night that we could not just go along with business as usual. we had had enough, that we had to push this body to come to some consensus on that which the overwhelming majority of americans, indeed the overwhelming majority of gun owners in this country, indeed the overwhelming majority of n.r.a. members in this country believe that we should put forth common sense safety measures to protect against terrorists ob staining firearms to inflict the -- obtaining firearms to inflict the harm we've seen in this country and others.

please understand, why many people imagine that when terrorists act, they act with bombs, more and more across the globe, across the united states, they are acting with assault weapons and firearms. and so we are here today to say enough. i've cleared my entire day. this will not be business as usual. i cleared my evening events so that i could stay on this floor and support senator murphy as he pushes this body to come to some consensus in the way that the country has already done, that there are common sense practical ways that we can protect this nation from terrorism. and please understand the constitution of this country begins with this understanding that the primary responsibility of this nation is about the common defense. it says in our preamble that we

the people of the united states in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity, do ordain and establish this constitution of the united states of america, written there in plain english. the constitution which laid out our very form of government and which this body stands, put in clear english at the beginning that we are to focus on domestic tranquility, the common defense, the general welfare, and so we

cannot go on with business as usual in this body. we must stand because this violence in our country will continue unless we take measures, common sense measures to restrict these firearms going to known or suspected terroris terrorists. i believe that this is a day that should not be business as usual. i believe that this should be a day that this body comes together like it has before to put forth common sense safety measures to prevent terrorism. to paraphrase one of our great leaders, martin luther king said what we will have to repent for in this day and age is not just the vitriolic words and violent

actions of the bad people but the appalling silence and inaction of the good people. that's why i stand now to ask a question to the senator, that's why i will stay on this floor with my colleague from connecticut, support him in this effort, to move this body, to put forth the common sense steps we should take to prevent weapons from getting into the hands of our enemy, to getting into the hands of terrorists, to getting into the hands of people who seek to wreak the kind of carnage that our nation tragically witnessed this past weekend. the senator from connecticut, my colleague and friend, went through the unforgettable lists

of mass shootings in newtown, 20 schoolchildren and six employees killed. santa monica, five americans killed. in washington, d.c., here at the naval yard, 12 people killed. in fort hood, three people killed. out of vista, california, six people killed. marysville, washington, four people killed in a high school cafeteria. charleston, south carolina, nine people at a church killed. chattanooga, tennessee, at a military recruiting office, four marines and a naval petty

officer killed. roseburg, oregon, ten people killed at a local community college, colorado springs, colorado, three people killed. at a planned parenthood clinic in san bernardino in an act of terrorism, 14 people killed. in orlando this past weekend, this saturday night, 49 innocent people murdered, killed. so i rise to ask senator murphy a question because there is a question on the hearts and minds of the majority of the people of our nation. they're asking the question, how long will this go on? they're asking the question how

can we be a nation so mighty and great yet hold this distinction on the planet earth where these kind of mass killings go on at a rate, at a level nowhere el seen on the plan -- nowhere else seen on the planet earth. it's here in this country founded on the idea that we formed this government for our common defense, that we formed this government to ensure domestic tranquility, that we formed this government based on the idea that we can make for a safer, stronger, and more prosperous land. that question is being asked from coast to coast, from north to south. and senator murphy and i talked yesterday about coming to the floor today and not letting business as usual happen. we talked with our other colleagues who will come to this floor today who all have in their hearts that word enough, enough, enough. what we are seeking is not

radical. what we're seeking is not something that is partisan. what we're seeking is common sense that is supported by the overwhelming majority of this nation. study after study, poll after poll, survey after survey of gun owners, of people who have weapons, who take to heart their second amendment rights, when you ask them what should we do, do you support closing the terrorist loophole, creating practical, common sense bars for people that are suspected of terrorism from buying a gun, 82% of gun owners say yes, we should do that. they say enough. a senator: mr. president?

i raise a point of order about whether there's a question. i would like to ask a question. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut may yield for a question only without losing his rights. a senator: mr. president, i have a question but i think i can have a preamble to my question to set the context of the question. the presiding officer: ask the question. mr. booker: the question i'd like to ask is given the fact that the overwhelming majority of americans support common sense gun legislation, given the fact that 82% of gun owners support closing the terrorist loophole, given the fact that 75% of n.r.a. members support closing the terrorist loophole, my question for the senator of connecticut is why does he feel that this body is not moving on

common sense legislation that will protect our nation, that will defend us against terrori terrorists, that will prevent tragedies like in orlando happening? i direct my question to the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i thank the gentleman for the question. i think this is a question that people throughout this country are asking today. why are these measures that we're asking for consensus on today so controversial here in the united states senate when they are not controversial in the american public. and you talked about the statistics, senator booker. it's not just that 90% of the american public supports expanded background checks to make sure that people aren't criminals when buying guns. it's that the majority of gun owners support expanded

background checks. it's democrats that support it. it's republicans that support it. and similarly, on the issue at hand today which is making sure that potential terrorists don't obtain weapons, a similar majority of the american public supports that as well. less polling on that question but suggestions are 75%, 80% of americans support the idea that if you're otter i.r.s. watch list -- on the terrorist watch list, if you're on the consolidated list, that you shouldn't be able to obtain a weapon. so your question, senator booker, is why can we not get consensus here? and i guess at some level it's tough for me to answer that because it seems to clear to me that i'm willing to vote for those measures. i'm willing to cosponsor them. i'm willing to come down to the floor and speak in support of them. it's in many ways a question for those that are blocking these measures from coming forward.

as i said before, i think some of it is rooted in what i believe to be a misunderstanding over the nature of the second amendment. it's not an absolute right. it comes with responsibilities and conditions. i think a lot of it is a misunderstanding about the data that suggests state by state, community by community that if you have tougher gun laws that keep guns out of the handses of criminals or -- hands of criminals or prevent these military style assault weapons from fleeing through your -- he -- flowing true your streets all a he have less homicide. part of the effort is to come down to the floor and part of my belief is we need to continually reinforce what the real story is about the nature of the underlying right and about what the data tells us but also, senator booker, about what we know to be the threat to this country. research shows that on u.s.

soil, people who are seeking to commit acts of terror rely almost exclusively on guns. and when guns are used in potential acts of terror, they are vastly more likely to result in casualties when guns are used. and this isn't me talking. this is analysis of domestic terror attacks in the united states by professor louis claverous of the university of massachusetts. he showed that since september 11, 2001, 95% of the associated deaths connected with terrorist attacks, with terrorism were committed with guns. and according to a project run by the department of homeland security center for excellence at the university of maryland, something called the global terrorism database, this is a government database run by the department of homeland security, terrorism attacks in the united states are ten times more likely to result in fatalities when

they involve guns than when they do not. between 1970 and 2014, non-firearm terrorist attacks resulted in deaths 4% of the time whereas 40% of the attacks involving firearms resulted in deaths. and if you really want to get down to the chilling bone here, mr. president, listen to the words of one of the most notorious al qaeda operatives, actually an american, who's now deceased. his name was adam gedan. he released a video and in it he said, "in the west, you've got at a lot at your disposal. america is awash in disposable

firearms. you can come away with a firearm without a background check. so what are you waiting for?" even though his facts are absolutely correct, this is clearly a message being sent by some of the most notorious operatives and recruiters within the al qaeda and isis network. go get a gun. they're easily obtainable. do as much damage as possible. and so i guess to answer your question, senator booker, i guess i don't want to sit here and impute malevolent motives or intentions or the interfernings of interest -- or the interference o of interest grous on my colleagues.

