mr. murphy: i thank the senator and i want to thank senator booker and senator blumenthal for being here from the very beginning. this has been myrrh miraculous s own regard not to be -- to just be able to spend time with you but have the majority of the caucus come to the floor and express support for our determination to move forward this debate, to at the very least get votes, but really try to bring consensus around this issue. and senator booker, i don't think i'm breaking confidences to share that both he and i spoke at our meeting yesterday of democrats in which senator booker shared an immensely powerful series of stories about his experience as mayor of a grief-torn city, his direct personal intersection with friends, with neighbors who had lost their life.

i know how deeply personally affected he has been. and i guess i tell you why i am doing this as a means of telling you why senator blumenthal and i are doing this, and i tell it through a prism of a story that just awful, awful series of days following the shootings in sandy hook. senator blumenthal and i went through the first of what were umpteen wakes and funerals, and we were standing in line at the first wake about to talk to the first set of parents who had lost in this case their young daughter, and i remember being so uncertain about what we were supposed to say to these parents, not just what you were supposed to say to provide some measure of condolence, but we were their elected representatives. we had some additional obligation to show them that we were ready to act, but was it too soon to make that offer? was it not the right moment to suggest that there was a public policy response to the slaughter

of their children? it was senator blumenthal that very gently and appropriately said to the mother and father as we walked by the closed casket that said to the mother and father whenever you're ready, we'll be there to fight. and the father said we're ready now, we're ready now. this was probably not 48 hours after the death of their 6 or 7-year-old daughter, and so we have been thinking about this necessity, this imperative of action since that moment, and it gets harder and harder to look into the eyes of those parents, of those surviving children and explain to them why this body has not acted. it gets harder and harder to

defend the complete silence from this institution in the face of murder after murder. franklin delano roosevelt wasn't confident that everything that he proposed was going to solve the economic crisis of the 1930's and 1940's, but he was damned if he wasn't going to try something. he and his aides talked unabashedly and unapoll jet cally about trial and error. we try one thing and it doesn't work, we'll try something else. why don't we do that? why don't we try one thing and if it doesn't stem the violence, try something else, but doing nothing is an abomination, and that makes it imupon for -- impossible for those of us who have lived through these tragedies to look these families in the eye. i remember that it took ten years from the attempted assassination of president reagan and the maiming of his press secretary james brady for the brady gun bill to be signed into law. it took a decade of political

action, and it took probably many nights like this when legislators or advocates stood at a rally, maybe stood on the floor of the senate or the house and argued until they had no more energy left, knowing that they weren't going to get the victory the next day. and as i said to my friends in the movement back in connecticut and throughout the country and i know you have said versions of this as well, every great change movement is defined by the moments of failure, not the moments of success. every great change movement in this country is defined by the fact that there were times in which you could have given up, you could have hung it up and you didn't, you persisted. the changes that never happened are the ones where the movement, once they hit that brick wall, said it's too hard, enough, and they went home. and so senator booker, that's the reason why we're here, and i think i'm speaking for -- in some way, shape or form for the three of us, that we want to get

votes on these measures, and we'll stand here until we get those votes, but even if we don't, it's important to continue to engage in the fight. mr. booker: and so that's the first part of the framing that is very important. this determination that we will not do business as usual, that this fight will not stop, we will take this fight to the senate floor, we will take this fight to legislatures, we will take this fight to neighborhoods and communities, and it's not a physical fight. it is a fight in my opinion of love, it is a fight that says we can be a country that affirms people's right to own weapons. we heard from one of our closest friends in the senate, senator murphy, senator heinrich who is an ardent gun owner. he's a hunter. sometimes as a vegan, i have got to watch the pictures of the things he's shot and killed.

he takes great pride and joy. what we are talking about -- and this gets to be the next area of questioning -- is nothing about hunters, it's nothing about heem who want guns for self-defense. this is not about people who want guns because they love the sport. senator bennet took me out skeet shooting when i was in colorado. it's not about folks who want those -- the guns for that. this is about something very narrow, and that's the question i have, which is the second part of this framing because while i heard tonight some people talk about this in partisan terms, the truth of the matter is while that may be partisanship in washington speak, when i go back to new jersey, i -- i go to communities like the ones i grew up in, a majority republican community, communities like the one i live in in newark, majority democrat, and i hear the same thing from people on both sides of the aisle. there is a lack of understanding

in this country how we can be at this point where we have a nation that is at war with terrorists where you have our enemy in places like iraq, in syria literally saying go america, trying to egg on, trying to radicalize young people, instructing them that this is the country to go to buy guns because it's so easy to circumvent the law -- excuse me. not circumvent the law, but it is so easy to get access to guns because of these massive loopholes. and that's the point that brings us here, is you and i probably share beliefs about gun safety that are not shared by maybe the majority of gun owners, and there are things i've heard brought up tonight, frankly, that, hey, i might like. there are people that talk about

magazines, people talk about research on this. i have heard a lot of subjects brought up, but what brought you to the floor, what brought senator blumenthal to the floor tonight, for the whole day senator blumenthal has been here, almost nine hours, was had me standing with you this entirg with you this entire time because this narrow look to say hey, we as americans can agree that terrorists, someone who is a suspected terrorist that's under investigation, that might be on a no-fly list, that that person should not be able to buy not just a weapon or a handgun but an assault rifle. and when you look at this issue, it is not controversial with america. this is not controversial with republicans. this is not controversial with n.r.a. members because the overwhelming majority of them agree that we should not be a

country where a person can't get on a plane in newark, new jersey, but they can drive to a private seller or a gun show or go on the internet and buy a gun. the second of the three aggressive, sir, is this is not a radical thing that you're asking for. you're not calling for something that is controversial. this is something that at this point it's common sense and it is agreed upon by over 70% of gun owners. i'm not sure if there is an elected official in the senate that has a 70-plus percent approval rating. rarely do you see people agree that greatly, so to me could you please explain why you're taking a stand on this issue right now and what it is you think we should be able to achieve on this common ground for the common good? mr. murphy: i appreciate the senator talking about what a limited ask we are making here. let's talk about the scope of

the limitation on gun ownership. we are asking that for people that are on a terrorist watch list, people that are on the no-fly list, that they be added to those that are prohibited from buying guns. now, we have data that tells us how many of those individuals are buying guns every year because we could match one list to the other even though they don't intersect in a way that prohibits the purchase, and what we know is that there is only about 200 sales at gun stores every year from people that are on those lists, so we are talking about a minuscule limitation on the right, which is to take a small handful of individuals who have been placed on a terror no-fly list and saying that they shouldn't be able to get a weapon and building into it a process to grieve that limitation so that if there is a mistake that's made, that you could have your right restored. but we're talking about a few

hundred sales a year. now, you can say oh, it's a few hundred sales, why does that matter? well, you get it wrong once and it's mass slaughter. so it's a small number of sales, a minuscule limitation with potentially enormous reward when it comes to public safety. mr. booker: one more question, but i'd like to do two more questions, because this is sort of a progression here. you're here today because of a commitment you have made from your maiden speech here in the united states senate, senator murphy, a consistent belief that you will never give up until we have commonsense gun safety in america, and that after a grievous act like we saw in florida where 49 immigrant people were slaughtered, you, senator blumenthal, myself and countless senators, at least half of our caucus who have come down here have said the same thing, enough is enough. we can't let business as usual

happen. number two, what's being asked for, ultimately the reason why you stood up and have been holding the floor for nine and a half hours is in order to say hey, the terrorist loophole should be closed, but there is one more element to this pro degrees. an indefatigable senator, a noncontroversial element, and now in terms of the terrorist loophole, but now this other piece which is just common sense, and i want to take that one step and ask you to go a little deeper with it, and that last step is that in order -- if you just have the terrorist loophole close but you don't have universal background checku close a terrorist loophole so that anybody goes through to a federal firearm license dealer and gets to the next check, that stops that terrorist, but if you still have the internet sales and still have these private sales, that terrorist, who probably won't even go to that

federal firearm licenseee, they're going to go to the back doors that are still wide open for people to get guns. and so what you're saying is i'm not giving up. number two, 70-plus percent of n.r.a. members agree with me on what i'm asking for, and this last step where still the majority of gun owners in america agree, why is it important also to make sure that if we want to stop terrorists from doing what they did in orlando, which unless -- if we do nothing, it will happen. god forbid, but it may happen again, why is this universal background check element the second thing that you are standing up for today along with your colleagues? mr. murphy: when i go to bed at night, senator booker, i lock the front door and i lock the back door. it doesn't do much good to only lock the back door and leave the front door open or vice versa,

right? and so that's what we're proposing, is to make sure that if we believe in a commitment to stop individuals who are associated with terrorists from buying guns, then you have to lock both doors. you have to stop them from buying guns when they walk into a bricks and mortar store, but then you have to acknowledge that it is frankly easier for individuals to just type in one of the main online arm sellers and buy a weapon that way because it's faster, it can get delivered right to your door and you don't have to go through a background check. and so if you really want to make a commitment to preventing terrorists from getting guns, then you have got to do both. you have got to put them on the list and then you have got to reconcile the fact that 40% of sales today are happening outside of that pathway. and by the way, the added benefit of that is that you are shutting down the pathway that criminals have been using for a decade in order to get these weapons, and you will have a dramatic effect on the slaughter that's happening in our cities as well by limiting the flow of

illegal arms. mr. booker: so if you will pause for the last question, and i know your senior senator would like to have a question, but this is where i have to say it becomes deeply personal to me because what you're talking about there, your persistent, unyielding fight for commonsense gun legislation from the second you walked into the united states senate to the noncontroversial idea that terrorists in america, people who are shucked of being terrorists, should not be allowed to buy assault weapons, period, and your comment that that affects a very small universe of people, that in order to make that ironclad -- again, nothing is ironclad, nothing is going to stop everybody, but this is doing something that will constrict access of terrorists. you have got to do a universal background check so you close the back door, as you're saying. this is what gets personal to me even more so than all of this because it's more than this so it's more personal.

when you do that, you are not affecting sports people. you're not affecting second amendment right believers who believe i need to have my right to bear arms. you're not affecting folks that are worried about self-defense and want to have a gun to defend themselves. who you are affecting what you do that is not just terrorists, but you actually have a collateral benefit when you tighten up the system that you then stop criminals of all categories from getting guns. we live in a nation where women are victims of violence at astonishing rates. you close down that system for terrorists, you're going to make it much harder for someone who seeks to do -- engage in domestic violence with a firearm. you're going to shut down criminals from getting guns, and it is what really i experienced

as a united states mayor. i looked at all of my shootings and murders as too many in newark when i was mayor. and i could only find one case -- one case -- where a law-abiding citizen use add gun in the giend kind of vsms the pm we you a overwhelmingly is that criminals who should have been stopped were using these loopholes to buy lots of weapons and engage in criminal activity. that so much of the carnage in our communities is happening when criminals can easily get access to guns, and so you and i have had this conversation privately so many times. i've sat with you in connecticut cities. we've seen the impact and the pain and the agony of murder after murder after murder after murder in our cities, and this

commonsense terrorist loophole closing, would you please explain how that will also constrict the ability for all criminals committing murders at rates not seen anywhere on the planet earth because someone who has restrictions on them for buying guns for being domestic violence, stalking, threatening a woman can go get a gun; somebody who is an ex-confor a violent crime can get a gun. why is this important also because of the collateral benefit thaldz come about -- that would come about from this common sense constricting and closing of the terrorist loophole? mr. murphy: there's nobody better than you making people ngd the human consequences of inaction and the potential for human benefit of action. so i'm not going to try to compete. let me give you the statistics. let me tell you what happens in states that impose rigorous

systems of background checks. there are 64% fewer guns trafficked out of state. there are 48% fewer firearm suicides. there are 48% fewer police killed by handguns. there are 46% fewer women who are shot to death by intimate partners, and there are 17% fewer aggravated assaults with guns. and those numbers would be even better if there was a national commitment to the same concept because as senator durbin has told us, as tough as illinois' laws are, all it takes is for a criminal to go across the border into indiana and buy up guns at a gun show or buy them online or get them from an unregulated dealer and bring them back into chicago. and what every police chief will tell you is the fewer illegal guns on the street, the fewer crimes there are. the harder you make it for an individual in a moment of

passion or frustration or whatever that moment may be to get a gun, the less likely you are to have a homicide. and so, you know, senator blumenthal and i went to a meeting of activists on this issue in hartford, connecticut, about a few weeks after the newtown shooting. and they were furious. they were furious that the world had woken up to gun violence because of newtown, after it had been a reality for them to so long. and so that is the genius of what we're proposing, without taking away any second amendment rights, senator booker, we are able with this proposal to both extend protections to americans that might be the victim of a terror attack but also individuals who right now are living with the everyday slaughter that happens in our cities i would be had happy to yield to my friend from connecticut for a question without relinquishing the floor. mr. blumenthal: senator murphy's very eloquent reference