i guess we have the facts wrong and maybe we're misreading our constituents. i know that people who listen to the n.r.a. are very vocal and they call into all of our offices frequently and express their pngs very strongly. and i'll admit that the majority of americans -- and this majority exists in every single state -- that supports background checks, that supports keeping terrorists off the watchlist, they're maybe not as passionate in their views. so it may also be that there's a misread coming on where the american public exists on this question. i think there's more and more americans who are rising up and choosing to make this a priority when they come to the polling places, when they talk to us.

so, senator booker, i think that this is just about trying to do our best to correct the record. as you said, doing our best to explain that what we're asking for is not revolutionary, it is not radical. it is simply common sense. the and if you lay it out in plain facts to most of the people we represent, they would expect that we would have already taken care of this. if you told them that we have not yet put individuals who are on the terrorist watchlist on those that are prohibited from buying guns, i think they would be very surprised. if you told them that, you know, perhaps close to the majority of background checks -- the majority of june sales happen without -- of gun sales happen without background checks, they would be surprised. i think they expect us to act on this. i know the senator from nebraska is looking to ask a question. i'd be glad happy to yield to the gentleman from nebraska for a question without losing my right to the floor. mr. sasse: thank you. and i'm happy to defer to the assistant democratic leader, if

you had a question, first. okay. thank you. thank you for helping let use in an important discussion. in your colloquy, i think the question was asked that there is due process for, i think, what you've been calling "the terrorist watchlist." i would just like to ask if you can explain to me what "the terrorist watchlist is." i'm familiar with the terrorist screening database. there are a series of lists that fall from the database, but i don't think there's any such thing as "the terrorist watchlist," and i certainly don't understand what due process rights would apply. mr. murphy: i thank the gentleman from nebraska for his question. there is something called the consolidated, right, watchlist, which is an amal gum of a number of different databases, as the gentleman understands one of them is the no-fly list.

the legislation that senator feinstein has propounded and will propound would refer to those consolidated lists and then provide for an ability for an individual to contest their placement on those lists, to be able to be notified why they were prohibited from buying a gun and to be able to contest that with either the agency that put them on that list or with the nics database itself. so i take seriously this issue of due process because there, as you know, are certainly people who are on that list that should not be, as frankly there are people today on the list of those prohibited from buying guns who should not be. there are mistakes made on the nics list today, names that have been put on there that shouldn't have been put on, people who have been wrong qulicted. so i would -- have been wrongly

convicted. so i would agree that the legislation we come to agreement on, specifically refer to the lists, a consolidated database that's maintained by federal law enforcement and have a very explicit right to get off that list. i don't think that's impossible that we can come together on that in very short order. mr. sasse: thank you. mr. murphy: i yield to the gentleman from illinois for a question. mr. durbin: if the senator from connecticut would yield for a question. i thank him for his leadership. i am happy to join with this willful band who feel, as he does, that this is an issue long overdue, that the american people have asked us over rand - over and over again, when is congress going to do something about these mass shootings and the carnage which is taking place? i would like to ask a specific question, though, about an element here. we have talked about terrorism, those who may be on a terrorism watchlist or some version of it, which senator feinstein will

address in her amendment. but there is a second part to this which is equally, if not more important, in my perspective. we define mass murder, but many of us are living and representing communities where there is massive murder taking place over long periods of time, maybe not so many deaths in one particular incident but over a long period of time. yesterday our colleague from new jersey eloquently explained to us in our private caucus luncheon about the carnage that has taken place in new jersey for a long, long time. my question goes to a city that i'm honored to represent, the city of chicago. there were 488 homicides in 2015, the vast majority shootings. chicago's 488 murders were the highest total number of any

united states city last year. in new york there were only -- only -- 339, in comparison. in los angeles, 280. cities much larger than chicago. we have the most intense gunfire and killings taking place on a regular basis. here's what was found: 40% of the crime guns that were confiscated after these homicides and killings came from gun shows in northern indiana, just across the border from chicago. the reason i raise this question is that i believe the second part of this suggested approach -- a terrorist loophole, closing that once and for all; and, second-degreely, closing the loopholes when it comes to background check -- would

include and envision putting and end to what we see happening in chicago, where 40% of these crime guns are crammed into the trunks of cars in northern indiana and then the people who buy them head to the streets of chicago to sell them, usually to teenagers, who then spray their bullets at night in gang warfare and other activity. so my question to the senator from connecticut, there are so many other aspects that we need to address -- straw purchasing is one, assault weapons another -- but what you were trying to focus on here is not just the horrible tragedy that occurred in orlando but to really expand our reach in terms of addressing new legislation when it comes to closing the loopholes in the law, loopholes which allow gun show sales without background checks and sales over the internet without background checks. i would ask the senator from connecticut the rationale behind -- including that provision.

mr. murphy: i thank the gentleman and senator from illinois, like senator blumenthal, who's been a leader and hero on this issue far before i got to the senate, and he's exactly right. the stain on this nation is not just this repeated storyline of mass shooting after mass shooting. it is the fact that even on days when there are not a mass smoo shooting, there is -- mass shooting, there is the equivalent happening in cities like new orleans or chicago. those shootings over memorial weekend in chicago are chilling. think about it: living in a city in which over the course of a +sel bratory weekend there are 60-some shf odd incidences of gugunfire. it is critical that we reek acknowledge that this epidemic that we are focused on because of these mass shootings san

epidemic that we focus on every single day. you are right that exspannedded background checks be part of that agreement that we come to over the course of today, because while we are on the bill that funds the justice department, while we are debating the about i will that funds in part of background checks system, let's make sure it works. and the data, as you know, senator durbin, is clear. in jurisdictions that have near-universal background checks, there are less gun deaths, period, stop. in jurisdictions that decide that they are going to apply background checks to as many sales as they can, let's be honest, you often can't get every sale, but you can certainly say if you're selling guns online or at a gun show that isized and marketed, those sales should be subject to background checks. in states that do that, they

have lower rates of gun crimes. but, as you know, so painfully because chicago sits right at the intersection of other jurisdictions, states can't do this by themselves. even if a state decides to expand out the forums in which a gun sale is subject to a background check, if the other state next door -- let's say indiana -- has a lower standard, than your law is virtually meaningful. and, of course, that is the storyline in shivment the storyline in chicago is a handful of gunning dealers -- gunning dealers, irresponsible gun dealers, across the state line selling guns to individuals that then take them into chicago. and so this is certainly a debate that's brought on by another mass shooting and we certainly have an tobles make sure that -- an obligation to make sure that terrorists don't obtain guns. but the senator is right.