to the family whom we met just a day or so after the loss of their child brings back a memory that always evokes an almost indescribable emotion from me. my heart goss my throat -- goes to my threat whenever i think of that couple saying to me, we're ready now, ready to help, ready to take action. and that has been the story of the newtown and sandy hook families that lived through that loss. they came here and told their story to our colleagues. nearly achieved or helped us achieve a victory. we came within four or five votes of that outcome. and from the gallery of the

chamber, when we failed, came the cry "shame!" and it was indeed shameful that the senate failed to move forward. my colleague from new jersey, senator booker, has described the real-world impact in such graphic, powerful terms. i hesitate to follow him. but i want to make two points and ask my colleague from connecticut whether he agrees with them. the first is that those families from connecticut, in a sense, represented the community as a whole, and the newtown community, the connecticut community through organizations like sandy hook promise and the newtown action alliance and others around the country -- every town, americans for a responsible solution -- they are

doing what opponents of sensible common sense measures have done for much longer, which is to organize. and to galvanize and educate and raise awareness, and that, in the end, will be the way we win. i pay tribute to them tonight. i thank them and the families for their courage and strength again. and i want to bring this issue home to connecticut, where my friend and colleague, senator murphy, and i live and where we went through the searing experience of the newtown tragedy. i had been involved for two decades in gun violence prevention, helping to advocate and then to defend in court our ban on assault weapons, one of the first state laws in the country. but that experience transformed

many of us in our state, and it impacted people of all ages to be more vigorous advocates and more articulate advocates. i want to read a letter from a young man who lives in danbury, connecticut. "i am a constituent of yours, and i became a victim of gun violence when my 7-year-old cousin, daniel bardon, was murdered at sandy hook elementary school in 2012. i am no longer -- quote -- "saddened" -- end quote -- by mass shootings. i am instead angry and frustrated by the inaction of this thaition leaders to implement obvious and basic safeguards to gun ownership such as universal background checks.

c.d.c. research into gun violence, limiting magazine capacity, restriction of gun ownership to domestic abusers and people on terrorist watch lists, to name a few. one of the most infuriating aspects of the continued mass shootings in this country is that they are so eminently preventable. we can't do much about earthquakes or hurricanes, but it is pretty simple to just not sell military-grade weapons to civilians or just not sell ar-15's to domestic abusers who have been investigated by the f.b.i. for terrorist connections and threats. i am furious and feel powerless. i beg you to stand up for me. my family, everyone who has ever lost family or friends, to senseless gun violence, and for our society as a whole, which we

are currently failing to protect. enough is enough." that is from a young person who lives in danbury, connecticut, and it summarizes the feeling of powrlsness -- powerlessness and helplessness and furry that americans -- and if you arey that americans all across the country feel, just to give you one example, i understand that in the last 96 hours, 500,000 people have signed a petition in favor of banning assault weapons, half a million people just in 96 hours in a petition circulated by moveon.org. assault weapons are designed for one purpose: to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. they are combat-hardened and

tested and used. they are military-style assault weapons, ar-15's. and as some of our colleagues have said, most hunters would not use them. -- to shoot deer or other animals. and yet they are sold freely. our request, our ask is a much more limited one than even assault weapons, as much as they need to be banned in terms of new sales. we're simply saying, don't sell those weapons to somebody who is hon a terrorist watch list, somebody who is under investigation for potentially being supported and funded and may be educated and trained by one of our adversaries or

enemies abroad, like isis. and don't sell those kinds of weapons or any others to anyone without a background check because they may fit that category or the other prohibited categories that are already in the law. sumly a means of enforcing the law. these proposals are really relatively modest and so are the others that this young person has advocated that we adopt. obvious and basic safeguards to quote him or her -- "obvious and basic safeguards to gun ownership such as universal background checks, c.d.c. research into gun violence, limitinlimiting magazine capaci, restriction of gun ownership to abusers and people on terrorist watch lists, to name a few." all oall of them should be adop.

we're asking for two. we're asking for votes. we're asking for action. and we're saying, no more business as usual. connecticut also had a connection toed orlando, a 37-year-old young woman named kimberly morris, educated in torrington, connecticut, at the torrington high school and then at post university in waterbury, connecticut. kimberly morris was known as a -- quote -- "scrappy player" -- end quote -- according to charlie mcspirit, the torrington high school former athletic director. he can still remember morris because she -- quote -- "played the game to her fullest. she was -- quote -- "a tenacious" -- end quote -- small

afford on the basketball team as well at post university in waterbury. her near teammate norville benning, who played for the men's team said, "she didn't let anyone -- she didn't let nobody push her around." she was 37 years old. she is among the older of the victims who were killed in orlando, what is so striking about the biographies of these young men and women is how young they are, how much of their lives they had ahead. not as young as the 6-year-olds gunned down in sandy hook. those 20 beautiful children, but kimberly, like those children, had her whole life ahead. so my question to my colleague

is whether connecticut still feels the impact and whether connecticut wants us to act at a national level as well as the nation. mr. murphy: i thank the senator for the question. connecticut is still reeling to this day. nonewtown is a community that hasn't covered and connecticut wants us to act not because they don't understand the inaction of this place but because they've seen the benefit of stronger gun laws. connecticut's legislature responded in a bipartisan way, republicans and democrats came together and passed legislation that banned dangerous assault weapons that extended out background checks to more sales. and we've seen an immediate diminution in the number of gun crimes in our state. we've seen an immediate impact on the safety of residents. so people in connecticut want us

to act because they acted like grownups in connecticut. you know, the minority leader of the state senate who wanted to run for governor put his political future in peril by sitting down at the table and negotiating a compromise. and he stands by it today because that compromise saved lives. and so the people of connecticut want us to act, senator blumenthal, and that's the reason that we're here today. senator blumenthal, if i could, i would just note for a moment before i hand it over to senator casey, when one of our colleagues had a moment to hold the floor for an extended period of time, he read a story to his kids who were at home. i actually didn't know this was getting to occur, but the little

boy just showed up in the gallery. and, a, you're supposed to be in bed. b, i'm sorry that i missed pizza night. and c, i hope that you'll understand some day why we're doing this, why we've been standing here for eight hours trying to fight to make our country a safer and better place and why sometimes even if you don't get everything that you want, trying hard, trying and trying and trying to do the right thing is ultimately just as important as getting the outcome in the end. so go to bed. but this is for those of us who are parents deeply, deeply

personal. this is about protecting not just every kid in this country but our kids personally. senator casey, i yield to you for a question without yielding control of the floor. mr. casey: i want to thank senator murphy, and i'll extend that gratitude in a moment. mr. murphy: my wife is up there by the way, too. he didn't come along, by the way. mr. casey: i want to thank anyone within the sound of my voice related to senator murphy. my question is a basic one but i think it's fundamental to his efforts. i'll address senator murphy and say your efforts and the efforts of those you've worked with not only today but on a lot of other days. senator blumenthal who's with you today and working so hard on these issues and senator booker, the three of you have been -- if there's a way to express inspiration beyond just using that terminology, i'd like to hear it because it's been an

inspiration. my basic question is this and i'll ask you to hold your answer for just a couple of minutes. my question is how do you stay focused? how do you stay inspired to continue this fight which for you has been not just hours long or days long or weeks, it's literally been years? but i'll ask forbearance for just a couple of minutes to give you a sense of part of the -- part of the motivation that i have. i'm holding here -- this is -- it will be difficult to see from far away, but this is a one-page sheet from "the wall street journal" dated monday, december 17, 2012. it says at the top "connecticut school shooting" and then the headline below that but in

larger letters is "shattered lives." i obviously won't read it all, but this has been on my desk since that week. and you can see it's a bit yellowed. every story here has an element of inspiration that is almost unimaginable. and i mention that because i'm from pennsylvania. i don't represent the state of connecticut, but this tragedy in connecticut, newtown, sandy hook elementary school, stays with all of us for different reasons. maybe because some of us are parents. maybe because we were struck by the gravity, the enormity and the brutality of that crime on what so many of us have called that awful day.

but i'll tell you, i don't think i've been as affected by a news event other than 9/11 in my life and certainly not one never affected in the way that it had a connection to what i would do and how i would vote. so this tragedy in newtown in 2012 directly affected the way i would vote, changed my thinking in so many different ways which i won't walk through all of that tonight. but as much as this -- as much as these stories of these children inspired me then and continue to inspire me, i don't want to add another set of stories to my desk or keep adding to the chronicle of suffering and the chronicle of murder and destruction that gun violence will leave us with.

today "the washington post" -- and i'll just open this up for illustrative purposes had one page and then another page and they needed two pages obviously because of the number of victims. i didn't count but if that's not 49, it's close to 49. and each of them has a story as well. so just as the children that were -- whose stories were summarized in "the wall street journal" in to 12, today's washington -- in 2012, today's "washington post" and i'm sure other papers have these stories. we don't have time to go through every story, but i was inspired by the lives of those children, what they meant to their families, what they -- what their life meant to their community, how they even in their very young lives had already begun to achieve significant things in their li

life, either by making their sisters and brothers happier or comforting their sisters and brothers and family and friends. and i'm sure the same will be said of those who lost their lives in orlando. let me just give you to examples in the interest of time. this is on page a-11 of "the washington post" today, one of the many vignettes. i mentioned earlier today akara murray, third in her class on the way to a basketball scholarship, in orlando, florida. she was killed, a markable young woman. i wish i knew her but she had just graduated from west catholic in philadelphia. but here's someone as well who died in orlando. brenda lee marquez, 49 years

old, one of the oldest. many of them were 25 and 21 and 18 and 24 and 22 and on and on. but here's what the first two lines of this vignette about brenda lee marquez mccool, a two-time cancer survivor, mccool was first diagnosed with cancer about eight years ago and this is her ex-husband robert presley said, quote, the doctor gave her a year to live. she lived eight until this nonsense, end quote. she lived eight years after her diagnosis of cancer. so that -- her life and her fight to overcome cancer should be a reminder of us that this is a long fight and she lost her life ultimately but she beat cancer for a long time, even though she lost her life this

weekend. give you one more and there are so many more we just don't have time tonight to go through all. shane evan tomlinson, 33. he was working that night playing in a band and then he left there to go to the club and to be able to relax a little bit after working. but he was a -- he was a member of an all-male gospel choir at house of blues in orlando. again 33 years old. so i don't want to keep adding to this chronicle. none of us want -- we all want to figure out a way to make progress on this issue, to finally say to ourselves as americans we can come together and take even incremental steps but i think for this week would

be significant as both -- all three senators, senator murphy, senator blumenthal, senator booker have reminded us what we're asking for here is a model of reasonableness. we're asking for a simple solution to a very discrete but horrific problem. if you're too dangerous to get on an airplane, if we've made that determination, why would you be allowed to have a firearm. why would a terrorist or potential terrorist be allowed to have a firearm? let's solve that one problem. and then of course a problem that we tried to solve in 2013 background checks which at last count is about a 90-10 issue in the united states of america. this is a reasonable -- a reasonable and sensible set of requests, just two in number. i could go on with others but i

won't. let me just conclude with sandy hook for a moment. we all know the horror of what happened there and the impact it had on all of our lives. but senator booker reminded us yesterday that in so many communities, so many inner cities in america, they have large numbers of gun deaths every single week and in some communities almost every single day. i won't mention a list of cities or communities because it would not be exhaustive but i think people know that. we've got to figure out a way to stay focused on those communities, even as we focus on the horror and the gravity and the dimensions of what happened in orlando or newtown or so many other places. but let's think about this just

for a moment before i at long last ask my question or ask for it to be answered for senator murphy. how about school shootings since sandy hook? what do we find there? since sandy hook a gun has been fired on school grounds nearly once a week, once a week for a total of 188 school shootings, including several in my home state of pennsylvania, according to data compiled by every town for gun safety. so this happened weekly since newtown. it's not as if that we have these events and we focus on them and then the problem recedes as we recede in our actions or lack of actions, in our focus, in our determination, in our sense of urgency. the problem does not go away. the problem is not going away. if anything it's growing in

dimension. just look at the data on how this problem has grown since the 1960's and 1970's. it just didn't happen in those days. didn't happen much in the 1980's but you look at 1990 forward and you see incident after incident. in 2000 and forward, it goes on and on. so if anything, it's accelerating at a pace that no one, no one in this body should be content about. so that means that every week, every single week, there's some either schoolchild or school student -- and this goes all the way obviously to colleges and universities. so every single week some group of americans who happen to be children or young adults are on a -- in a school setting of one kind or another, and they're either the direct victim or the victim who lives through that horror and has the imprint of

that horror for the rest of their lives. so that's the reality. so anyone who thinks that this is just a random occurrence, go to a school in a lot of places and talk to people in schools and go to our cities, and i think we could all learn a lot. i want to just mention a few more statistics because we're talking about children. numbers don't ever paint the right picture, but they're instructive on a night like tonight. i live in a state which has a proud tradition of support for the second amendment -- and i mean really strong, like maybe no other state in the country, maybe one or two others, but nt many -- a strong tradition of hunting and sport. and hunting is almost a part of not just the culture of our state but part of family life.