this ultimately has to be an issue of doing something about urban gun violence as well. i would yield without losing my right to the floor. mr. blumenthal: thank you to the senator fro for yielding foa question. i want to ask more specifically about a point that he made so well at the very beginning of this conversation, that the fight against gun violence and extremism abroad and at home is not an either/or. that we need to fight the violent extremism abroad, whether it's called jihadism or radical islam or violent extremists -- whatever label we give it. this fight is about that battle and about enlisting our allies abroad in supporting us in that

battle and combating the homegrown terrorists, the extremists who are supported or unexpired by isis or others abroad. we do not have an either/or situation here, as he said so well. they are really complementary. and so my question to my colleague from connecticut is whether these kind of measures that we are seeking to advance on the floor today also empower and enable stronger alliances with our allies had abroad -- with our allies abroad who are joining new -- joining us in ths fight? i ask him that because he is a member of the foreign relations committee, as i am of the armed services committee, the importance of acting with our allies abroad. these measures, do they not enable us to form and enlist and

advance those alliances? mr. murphy: i thank the gentleman for the question. of course, this is a global fight against terrorism. this is not a battle that can be waged by one country and one country alone p. and he is right that we are right now calling on our allies in europe to take steps that would better protect all of us from these terrorist plotters. we, for instance, have real concerns about the degree to which european nations are sharing data about potential terrorists plotters. right now law enforcement and terrorism surveillance in europe is largely done on a country-by-country basis. in some countries it is heavily siloed. in brussels itself there were six different police departments that didn't often even communicate with each other, and so there is a big problem in

europe about agencies not being able to talk to each other, and we are pressing europe and europeans to get more serious about both tracking terrorists throughout that continent but then sharing information with us. how is that relevant to the senator's question? well, it's very hard for us to preach to europeans that they should get more serious about tracking terrorists if we have big holes in our databases as well. and we do today. we know in orlando, from the information that's out there is that this individual was on a watch list and off of it. and because of the way in which the network of lists and tphoefbgss work today -- notifications work today, the f.b.i. was not notified when he went to go buy a gun. we can have a debate as to whether he should have been prohibited from buying a gun, but it probably makes sense that the f.b.i. should at least be notified so they can perhaps do

some follow-up. so long as we have these gaps in our laws related to access to firearms for potential terrorists, then i think it's hard for us to tell the europeans to do better. and as the gentleman knows, we also want to be able to connect what they know with what we know. there are american citizens that travel to other countries, and they may be radicalized in connection with those visits. we want to be able to get that information to the extent that a foreign country knows about the activities of an american citizen when they travel abroad so that it is incorporated into our data bases, incorporated into the list of people that we're concerned about getting access to a weapon. i yield to the gentleman from new jersey for a question without losing my right to the floor. mr. booker: i'm grateful to you for yielding to a question. i want to dig deeper down on that point because i'm not sure that americans understand that there is a lot of bipartisan when this comes to countering

violent extremism. i'm proud serving on homeland security, i've worked with members on the other side of the aisle to do a lot of commonsense things to try to counter violent extremism here at home. and those involved efforts of coordination like senator murphy was talking about, investing resources, frankly, in trying to counter violent extremists' efforts here at home. there is a tremendous bipartisan effort that has gone on really in this country since 9/11 in trying to take down silos of information, sharing, cooperating, coordinating, investing resources in many ways to keep us safer as a nation. we should all be very proud of that. but it is clear, especially from what should be stunning to people who didn't know this, information you read that the very enemies we are talking about, terrorist organizations that now have become common

knowledge in this country, people know al qaeda, they know isis. folks are focused on that. that our very enemies that we are fighting against, they are aware of the big loophole that exists in this nation, that someone who is a suspected terrorist, who has a terrorist intent, who is even known by the f.b.i. can come to our nation or can be a citizen of our nation and go to a gun show and buy weapons. and i want to just clarify what i said, and that was not an accident, this could be someone who is in our nation as a citizen or could be someone who has come to our nation on -- through a visa waiver program and could still exploit this loophole of buying weapons without a background check. and so we have actually enough sharing of information to go on that we actually can stop an

individual from getting on a plane. think about this. we can take an action to stop one from flying, but we do not have the ability in this country right now to stop that known individual from getting on a, in a car and driving down 95 from new jersey, say, and going to a gun show and buying weapons. and so what i really want to ask is the data you showed, senator murphy, that the g.a.o. has found between february of 2004 and december of 2014 that there are at least 2,333 cases where a known suspected terrorist tried to buy a firearm. if we know there's that many people trying to do this and that we have the ability to stop those folks, my question is, is given the context of all the areas which we're cooperating to stop terrorism, this one black hole we're now the information

isn't being shared, where actions to stop folks from getting these weapons that can do such carnage, isn't this a glaring gap in our overall security procedures, policies and structures in our country? mr. murphy: i thank the gentleman, and it is a glaring loophole and it's unclear why it has persisted. this idea of closing the loophole, it's been backed by both democratic and republican administrations, and i think the gentleman talked about how this has been a bipartisan commitment. george w. bush department of justice supported the exact same bill that we're talking about today in 2007. attorney general holder, in response to a question from senator feinstein at a 2009 judiciary committee hearing, said i think that legislation was initially proposed by the bush administration. it was well conceived and we'll continue to support that. and so, you know, not so long

ago, this was an issue that was in fact conceived by a republican administration it didn't seem to become controversial until gun lobbying organizations decided that it should be. we should remember that about all the things that we're discussing here because, you know, we live in a world today in which we think that the issue of gun laws is the third rail of american politics, but in fact all of the legislation that we're talking about could not have passed if it wasn't for republicans and democrats coming together, whether it be to support the existing background check system, to support the existing ban on assault weapons. plenty of republicans voted for that. or to conceive of this idea of terrorists being kept off the list. here's how it plays out in real

time. elton simpson is the name of the individual who opened fire on a texas community center that was hosting an event displaying cartoons of the prophet muhammad. i think we all agree that that was an act of terrorism that was perhaps the result of radicalization of this individual. he was reportedly on the u.s. no-fly list. one of the boston marathon bombers was reportedly placed on two terrorist watch lists in 2011. he committed that act with an explosive device but he also killed a police officer with a handgun. and so we do know that there are individuals -- and of course orlando is the latest example of crimes being committed by those that were in and around this database. the gentleman from nebraska asked the question earlier, how do we make sure that people aren't on there by mistake. we, i think, will only support

both parties' legislation that gives a practical means for individuals to grieve the fact that they are prevented from buying a gun when indeed they should not be. i think at some level we should accept that in virtually every federal data base that exists of people that are ineligible to buy a gun or people that are eligible to receive medicare reimbursement there are occasionally mistakes. but that doesn't stop us from trying to engage in collective action as a community to better protect our nation. let's get that list right. let's give people the ability to get off it if they are on it wrongly. but let's accept that what we know is in 90% of the cases over that ten-year period where people tried to buy a gun and were on the terrorist watch list, they were able to buy it. let's be honest, this is only one element of what needs to be a broader strategy to combat either the potential radicalization leading to

violence of american citizens or this broader question of combatting gun violence at large that senator durbin brought up. but it's an important, glaring hole that needs to be corrected. and i yield to my friend from connecticut for a question without losing my right to the floor. mr. blumenthal: i thank my friend and colleague from connecticut for yielding for a question and his holding the floor. and i want to follow a question that was asked by our colleague from new jersey and in fact i've heard him speak so eloquently about the people in his city of newark, in fact children dying in his arms as victims of gun violence. those kinds of acts of violence are unpredictable. the f.b.i. was investigating the killer in the orlando tragedy,

knew of his potential dangerousness, but there are countless individuals who commit these acts of murder. 30,000 deaths every year occur as a result of gun violence, many of them unpredictable and perhaps unpreventable under current law but which could be prevented with stronger laws. and so my question to my colleague from connecticut is whether this measure will enhance the fact finding and investigative powers of the f.b.i. in seeking to stop gun violence where we know it may occur and in fact as much as i respect -- and i deeply respect the diligence and dedication of the f.b.i., whether additional resources combined with this