fathers and sons go out and hunt, and i'm sure fathers and daughters or mothers and daughters. it is part of growing up in some communities. and they go out and hunt, and they participate in a tradition. they work to do it safely. they do a lot of training. they pass on from one generation to another, not just the experience but the rules and the way to do things. we have as strong a tradition as any in the country. by some estimates, we have about a million gun owners. i don't know where that puts us in the rankings. but it's no lower than second or third or fourth in the country. so we have a lot of people in our state that not only value the second amendment but the benefits of that amendment for their lives are significant, because they get to own a gun to

hunt, in some cases, obviously, for many people to protect themselves or their families. here's what the numbers tell us about just gun violence in a state like pennsylvania as it relates to children, as it relates to children only. according to the pennsylvania trauma systems foundation, every year about 400 children -- meaning individuals under the age of 20 -- that's the cut off-age. they don't say under 1. this is under 20. so children and i guess you can say "young adults." 400 are treated for firearm injuries in the commonwealth of pennsylvania. this number does not count the children who die at the scene, like most firearm suicide victims. so it doesn't even count some young people. in 2013, there were 1,378

firearm-related injuries in pennsylvania, almost half of these were persons under the age of 25 years old. in that same year, 2013, the same year as newtown, 1,670 children under the age of 18 died by gunshot. an additional 917 were injured. so in one just one year, in one state, 1,670 children died by gunshot, 9,718 injured. that's the reality. so when we consider the gravity of this problem in our cities, in communities of all kinds, in most trag -- and most tragically in orlando, florida, we know it's a problem of great significance in die mention and complexity -- dimension and complexity. we know this is not easy to solve, but we know our country has faced huge challenges in the

past. we're the country that won world war ii. without our participation, the allies could not have won. that's who america was. that was a pretty tough problem trying to defeat the axis powers and take on these powerful military machines, but we figured out how to do that. a complicated problem involving rights having to stand in line and say, i'm going to participate in this process to make our airlines safe after 9/11. so we don't have airplanes flying into buildings. but we did not surrender to the terrorists after 9/11. we came together and figured out a solution to a problem. we haven't solved the terrorism problem. we've certainly solved the problem of preventing terrorists from taking an airplane and flying it into a building, not only to kill thousands of people but to create untold kinds of

fear. so where does that leave us with the children of sandy hook? well, i'll take another day to read some of the stories. but let me just leave you with one thought, and i want to ask senator murphy a question after i read it. one of the children killed that day -- and every child's story is worthy of mention, but in the interest of time, i'll just highlight -- and it will be a highlight of one -- caroline prividi. caroline was six when she lost her life at sandy hook elementary school. among other things, they wrote that -- quote -- "caroline loved to draw and dance. her smile brought happiness to everyone she touched." that's what her obituary read at the age of six. "she'll be remembered for accompanying a nervous kindergartener on the school

bus. caroline, a first grader, sat with karen dryer's son logan on the bus each day. quote -- this is what mrs. dryer said about caroline. "she sat with her son logan so that he wasn't scared." unquote. that's what a grateful mother said about little caroline and about what she did before she died. now, what does that -- what does that mean for tonight? well, if little caroline at the age of six could comfort someone younger than she was on the bus every day, knowing he was afraid, knowing he was scared or worried about what was happening in his life, a kindergartener on

a bus, if caroline could do that and show not just a measure of courage but really a measure of responsibility, she took responsibility in her young life to help solve one problem that one of her classmates or almost classmates, one of her friends was having. i think we should take inspiration from caroline's sense of responsibility. she thought apparently it was her duty to help someone younger than she was and to give them keforts to give a measure -- comfort to gave give a measure of security. in her young life, she figured out a way to be responsible. i hope -- i hope that people across this chamber will do more than just kind of casually review these amendments and casually think about this issue and just stay in your lane, which the lane is, for a number of people here, you know, the usual response, which is, no

laws will change this. i'm glad we didn't say that after 9/11, by the way. good thing we didn't do that as a nation. no laws will change us. no policy will change us. hoi hope that we will all be responsible and serious and sober about what we're trying to do here and we'll examine our conscience to use an old expression. is there something that you can do with your vote this week, next week, next month, or next year that will help solve a part of this problem? because this is a big problem which is national going away. and every one of our lives is going to be affected by it in some way or another going forward. many of us have had -- have seen too much of this in your states and in our communities. so finally, senator you ar murpi will ask you this question: i will -- i won't guess at the answer, but in light of some of those stories -- and you know the stories -- you know the

families personally. i do not. how do you stay focused on a goal, the goal that you're pursuing and we're talking about tonight? and how do you stay inspired in the midst of and in the absence of significant progress? mr. murphy: i thank you, senator casey, for that question. and i thank you for how you've conducted yourself since the shooting in sandy hook. i was remarking to senator warner on the same top iraq but it was really you and senator warner, who in the days following the shooting came out and said, we need to engage, we need to change something and we're willing to change our minds or our level of advocacy. you were one of the most persuasive voices on behalf of the families of sandy hook in the days and weeks following, and you've been so generous to

meet with them, as have many of my colleagues when they come here. and in answer to your question, i go back to those families. so probably the worst day that i've had legislatively while i've been here was the day in which that background checks bill failed. now, remember, it didn't really fail. it got the majority of this senate to vote for it, but it failed because of a republican-led filibuster. i want to thank representative swalwel and representative gabert for joining us on the floor today. i appreciate your friends from the house being here. and i remember standing with them after that bill failed and they whispered to me some version of a very simple idea. they said, we aren't advocates for four months. we're advocates for 40 years, right? a tragedy like sandy hook or

like orlando or like aurora, it fundamentally reorders the lives of those who are affected. and the reason why i think this congress has been focused on this question perpetually since sandy hook, is because those families continue to come here, to inshow up at our doors, continue to press. and the simple answer to your question is, as long as those families aren't going to give up, then we're not going to give up. and there's no more articulate spokesman in the senate for children than you, senator casey. and i have a feeling that so long as children's lives are at risk because we are choosing to allow for dangerous criminals and potential terrorists to get weapons, then you're not going to stop either. and i appreciate your being a big part of our effort on the floor today. with that, i would yield the floor for a question, without relinquishing control of it, to senator king.