kind of measure will enhance their ability to stop these acts of hatred and terrorists such as we saw so tragically in orlando. mr. murphy: thank you, senator blumenthal. i want to thank you for your work on the judiciary committee leading this fight to try to make sure that law enforcement has what it needs to protect this country. again, i spoke to this broader conversation about how you protect this country from domestic terrorist attacks. i think there are a lot of people who want to drill it down to only one silo of conversation. as i remarked at the beginning, some people want to make this just about the fight in the middle east. some people want to make this just about surveillance. other people want to make this just about gun laws. it's not any of those things. it's about a combination of efforts. so we have to admit that this fight against isis and against al qaeda in the areas in which they have large amount of control, that is an ongoing fight. and that is not going to be

concluded tomorrow or next week or the month after. we think we're making dramatic progress but it's going to take us awhile. and as i remarked at the outset, it also means there is an inverse proportionality between our success in taking the fight to al qaeda and isis inside theaters of war and their importance in attacking us here at home in the sense that they're going to need to take the fight to us here if they're having less success in repelling our efforts to push them back inside the middle east. and so that's where law enforcement comes in, senator blumenthal, and you're exactly right. let's make it a priority to defeat isis but let's admit that for the time being they are going to try to launch lone wolf attacks here. what we know is they generally don't go through the trouble of trying to coordinate these attacks ahead of time, so makes it much more difficult to stop. they are trying to find someone who is on the fringes of

society, who may be mentally ill or prone to radicalization and weaponize them. it makes it sometimes difficult for law enforcement to find that needle in a haystack. but what we know is that in this case they had found that needle in a haystack. they had found him twice, and perhaps because his inclusion permanently on one of these lists wouldn't have done much good because it wouldn't have prevented him from getting a firearm, there wasn't as much due diligence done as should. so this clearly is an important tool of law enforcement. we need to give it to them. and then i hope and i think senator mikulski talked about this in her opening comments, we can also talk about giving the broader resources to the f.b.i. and to law enforcement to do the job they need to do. we ask them to do more and more, but we don't give them the resources that are necessary. so if we're going to give them

additional responsibilities keeping a better monitored consolidated data base, having a process for individuals to grieve, their inclusion on it, then we have to make sure that they have the resources necessary. the gentleman from new jersey, i'd yield for a question without losing my right to the floor. mr. booker: so i appreciate, again, this point i want to keep coming back to, which is that we are in, both republicans and democrats talk about us being at a war with a determination to defeat our enemy, and yet ouren mi -- and yet our enemy has spoken very clearly about exploiting the loopholes that exist in the way for those who are seeking to do terror to buy weapons. in other words, someone who is even u suspected already by the f.b.i., suspected by the american government to have designs on the kind of terrorist

act that could take many americans, like we saw this past weekend, if we know already who that person is our enemy has already said publicly, our enemy has advertised the fact, well, that doesn't matter. if you have been interviewed by them last year, five years ago, they said, hey, don't worry about that because america single us out from european countries and others that are targets, america in particular has this loophole that we can exploit, that you, even though you've been suspected of terrorism, even though you may have been intervied by the -- interviewtinterviewed by the f.u can still find ways to obtain weapons easily by going to a gun show, by ordering one online. and i wonder, this body that is so focused -- we just passed a defense authorizations bill,

billions and billions of dollars for our national defense. i'm not sure -- and i don't mean to be in any way over the top, but if our past enemies in past wars specifically told us what our vulnerability was and specifically told us that they were going to exploit this vulnerability and literally had isis-inspired individuals who have carried out actions, who have been interviewed by the f.b.i., as we saw this past weekend, are using this loophole, it seems to be common sense when you're at war with folks who are inspiring people to take so much human life, it seems to be such common sense that we would close that loophole. but i guess the question i want to ask to my friend from connecticut is that when we talk about this context of closing the terrorist loophole, we need to be very articulate because if that is done in a way that just has to do with people as it stands now going through the

nics system, the system which you can potentially check to see if a person is on one of those aggregated watchlists, i with want to ask shall -- i want toe senator from connecticut, doesn't it make sense, though, that we have universal background checks in this context? that's really what i'd like to get at is that if you have steps to stop terrorists from exploiting this loophole but it's not a universal stop, aren't -- we're not solving this problem, we're not really arresting it in the way that we should. mr. murphy: i thank the gentleman for that question, and that's why these two are so important to be linked together. this idea that if you really want to protect this country from terrorist attack by firearm -- and, again, as i stated before, that is the weapon of choice on behalf of those who would try to do harm to this country for political reasons -- then you have to both make sure

those individuals are on the list of those prohibited from buying weapons and you have to make sure that when you go and buy a weapon, you intersect with that list. and, you know, this has been a long trend line, as both of my friends know. you know, it used to be that, you know, almost everybody that bought a gun went into your local gun store to purchase that weapon. and over the course of time, for a variety of reasons, the means by which you bought a firearm has diversified significantly. so you now have lots much sales occurring online, as do you with almost every other commercial good. and you have this build-out of gun shows which are places in which both licensed dealers and non-licensed dealers come to sell their guns in a very organized, controlled fashion. and we have story upon story of

individuals who have gone to buy guns in those gun stores in mass quantities, knowing that they would not having to through a background check and then selling them on the black market. so someone that knows they're prohibited from buying a gun decides not to go and buy a gun in a gun store. they go buy a number of weapons at a gun show, which is unregulated, in which sellers who are not licensed gun dealers are able to sell their weapons without background checks, and they get as many as they want. and that's not a secret. i mean, you don't have to scratch the surface of american gun law or debate on this subject very hard to find out that there are easy ways to get guns without getting a background check -- or you just go online. you go onto armslist.

you cannot adequately protect this country from terrorist attack by firearm unless you do both. that's why those two are linked together. the reason we are on the floor today is also because this slaughter happens outside of the realm of terrorist attacks, and in fact the majority -- i mean, the majority -- 95%-plus of americans who have been killed by guns are not killed by terrorist attacks. but most of them are sold by guns outside the background check system. if you pass some version of the bipartisan manchin-toomey bill -- and i hope that over the course of this afternoon we can come together on any objections -- if you pass some version of that legislation that is supported by 90% of the american public, it is supported by the vast majority of gun owners,

then you - -- and you do that in conjunction with putting terrorists or would-be terrorists on that list, then you protect our country from terrorist attack, but you also address what we are confronted with on a daily basis, the regulate -- the regularity of gun crime that is associated with weapons purchased outside of the background check system is not something we have to accept. we can do something about it by coming together today. that's what i think the gentleman is coming to, linking two pieces of policy together that have to be interdependent in order to protect us when terrorist attack but it is also about this broader issue of taking on crimes in our city. and i would yield to the gentleman for another question, without losing my right to the floor. would the -- i yield to the gentleman from connecticut for a question. mr. blumenthal: thank you,

senator murphy. and i want to draw out the poipts that he was just making by another question, that there is no one-size-fits-all fix to the problem of hatred and terrorist attacks in this country that involve gun violence. the kind of attack that we saw in orlando may have been motivated an insidious bigotry that involves deep-seated racism or a mental illness or an ideology from abroad. the facts are developing. we'll know more, as the gentleman from connecticut knows. the point is that the laws now

enable our enemies to weaponize the people in this country who may be prone to use these kinds of weapons to kill people, use the assault weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. this idea of weaponizing ouren miss or homegrown terrorists or people who can be inspired by the twist ofinsidious ideology that isis spawns should really bring us to recognize that it is not only a security threat abroad but one at home, and so i would ask my colleague from connecticut whether people who are too dangerous to be

permitted to board a plane should be in some way stopped from buying one of these guns that can be used, whatever their motive, to do the kind of destruction that we saw with such unspeakable horror in orlando and in virginia tech and aurora and columbine and our own town of newtown, having known these families and met more of them from other towns and cities and heard their crisis beseeching us to act, is there more that we can do? mr. murphy: i thank the gentleman, and let me put it to the body this way through the chair: this is also about sending a

message to everyone in this country that we're serious about taking on this epidemic of gun violence, whether it comes by terrorist attack or by an attack of someone who's deeply mentally ill, like the attack in newtown, or the ordinary, everyday violence that is just as epidemic in our cities. i think it's incredibly important for us to send a message that we're serious about this. the and, frankly, not worry about whether we have addressed every aspect of this debate, whether we have solved every problem at once, not allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. and you say that for two reasons, through the chair, to my colleague from connecticut. i say that for two reasons. one is this notion i talked about earlier in which i really do worry that there is a quiet, unintentional message of endorsement that's sent when we do nothing, or when all we do is talk. i think when there is not a

collective condemnation with policy change from what is supposedly the world's greatest deliberative body, that there are very quiet cues that are picked up by people that are contemplating the unthinkable in their mind. i'm not accusing anyone of being intentional in their endorsement, but i think when we don't act, there is a quiet significant thasignal that is se who are thinking about doing something wh horrific and they haven't heard anything that would suggest that the highest levels of government condemn it with real policy change. second, and this is more deeply personal -- and i know that both of the colleagues on the floor today share this -- almost every one of us has had a conversation with a family member who lost a son or a daughter to gun

violence, and too many of us have had that clinickive conversation with a large number of -- have had that collective conversation with a large number of constituents who lost a family member in a tragedy. just speaking personally, mr. president, i fleed to be able to tell them something. they need to be able to hear something that helps in their healing. the fact of the matter is, every day there are 80 sets of families who begin a process of grief surrounding the taking of a life through a firearm, and their process of healing, for many of them, is encumbered by the fact that their leaders are not doing anything to stop it. and so if we are just sum simply compassionate as a body, forget the broader systemic impact of

passing laws that will actually reduce the levels of violence in this country, if we are just a compassionate body that want to be able to help in the healing of the families in orlando or the families in sandy hook -- and i know my colleagues met with those sandy hook families when they came here to plead for change -- then we should pass legislation that's easy, given the fact that it unites broad numbers of the american public. so this is -- i think the gentleman's question is right, what are the other things we can do? and we can go through the list, whether it be efforts of the senator from connecticut to make sure that individuals who have been -- have a restraining order against them by a spouse or a partner aren't able to buy a weapon, whether it's efforts to ban military-style assault weapons, or whether wits efforts to provide more resources to law enforcement, there are a variety of other things that we can do here, but here's an easy place to start. here's an easy place to start

where we know there's no real disagreement among the american public. 80%-90% approval. we know there are democrats and republicans who can start negotiating this this afternoon and this evening. maybe it is a muscle. maybe once you start to exercise that muscle, once you start to get in the habit of coming together to find ways to address gun violence, it makes it easier to take the next step. maybe also people see the sky doesn't fall. maybe people see if you do expand background checks that hundreds don't lose their right to go practice their sport, that people who want to shoot for sport don't all of a sudden lose access to that past time. so maybe we will also see that as we've seen in connecticut that the sky doesn't fall when you pass these commonsense laws, that people still enjoy a

fulsome right to own a firearm so long as they can prove that they're not a criminal, that they're not on the terrorist watch list. that they haven't been adjudicated as mentally ill. i yield to the gentleman for an additional question. mr. blumenthal: we need to be realistic, don't we, senator murphy, as the president has said, we're not going to prevent every death from gun violence. and i think we owe the president a great debt of thanks for his leadership and his courage and strength in advancing the debate on gun sraopls -- violence and seeking specific constructive steps that will help to stop it. but we know that we're not going to be successful in preventing every single death as a result of gun violence.

this kind of set of measures is a start. my colleague from connecticut has said it's an easy start. it is easy to understand and it's easy to see the effect and the tangible difference that it can make. but obviously if it were easy to achieve, it would have been done long ago. unfortunately, as he and i have said all too often, and as we have had to say to those families from connecticut and around the country who have come to us at the vigils and the town halls and public meetings and in our offices, that there is no one single solution, and congress has been complicit by inaction on any solution to this problem. and so we're not going to completely prevent all 30,000

deaths or every act of potential terror and hatred like orlando, but we can make a start, can't we? mr. murphy: senator blumenthal, through the chair, that's exactly right. let's make a start. i guess what's so offensive to the people that senator blumenthal and i represent, especially in and around newtown, is that we've done absolutely nothing. that in the face of mass slaughter after mass slaughter, this body has taken absolutely no action. and i know that times are tough here. i know that we're often at each other's throats, but that in and of itself is unacceptable. let's find some limited common ground on issues that the broad american electorate support and let's move forward on it. maybe we, you know, wait to litigate some of the more controversial pieces until later on, but as senator blumenthal

said earlier, this level of death would be absolutely unacceptable if it came by way of disease or it came by way of infection. no one would contemplate standing pat and doing nothing if a mosquito-borne illness were killing 80 people a day in this country or wiped out 50 in one evening. no one would accept congress doing nothing and just moving on to the next piece of legislation after the next wave of people died. that is just not something people would accept. but for some reason in this country we've come to accept that gun violence is inevitable and that there's nothing we can do or should do about it. i'm going to sort of make this argument with greater specificity later in the afternoon, but it's important for us to look at the data.

on gun deaths in america versus gun deaths in almost every other industrialized nation. it doesn't happen other places like it happens here. and it's not because america has more people who are mentally ill. it's not because america spends less money on law enforcement. it's not because america has a less well-funded system of mental health. we've got a terrible system of mental health that we should fix. but the reason why we have epidemic levels of gun violence is not because we are different from other countries in all of these other ways. it's got to be explained in part because we have allowed for so many people who shouldn't have guns to have them. there's a reason why we're different. and, thus, we shouldn't accept it. we shouldn't accept it. i yield to the gentleman from florida for a question without losing my right to the floor. mr. nelson: yes. mr. president, if i may, if the

gentleman would yield for a question. the presiding officer: the senator has yielded to you for a question. mr. nelson: mr. president, i want to ask the senator about the weapon that was used in orlando. my home is in orlando. i was there right after the shooting. of course, as i speculated at the time that this was going to be a combination of isis-inspired, anti -- a hate crime. antigay and very likely anti-hispanic because 44 of the 49 had hispanic surnames. so i want to ask the senator if

he is aware of the difference of the lethal killing machine that was used between the ar-15, which is a military weapon used by the military. it's called an m-16. and the sig sour mcx. they can use the same bullets, but this one in fact can use an even larger, more lethal bullet traveling at 2,000 miles per hour. i wanted the senator to see this. is he aware that down in orlando this killer used this rifle?

mr. murphy: thank you for the question. so from the layman's perspective, those don't seem like terribly different weapons. they are both incredibly powerful weapons. they are both derivatives of weapons that were intended to kill as many people as quickly as possible. i yield for an additional question. mr. nelson: the senator no doubt not only understands but unfortunately grieves along with the rest of us about what happened in orlando that these are not weapons for hunting. these are weapons for killing. and this particular weapon has a collapsible stock. would the senator be surprised? this is how he got it in.

you take out the magazine, you collapse the stock. he probably had a blousey outer garment. it's near 2:00, closing time. people are leaving. security is lessening. and he walks in with this. how did he get it? he didn't have to have a long rifle. he had a collapsible stock. what would the senator think about that? mr. murphy: it's not surprising to me would be my answer. and i think as the senator knows, the marketing techniques of the companies that sell these guns are very disturbing. they often are marketing these guns in a way that would suggest that their intended use by the manufacturer is in fact to kill as many people as possible. they advertise the fact that you can conceal them easily.