mr. king: senator, i have a series of questions, and some comments. first, i come from a predominantly rural state, a very high number of gun owners, a very low rate of gun crime. what you're talking about here today of adding the terrorist watch list as one of the elements of the background check and covering the non-covered parts of gun sales, online gun shows, will that have any practical affect an the gun owners in maine? mr. murphy: it won't have any practical affect on the law-abiding gun owners in maine. that's who we're referring to. the only effect if would have on criminals or felons that are attempting to circumvent our laws and get weapons by avoiding criminal background checks. the only affect that it would have is if there were individuals on maine who were the subject of terrorist investigations. they would be prevented from buying weapons. but of course even those

individuals, if they thought they were on the list for the wrong reasons, would have a process aggrieve that. but for law-abiding citizens in pennsylvania, nevment maine, and new jersey, this law has no effect on them. mr. king: they'd have to go through the instant background check and the law that, as if they were a felon or something like that, then they would be in -- prevented. but other than that, this isn't going to have any practical effect on the law-abiding gun owners in maine? mr. murphy: it will have no effect on law-abiding gun owners in maine or anywhere else. this has nothing to do with those individuals. mr. king: i want to take a different -- a slightly different view than i've heard today on the issue of terrorism. i am a on the intelligence committee. every tuesday and thursday afternoon that we're in session, we meet upstairs in an -- an endisclosed room.

ever since i've been here, the subject has been terrorism. has been the threats that this country is facing around the world. and what's happened in the last four years is a subtle change in the nature of that threat. and when we first came, we were talking about al qaeda. we were talking about plots. we were talking about people coming here using airplanes otherwise penetrating this country from abroad. what's happened is that the terrorist threat has become homegrown. in fact, there's even a term for it of homegrown extremists or local terrorists. and isis is here. every place there is a computer with an internet connection, isis is there. and people, like the shooter in

orlando, may never go to the middle east. i think he actually had traveled, but many of the people that are involved in this threat to our nation never leave the united states. so here's what we're doing and here's why your amendment makes so much sense. because we are spending millions of dollars, in fact billions over the past 15 years to counter act this terrorist threat. and it suddenly occurred to me as i was thinking through it, we're spending millions of dollars to bomb isis's weapons supplies in syria and iraq, and they can buy their weapons here. how much sense does that make? it just is crazy that we are spending millions of dollars to interdict their weapons supply, and yet the people who are here who are under their that you tho

are thinking about terrorist acts and who are aspiring to these acts can walk out and get a gun without any hesitation as long as they don't violate one of the terms of the current law. the other piece of this that i think is important is that the current law that has the list of prohibitions -- mental illness, felony, domestic violence, there were nine -- was passed in 1993. the world is enormously and fundamentally different than it was in 1993. in 1993 we barely heard of al qaeda. there was no isis. there was very little threat or acknowledgement or understanding of terrorism whatsoever but now we're in terrorism 2.0. what happened in orlando is exactly what we've been hearing about in the intelligence committee what's been predicted

by all of us our intelligence officials, what many of us have been talking about. it's the nightmare scenario, an american who is radicalized online, who goes out and gets a gun and kills 50 people. that is the hardest threat to stop because there's no plot, there's no e-mail trail, there's very little phone calls. it's hard for our intelligence community to track someone like that. but if we have some knowledge of them, if they're in our data base, to me, it just makes common sense that that should be added to the list of disqualifications for buying guns. and this is no threat to anybody who's not on such a list. and i understand, and you can please comment that the legislation that we're talking about has a constitutional escape hatch for people who are wrongly on the list or whose

names are mixed up. and they will have an opportunity to protest that listing and have their names expunged if they can make the case that there was something wrong with them being on the list. is that correct? mr. murphy: it is correct. it is correct, and that's an important facet of the amendment that senator feinstein has introduced. but it's also important, as we remarked earlier, perhaps when you are on the floor senator king to talk about the scope of this. we're talking about a small number of sales that have been affected. in 2015, we know in that year there were only about 215 sales at gun stores to individuals that were on the terrorist watch list. so it's a very small number of sales that we're talking about in the first place. mr. king: if that's such a

small number why are we bothering because it only takes one to kill 50 people. and that's the essence of what you're talking about. as i understand it, there are two parts of what you're talking about today. you're not talking about assault weapons bans, magazine controls, not any of those things. you're talking about two things. terrorist watch lists, if you're list you can't buy a gun. no fly, no buy. the second is to fill the loopholes in the background check system because, as i understand your argument, if we say if you're on the watch list you can't buy a gun, but there's this gaping 40% loophole where you could get a gun without any check whatsoever, then it doesn't matter. anybody, the felon, anybody can get a gun under that circumstance. is that the logical progression? mr. murphy: that's exactly right. i think you very smartly referred back to the initiation of the background check system in which no one was contemplating a terrorist watch list or a no-fly list existing.

it's the same thing with internet sales. it's the same thing with onlist.com. it's the same thing with gun shows. back when we passed the background checks law, the vast majority of gun sales was done at bricks and mortar stores. what has happened is sales migrated into other forms especially online. so in all of these respects, i think you're accurately pointing out that all we're really seeking to do is to have the law and the initial intent of it catch up with the trajectory of time. mr. king: i find it hard to believe that if we were debating that law in 1993 under the current circumstances that some cognizance wouldn't have been taken of the risk of domestic terrorists. mr. murphy: i don't think there would have been any question that that category would have been included. that is probably why 80% of americans support the adoption of this amendment or some version of it. mr. king: by the way, i would mention that since you have been on the floor today, ten people

have been murdered with guns. it's about one an hour. since the orlando shooting, 100 people, twice as many as in orlando, have been murdered with guns. so we're talking about orlando, but we're also talking about people all over the country, mostly innocent people, sometimes people, victims of domestic violence. and we're talking about not about taking guns away from people. we're talking about keeping people who shouldn't have them from getting guns. and i've never met a gun owner who doesn't agree that that's just a commonsense restriction. do you view this in any way as a violation of the second amendment? mr. murphy: senator udall was on the floor earlier. he said someone called his office today asking why we're debating the second amendment today. we're not debating the second