they don't shy away from the fact that the collapsible elements make them easily concealable. now they're not suggesting, the manufacturers, that they're used for mass slaughter, but they certainly are selling them in a way that speaks to an audience that's contemplating what they were contemplating. i yield to the gentleman for an additional question. mr. nelson: thank you. those of us that are listening to us, if they are concerned about this stilted parliamentary language that we're using, it's the senate's rules that i am requesting through the president of the senate permission to ask a question. so i will ask this in the form of a question. would the senator believe that these are the shoes of one of the trauma surgeons? it just so happened that two blocks from the nightclub is the

trauma center in orlando regional medical center, number-one trauma center with trained trauma surgeons. they call them all in in the middle of the night. and would the senator like me to read what the doctor who owns these shoes said? mr. murphy: first of all, let me say it doesn't surprise me because we know the level of carnage that entered that emergency room, but i think it should pain everyone to look at that pair of shoes, look at the blood splattered on it, think of the amount of blood that was lost by those who died and lived, and to think that we are not going to do anything about it. i yield for an additional question. i know the senator from new york is waiting as well. mr. nelson: since the senator would like to know what

dr. joshua corsa, medical doctor who owns these shoes said as he wrote in one of the orlando publications, "these are my work shoes from saturday night. they are brand-new, not even a week old. i came to work this morning and saw these in the corner of the call room next to the pile of dirty scrubs. i had forgotten about them until now. on these shoes, soaked between the fibers is the blood of 54 innocent human beings. i don't know which were straight, which were gay, which were black or which were hispanic. what i do know is that they came to us in wave after wave of suffering, screaming and death. and somehow in that chaos,

doctors, nurses, technicians, police, paramedics and others performed super-human feats of compassion and care. this blood which poured out of these patients and soaked through my scrubs and my shoes will stain me forever. and these rohrshack patterns of red, i will forever see their faces and the faces of those that gave everything they had in those dark hours. there's still an enormous amount of work to be done. some of the work will never end. and while i work, i will continue to wear these shoes. and when the last patient leaves our hospital, i will take them off. i will keep them in my office. i want to see them in front of me every time i go to work, for on june 12 after the worst of

humanity reared its evil head, i saw the best of humanity come fighting right back. i never want to forget that night. dr. joshua corsa, orlando regional medical center. i thank the senator for yielding. mr. murphy: i yield to the gentleman from new york for a question without losing my right to the floor. mr. schumer: will the senator yield for a question? mr. murphy: i will yield for a question. mr. schumer: first i want to thank my colleague from florida for that amazing presentation. i want to thank my colleagues from connecticut and new jersey for the amazing job that they have done in making sure, doing everything they can using the procedures of this body that we get votes on this important legislation. i also want to thank my friend from connecticut who has held

the floor for some time today. both senators from connecticut have done an am mading job, and i -- an amazing job and i know we'll all be looking forward to hear from our friend from west virginia for his work. so to all of the senators on the floor, i want to thank you because this is so, so important. the senator from connecticut said it's been nearly four years since sandy hook, and this body has done nothing. he's right. this body is shameful. this body is shameful in its obese yens to the -- obesance to the hard right of the gun lobby and not even doing the most reasonable things that almost all americans support that don't affect the rights of legitimate gun owners, that will simply make our country safer. and i would say as i ask my question to the senator from connecticut, we're in a new world. we're in a world where lone

wolves can get hold of guns and do huge damage, as we saw as our friend from florida eloquently talked about in his home state. we have to change and adapt to that world. maybe in the old days, people would say well, terrorism, it's not going to happen here. it has. it has. and we need to make sure that we do everything we can to prevent terrorists from getting guns. and i want to ask my colleague this question. my colleagues have talked about two pieces of legislation. one, making sure that if you are a person who the authorities suspect might do terrorism, of planning a terrorist attack and that they also know that a gun that you purchased, that person

purchases could be used in that attack, they would stop them from getting a gun. and second, legislation so that we have universal background checks because you need both. my question to my colleague is whether it is along these lines. if we close the terror loophole, we still could have a terrorist go to a gun show or go online and buy a gun. and if we just deal with making sure there are universal background checks, we haven't permitted terrorists from getting guns, whether it be at a gun show, online or at a gun shop, as we saw. and as the author of the brady law, there was no online then so we didn't ban online purchases. the n.r.a. at the last minute to get the votes -- it only passed by one vote on the house floor -- said let gun shows get in, and in those days, gun shows

were just -- you know, they were what they used to be, not a massive place where people go buy guns but people who needed to sell the one gun they had would, and what's evolved is that the people who want to get around the law use gun shows methodically and regularly to avoid the background check. so i would simply ask my colleague this -- isn't it true that these two pieces of legislation go hand in hand? isn't it true that if we did one, either one but not the other, that terrorists could still get their hands on guns, suspected terrorists, and isn't it true that both pieces of legislation have the overwhelming support of a huge number of americans? mr. murphy: i thank the senator for his lifelong leadership on this question. i feel like i am in a caucus of

giants here whereby people coming down to the floor from senator durbin to senator blumenthal, senator schumer have been working on this issue and trying to protect americans from gun violence far longer than i have. and of course as one of the authors of the original bill, you know better than anyone that had you known that you were building a bill that would only cover 60% of gun sales, you would have never designed it nor probably even voted for it on the terms that exist today. what has happened is over time gun sales have migrated to other places. and so what we are simply trying to do is to reinforce the existing intention of the law. we're actually not trying to change the law at all. for everybody that voted for that bill initially to make sure that criminals aren't allowed to buy guns, they did so because they believe that they were going to cover the majority of sales that were done in a commercial atmosphere. well, now commerce happens in gun shows, online, and we need for the system to migrate to it. you are also right that

protecting america from terrorist attack is ineffective unless we do both -- make sure that people on the terrorist watch list can't buy guns and that the forums in which that list reaches is both gun stores, gun shows but also those internet sales, and of course you are also right that this is the only place where this issue is controversial. this is the only place in which there is a 50-50 argument over this question. you find any other forum of 100 random people around the gun, and it's 90-10, it's 90-10 on this issue. which i think is why my friend from west virginia has led on this because he knows that in all of our states, this is something that brings republicans and democrats and gun owners and gun -- nongun owners together. this is an issue that does. i yield to the gentleman from new york. mr. schumer: i have one more

question i will ask the senator from connecticut, then we all want to hear what the senator from west virginia has said. he has been such a courageous leader on this issue. so there is some talk on both issues of -- quote -- a compromise, and i just want to -- i know i have talked to the senator from connecticut and all of my colleagues here that on our side of the aisle we are willing to compromise. we don't have to -- there doesn't have to be one way to do it, but i would just ask the senator the question, isn't it true that we don't want to compromise so we can say we did something and not really close both of these loopholes? that a compromise that says, for instance, that's built around what the senator from texas has said, which is you will have to go to court to prove that the person might be a terrorist and after three days you can get a gun and no court proceeding can take that long would be a meaningless compromise, a peric victory and it's the kind of thing that the vast majority, at least about all of us on our

side of the aisle, could not accept. mr. murphy: i think that's a very important point and i thank the senator for making it. i think we can find common ground here, but let's be honest the american people support the proposal that is in the underlying feinstein legislation. the american people support the underlying legislation that is incumbent in manchin-toomey. so yes, we want to be able to find common ground, but that common ground can't result in loopholes that are big enough to drive a truck through, allowing people on the terrorist watch list to get guns. and this idea that you can give law enforcement 72 hours to go to court to stop somebody from obtaining a gun is ridiculous. a, there aren't enough resources in the -- in our system of law enforcement, in our judicial system to track every single terrorist who are buying guns and bring every single one of those sales to court, and second the legislation that i have seen would only give you 72 hours to do that, which would let thousands of these sales go

through without prohibition. and so no, we can find common ground here, but let's remember the american public by big numbers already support the proposals that have been put before this body and who have failed previously. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague and agree with him completely and look forward to the questions from the senator from west virginia. mr. murphy: i yield to the senator from west virginia for a question without losing my right to the floor. mr. manchin: let me first of all thank all of our colleagues and all of our senators for being here today and speaking about this most important issue for the welfare of our citizens and each one of our respective states. i would -- my question is going to be to the senator from connecticut. it is on gun culture. i don't think there is another state -- if there is, i don't know it -- that has more of a gun culture than west virginia. we take that extremely serious, the second amendment rights. but i want to make sure that we're on the same page here because some people come from

states that don't have much of a gun culture or weren't exposed to guns as a young person growing up. i can tell you in west virginia -- i would think -- i would ask the question of each of my colleagues in connecticut. at a very young age, we are taught first of all how to handle guns safely. we're taught basically you never sell your gun to a stranger. you never sell your gun to someone who has a criminal background. you never sell your gun to someone who is mentally unstable. you don't even give your gun to a family member or a friend if you don't think they're responsible. this is how we're taught in a gun culture. and i'm sure connecticut has the same gun cultures that we have. so how this all came about with the amendment three years ago after the horrible, horrific tragedy in newtown was that if we respect a law-abiding gun owner who doesn't own a gun or didn't buy the gun because they

want to do something wrong or they are a criminal or assumed to be a criminal just because they own it, then you have to assume that they are law-abiding and they are going to do the right thing. if they are going to do the right thing, the right thing is we don't sell to strangers, we don't sell to criminals, we don't sell to mentally unstable people. so doesn't it make sense, doesn't it make sense if -- and the same is in connecticut -- if you go to a gun show that allows, that would allow somebody not to go through that but go to a table where there is not a licensed dealer selling it and doesn't require by law to have a background check, it's saying well, wait a minute, you can't do that. this is a commercial transaction. and as a law-abiding gun owner, i don't do that. i've got to know who you are. i don't know you. you want to buy my gun. i'm not going to sell you my gun. i won't do it until i know who you are and capable of having that gun and understand how it operates. that's what we said. but we did so much more. so i would say to my good friend from connecticut, the senator

from connecticut, is the gun culture the same. you come from a state that has a gun culture, and even those wonderful, wonderful families, the tragic loss of their children, they weren't trying to ban anything. they wanted the common sense. the gun culture similar to ours, you treat people as law-abiding gun owners and they will do the right thing and the right thing is find out who wants to buy your gun and don't let them go to a gun show or on the internet and be able to skew around that. mr. murphy: i will be interested on the senator's reaction to this. let me answer his question and allow him to ask another question with follow-up. people are going to say that connecticut and west virginia are very different states, and they are, right? there is a lot of differences between connecticut -- connecticut and west virginia. but, you know, i have found that gun owners aren't that different in the sense that they're serious about their guns. they're serious about being a collector. they're serious about having the right to protect themselves. they're serious about the right to be able to hunt.

but they also recognize that it's a -- it's a responsibility, and you can lose that responsibility if you have committed crimes. so almost every single gun owner that i talked to said yes, absolutely criminals should be able to buy guns. and every gun owner in connecticut says to me -- that i ask this question to what? terrorists, people on the watch lists are allowed to buy guns? so i think as different as our states are, i think gun owners are largely the same in that they come to this issue with the sentiment of i don't want the government taking away my ability to own a firearm, and i want a diversity of products available to me. i want to make sure that i'm able to collect or i'm able to be able to hunt, but i also don't want a criminal, somebody convicted of domestic violence or murder or assault or battery to be able to get their hands on

a weapon. i think that's where both of our gun communities are. and i will yield to the gentleman for another question if he wants to correct me if i'm wrong. mr. manchin: no, my question would follow up on that. did you in connecticut, after wy amendment, what we tried to do and tried to cut commonsense as law-abiding gun owners, how we operate every day, did you have anybody come and say to you that manchin-toomey amendment, that took away my gun rights? i can't keep my gun. i can't own a gun. i can't buy a gun. in fact, if those who took time to read it, we protected the second amendment greater than it's ever been protected. we protected a law-abiding gun owner from being able to do what the second amendment gives him a right to do. we never banned anything because we know that law-abiding gun owners will do the right thing. and i think in west virginia and i would say connecticut, 70% to 80% of the -- of the real ardent

collectors, shooters, sportsmen said i will get a background check. why we hit a roadblock, i don't know. did you have anybody coming to you in your state senator murphy, please don't vote for that because it will take my rights away? mr. murphy: no one in connecticut thought this was taking their rights away. as the senator knows, we have pretty strict background checks in connecticut already. in connecticut, we had already subjected most of these sales to the background check system. my impression is that our hunters, our sports shooters, our collectors have never felt that they were on the precipice of being able to lose their right to enjoy their sport or their past time to be able to build on their collection. there is definitely disputes when you get in the area of talking about banning this kind of weapon or that kind of weapon, but that's not what this is about. this has nothing to do with this bill. this bill is just about saying that if you are a criminal, that

you can't buy a weapon. so yielding for another question to my friend, in connecticut, this is pretty noncontroversial. there might be other things that are controversial. this one is noncontroversial. and you have told me, senator manchin, that it's not controversial in west virginia either when you lay it out as to what it really is. mr. manchin: when you take time -- if i could ask my good friend from connecticut another question. with you take time to go home, you explain it. they understand it. they read it. and if anything, we're protecting them more to do the thing they do every day, the way they were trained. and they believe that we are correct but what happens, they start saying, did you get -- yeah, but if you do that, then they'll just expand it further and take more of our rights away. i said, this is a constitutional amendment. it can't be by an executive order. it has to have the action of congress. so don't worry about someone expanding it or some office or

law saying we're just going to expand the rule, expand the interpretation of it or the executive, the governor is basically going to have an executive ruling that takes more of my rights away. i said you can't do that with the constitutional amendment. we have to do what we're doing right now. so can't we do the logical thing in passing something that is a building block for us to make sure those who are unstable, that have been criminals, that want to do harm to all of us should not be able to conveniently go anywhere they want to in a gun show in america or on the internet which we never know and buy that. did you have any feedback on that to you? mr. murphy: and i did and we hear it constantly. there's belief that there's a secret agenda, that this is really about a slippery slope, gun confiscation. and as you stated it very eloquently in your remarks, there is a second amendment, right, an interpretation by the supreme court of that second

amendment that guarantees the individual's right to a firearm, that we cannot brooch, that we cannot breach as a legislative body. and so that is unquestioned. the question of whether there's a secret agenda is one that we have to confront but the reality is when we passed the initial background checks law, i'm sure people of the time said this is just the camel's nose under the tent and it was not. it was not. that system worked for a very long time till as we stated all these gun sales migrated out of the system. we have plenty of examples where we had common sense gun laws that didn't lead to all of the worst-case scenarios that many people often proffer to us. mr. manchin: my other question would be, i'm understanding that yourself and most of my colleagues would like to do two amendments here. we have two amendments proposed. and they're basically common sense building blocks to basically protect the citizens of this great country.