amendment. the second amendment is clear. as the supreme court has stated, an individual has a right to own a firearm, but as that same court very clearly stated in an opinion by justice scalia himself, that right is not absolute. congress has the ability to say some weapons should be out of bound. even the most conservative jurists on the supreme court have held very plainly that the second amendment allows for the congress or for state legislatures to decide there are certain individuals -- felons, people who have been convicted of violent crimes or individuals suspected of terrorist activities -- that shouldn't buy a weapon. as we remarked earlier if you go into any gun club in maine or connecticut that is what people are going to believe in those forums. they believe law abiding citizens should be able to get any weapons they want by and large but they don't believe criminals should be able to buy

weapons. that's a view held by gun owners and nongun owners alike because everyone accepts that it is in keeping with the second amendment. mr. king: don't you think one of the problems with this debate as it's evolved over the past few years, it's become a kind of either/or. if you're for the second amendment, there are no limitations whatsoever. and if you talk about limitations, you're against the second amendment. do you accept that characterization? mr. murphy: i think you're right. i think this has become an either/or debate in many respects. i'm so glad you're weaving together these questions. there is also this juxtaposition in which these terrorist attacks are either about the fight against isis or they're about our loose gun laws. and they're about both. and this shooting in orlando is about a whole host of other subjects as well. and so i think we've tried to stay true to the complexity of this question on the floor during this time. we are not suggesting that what we are proposing is going to solve the problem.

but we do have to get out of this paradigm in which if you're a supporter of the second amendment, you can't support any restrictions on individuals, whether or not they're on the terrorist watch list, to obtain guns. mr. king: this solution that's being proposed, even if it only prevents one person that could mean 50 lives or 100 lives. i think that's important. by the way it is a dirty trick to quote justice scalia. and he did make it clear in the heller amendment, as you point out, the second amendment as the first amendment or any of the amendments are not absolute. people say the first amendment says congress shall make no law respecting speech. but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. that's established law. and skwhraoepblg in the -- and justice scalia said the second amendment is not absolute. there are limitations that can be placed upon it particularly in the transfer of firearms. i think that's what we're

talking about here. i commend the senator and i believe that what we're talking about -- and let me go back to the intelligence committee for a minute. it took me two or three months -- maybe i'm a slow learner but i'm sitting in the intelligence committee and i finally had two really visceral insights. one was we're the only people watching the intelligence community. you've got -- we've got this large apparatus, and we've got these small committees in the house and senate and we're the only people watching. that's not relevant to this debate, but that was an important realization that imposed upon me what i thought was an extraordinary responsibility to pay close attention to what these agencies are doing. the second insight was that the fundamental role of the intelligence committee -- and i would argue the fundamental role of this body -- is to constantly monitor and calibrate the tension that exists between two

fundamental provisions of the constitution, in this case three. the first is in the preamble. fundamental reason that this government was formed in the first place, to ensure domestic tranquillity and provide for the common defense. that's the essence of any government. fundamental sacred responsibility. and then we have the first amendment, the second amendment, fourth and fifth amendment that have issues of privacy, issues of gun ownership and we have to constantly balance and calibrate those provisions based upon technology and reality, circumstances, facts. and we have a new set of facts. we are facing a threat today in the united states that's different than what we have ever faced before where we have people who are being motivated from abroad mostly but are in

our society, in our country. this fellow in orlando was an american citizen, born here. and we've got to take cognizance of that. we've got to take account of that reality. if we don't, we're failing, it seems to me, our fundamental responsibility under the preamble of the constitution to provide for the common defense. that's what the people of america expect us to do to keep them safe. and this is simply one piece of the armor that we can provide to keep the people of america safe. i conclude with a question to the senator, is there any hope of getting this accomplished? where are we? why is this so hard? this seems to be a commonsense response, and i read a quote from the n.r.a. today that said we believe that terrorists should not have guns. so is there room for discussion,

for compromise? do you feel that there is an opportunity here to get to a place where we can respond to this new threat that's facing us without in any way compromising the values of the second amendment? mr. murphy: i thank the senator for guiding us towards that compromise. on this issue, we are speaking the same language. frankly in background checks we tend to speak the same language. we both say, republicans and democrats, that we don't want criminals to get guns. we both say we don't want terrorists to get gun, and yet we've been unable to meet in the middle. my understanding is the majority want people who shouldn't be on the list to get off the list. so do we. we have no less interest in due process than they do. we want to bring these issues to a vote on the floor, but our preference is to bring a

compromise measure that can pass and get the support of both sides. i know that we've had senator toomey and some others come to the floor today and suggest that there's some work to be done to get a compromise. my hope is that we can get there. if we can't, let's at least take a vote and let the american people see where we stand. mr. king: but my understanding is the amendment as proposed does provide specific process whereby a person who believes that they are wrongfully on the list, wrongfully denied the opportunity to purchase a firearm, they have that opportunity to contest that, to have it litigated and have it resolved in a reasonably prompt manner. mr. murphy: and i think that is then the difficulty in finding this compromise. the existing text gives the ability already for anyone who police chiefs that they are on the list wrongly to get off that list, and that's why i said that we are just as concerned with that in the underlying amendment that we have proposed, that senator feinstein has proposed does exactly that. it gives an escape hatch for

anyone that is on that list wrongly. mr. king: one of the odd things about this debate is that if this had been 15 years ago, i don't think we would even be having this debate. background checks was generally uncontroversial. if we had had the terrorist threat, i can't believe it couldn't have been -- we have got domestic violence on there. how about terrorism violence? that should be part of this as well, and that's all you're really proposing, is that correct? mr. murphy: that is correct. it is only controversial here, senator king. it's not controversial out in the american public. they want this done by and large, so we have created a controversy that really doesn't exist in the living rooms and social halls of this country. mr. king: i thank the senator, thank you for your answers and thank you for your leadership on this issue. mr. murphy: thank you, senator king. i think it is really important that we have the diversity of our caucus represented as part of this discussion today. senator king and senator donnelly both strong supporters of the second amendment, and i'm glad to yield the floor for a question without losing my right to the floor to senator