and each one of our respect -- in each one of our respective states. the one on ter i.r.s. -- on terrorists, if you're on a terrorist watch list, i heard colleagues on both sides and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying there's no due process and basically we're taking people's rights away which is the foundation and the cornerstone of our great democracy of ours. there's not another nation on earth that has a target on its back th like the way of the unid states of america. with that understanding that if a person is being called in -- and let's take the shooter in orlando, and our hearts and prayers go out to the families of those who lost loved ones and those who are still suffering. with that being said, this gentleman was called in a couple of times i think. he was suspected as a terrorist or being of terrorist mind set and they're thinking how was he able to steal legally -- able to still legally -- go and buy the

firearms legally. he didn't go illegally. you can't even stop that from happening president then they said well, due process. one of my colleagues went 72 hours which we know is not even reasonable or practical. but on that, i think both sides, democrats and republicans, both want to keep terrorists from getting firearms. and the question has been i'm sure and your people are asking you from connecticut how do you go further, how do we get this to the point where, okay, if you've been questioned and suspected, then you should be at least on a watch for five years, on a no buy list. i don't know if you're asked the same question, senator, in connecticut but my goodness, if a person is thought to be of a terrorist mindset and we have flagged them not to fly on an airline, a commercial airline in the united states of america, don't you think we ought to have the same concerns about them being able to buy a weapon

legally? mr. murphy: and through the chair to my friend, it's important to remember that there is consensus in this body that those individuals shouldn't fly. there's nobody that's come down to the floor of the senate and proposed a law that we should take all of the individuals who are on these watch lists and give them back the ability to fly. nobody would propose that on the floor of the senate because they would get tarred and feathered by their constituents. if you came in and said everybody that's been investigated by the f.b.i. that's on the terrorist watch list, we think you're depriving them of their right to travel so let them fly. no one would propose that. and so if it's not controversial, individuals that have intersections with law enforcement over terrorism are not permitted to fly, why is it so controversial that they should be stopped from buying a firearm, at least until they grieve the process and make it clear that they had no reason to be feared. mr. manchin: senator, do you

have anybody in the state of connecticut that's coming to you and saying i have a friend who was suspected of being a terrorist and their rights have been taken away. they're an american citizen and for some reason they were on the internet and they were checked out and the f.b.i. has come to their home and suspected them and questioned them and should that person still be on the no buy list, if you will, because they're suspected terrorists? mr. murphy: i think people are shocked in my state that this isn't already law. at some level people don't understand why this hasn't been baked into the background system as is and as you know, this is just simply not a controversial issue anywhere but in this chamber. mr. manchin: we've approached the amendment, the bill of rights, that we've taken people's rights away? mr. murphy: nobody believes that. mr. manchin: i haven't lad that

in west virginia. they say err on the side of caution. we're not taking any people's rights but if a person basically over a period of time has shown they haven't, haven't really engaged and haven't been involved to come back, and i think we've all said that makes sense to us, we can do that. and i think -- i think that senator feinstein has a five-year provision in there for that which is reasonable, when is really reasonable. and i can't find out -- i can't go back home this weekend and explain to the people in west virginia why we haven't moved forward on this. and there could have been another orlando in god forbid in one of our states. mr. murphy: i thank the gentleman for joining us on the floor today. i think that's really what this is about is about not being able to in our heart of hearts to go back to our states, especially those that have been touched by these crimes and tell them that we wasted another week, that we sat here and we ignored the problem for yet another week and the reason that i'm down on the

floor, the reason that senator blumenthal and senator booker are joining me is we've had enough. we've had enough of these shootings, enough of this talk. we think it's time for action and time for action now. mr. manchin: i want to thank the senator for answering the questions we've had an. mr. murphy: i know the gentleman from maryland is on the floor. mr. blumenthal: i want to pursue some of the questions, the excellence inquiries posed by our colleague from west virginia, and just say some folks out in america who may be listening or watching or may hear afterward about this debate may say to themselves somebody who's been put on that watch list erroneously, someone who is precluded from boarding a plane or traveling in the united states regardless of whether they can buy a gun or not,

aren't they entitled to the due process right to correct that list? and the answer in my view is very simply yes. as a matter of constitutional right and due process, as a matter of equal protection, as a matter of the right to travel freely in the united states of america, if someone is on that list erroneously, he or she deserves the right to have that record corrected. and i'm going to pose that question to my colleague from connecticut now but also a second question, also probably on the minds of a number of our connecticut constituents who are watching or listening or may hear about it afterward, don't we have some of the strongest

gun violence protection laws in the united states of america and isn't that enough? why are we worried about this terrorist watch list, why are we worried about background checks as a nation as a whole? illinois, as a matter of fact, has strong gun laws perhaps in theory, when california or other states pass their own laws, why are we here on the floor of the united states senate seeking action saying enough is enough? why are we so outraged and passionate about achieving gun violence protection barring people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns, making sure that we have universal background checks and a ban on straw trafficking, and illegal

importation across state borde borders? and i think the answer is these measures are necessary because even the strong estate laws are basically ineffective, at least to protect many people as long as stolen guns, lost guns can be transported across state boundaries. guns have no respect for state boundaries. and we in connecticut are vulnerable because of the weaker laws in other states. so this national protection is vitally important. is that not the case, senator murphy? mr. murphy: thank you, senator blumenthal, for that. i think that's critically important here. i guess i would answer in two ways. first is to underscore your point. our nation's set of state-based firearms regulations are only as strong as the weakest link.

and so we can have the strongest laws in connecticut but guns and terrorists and would-be criminals don't observe state boundaries. and if you are intent on committing a heinous crime, you probably also have the means to figure out how to get around one state's tough gun laws. senator durbin was down here earlier talking about the fact that a large number of the weapons that are used in chicago to commit murders, 60 some odd shootings over memorial day weekend alone, come from outside of the state of illinois. illinois has some pretty tough gun laws but indiana doesn't. so you can get to indiana in a heart beat from chicago and you can pick up a firearm online or at a gun show or you can go to a pretty miserably regulated gun dealer and bring what effectively are illegal weapons back into chicago. so, yes, we're talking about a

federal law because this can't be a state-base solution. that being said, as you know, senator blumenthal, through the chair, state laws do have an effect. and what that is helpful in is showing us, showing this body that we are not powerless, that if we pass these laws and allow them on a national basis, it will have an effect. in connecticut we've seen a 40% reduction in gun crimes since these laws went into effect. that is a preview to this body that if we were to adopt that standard, yielding to my friend for another question, if we were to adopt that standard, then we could potentially bear the same reward in human lives saved on a national basis. i yield to the gentleman for another question. i know senator cardin is here as well. mr. blumenthal: i would be happy to yield to other colleagues for

their questions, but let me just ask you one more quick question. you know, again, somebody unfamiliar with this topic might be wondering, convicted felons under federal law are barred from buying firearms. so someone who has been to prison, paid the price, done probation, been out of prison for years and years and done nothing to repeat that criminal episode, whatever it was, is still barred from buying a gun and yet someone who is deemed dangerous enough to be on a watch list or a no fly list, the

consolidated list that the senator from connecticut referred to earlier, is free to watch into any gun store or any gun show, and in seven minutes as a reporter from the philadelphia enquirer was able to do, i believe, seven minutes, simply present the money and walk out with an ar-15 assault weapon, a firearm designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, designed for combat. and largely manufactured and used around the world to kill people. not predominantly for hunting or recreation. designed to kill people. isn't there an irony to