donnelly. mr. donnelly: will the senator from connecticut yield for a question? mr. murphy: i will. mr. donnelly: like all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, i was sick when i learned of the tragic shooting in orlando. since sunday, like so many people, my thoughts have been with the families and with the friends of the victims, with the lgbt community, with the people of orlando, with all americans who are mourning the loss of loved ones at the hands of senseless gun violence. my thoughts are also with the parents across our nation. we have to explain to our kids how can something like this happen in our country? we were elected in this chamber to do a job, to discuss issues, to debate them and to vote, to vote on legislation that makes our communities and our country

safer. i came to the floor tonight to participate in this discussion because we have a job to do and we have action to take. senator murphy, i want to thank you for leading this effort. i am a supporter of the second amendment. i'm also someone who believes it's reasonable for all of us to consider smart and responsible ways to reduce gun violence. those things are not in opposition to each other. since i have come to the senate, we've talked about mass shootings in orlando, in san bernadino, in charleston and in the senator's home state of newtown, connecticut. the truth is there is gun violence across this country every single day. no state is immune, including my

home state of indiana. every victim of gun violence is someone's mom or someone's dad, someone's sister or someone's brother or someone's son or someone's daughter or someone's husband or someone's wife, and those lives are destroyed. there are bipartisan proposals we can consider today that can make a difference. they won't solve every problem, but we can save lives. we can start by considering the bipartisan proposal by senators joe manchin and pat toomey, that strengthens our background check system to help prevent criminals and individuals with serious mental illnesses from getting

guns. this legislation requires background checks for all commercial gun sales whether they are at a store or whether they are at a gun show or whether they are online. we should also debate and pass bipartisan legislation that denies firearm sales to known or suspected terrorists. this is simple american common sense. this is what the american people expect of us. this is what we were elected to do. if a person is on a terrorist watch list, they shouldn't be able to buy a gun. it is that simple and that uncomplicated. it's time to do our job, to do our job as members of congress to confront the serious problem of gun violence in our country,

to debate our options and to work to find solutions that help keep all americans safe to protect our individual rights. as members of this body, we have differences but we shouldn't have differences on this. we have also demonstrated that we can find common ground at critical times. i'm confident every member of this body agrees we should keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, people with mental illnesses. this should not be controversial. i urge all my colleagues to come together on behalf of the american people who have blessed us with this opportunity to serve here and to stand up for them and to vote on these

proposals. it is the very least we can do for those families, for the people we represent and for the serious obligation and responsibility they have given to us to do these things. they expect us to do our job. it's time for us to step up to the plate. with all that in mind, i have a question for my good friend, the senator from connecticut, and the question is this -- senator, don't we owe it to the victims of orlando, the victims from your home state in newtown, the victims of charleston and to the victims of gun violence in all our states to have a vote on these proposals which are bipartisan in every single way?

mr. murphy: senator donnelly, i think that last phrase is the most important. they are bipartisan in every single way. we've had bipartisan support for these proposals on the floor of the senate, but frankly more importantly in indiana and connecticut there is bipartisan support, whether you are talking to progressive democrats or rock rib republicans, they all are of the consensus position that if you can't fly because we have deemed you to be a terrorist threat, then you probably shouldn't be able to buy an assault weapon, and that if you are a criminal, that it shouldn't really matter whether you walk into a gun show or a gun store, you shouldn't be able to buy a weapon. and so i think you put it perfectly, which is that in every way these are bipartisan proposals, and it's incumbent

upon us to at the very least show the american public where the senate stands on these issues, show the people of indiana and connecticut and illinois where senators stand on these two simple questions that have bipartisan grassroots support in this country. mr. donnelly: let me ask you one more question, which is this. senator, do you think we are underestimating in this body that the senators are underestimating the common sense of the american people, that they know terrorists shouldn't be allowed to have these weapons, that they know it's a danger to our kids, to our families, that we would do great credit to the american people to have the faith in them, to believe in them that they are ready to take these steps, they are ready to see their senators

take these steps and to stand with us because we all love our children, we all love our families, we all want to make sure that when they go out to be with their friends, they come home safe that night, that for all of our families, whether republican or democrat, that by -- or most important, you know, we're not red or blue. we're red, we're white and we're blue. we're all americans. we are one team. we are in this together. and doesn't it seem to make sense that -- that here we ought to be able to reflect the will of the american people, and i think the american people are ready for this, senator, don't you? mr. murphy: it's just -- it's a political issue here. it's not a political issue anywhere else. and you talk about, i think, a very apt description of our underestimation of the common sense of the american people, i also think we underestimate our

ability to fundamentally address the fear that exists today about the next terrorist attack. i think if we were able to come together and pass these two simple measures, it would be a show of faith for the american people that we get it, that we understand how anxious they are, how fearful they are, how angry they are, and there is a salve to the wound that could come if we were able to come together and act. it's not just that we would make a practical difference, stopping potential terrorists from getting guns, but it would have a psychological impact on people, so i think you're right that we underestimate the common sense of the american public, but i also think we underestimate our ability to do something meaningful to address what is a very legitimate anxiety in the public having watched san bernadino to orlando. i thank the gentleman and i yield to senator durbin for a question without losing the right to the floor.

mr. durbin: i'd like to direct a question to the senator from connecticut. first i would like to acknowledge that the senator from connecticut took the floor about ten hours ago and has stood here with his colleague, the senator from new jersey, senator booker, and many others who have joined him during the course of this day. senator blumenthal of connecticut was also here. i'd like to ask a few questions and then ask you to react to a news story that just came out today. i think it's important for us from time to time to remind those who are just starting to follow this debate why we are here and particularly why you, senator, have been on the floor for ten hours straight. this is unusual in the senate. it is technically known as a filibuster when one member takes the floor and doesn't yield the floor, and it's done for a variety of reasons. it's been done throughout the history of this chamber, but i hope we can make it clear from the outset of why we're doing it today, why you are leading it and why we are joining you

today, why this is an important message that we are trying to send across america from one coast to the other and include the islands of hawaii, that we are dealing with this because what happened in orlando has really focused america on gun violence and the terrible tragedy that occurred there with 49 deaths and almost another 50 who were injured, seriously injured as a result of this gunman who turned his gun loose on -- guns loose on these poor people who gathered at this nightclub. i'd like to ask the senator from connecticut at the risk of repeating himself, which is part of what we do here, but at the risk of making sure that those who are following the debate, if he would tell us the two issues that he believes bring us together in this effort, this common effort late this evening on the floor of the senate. mr. murphy: i thank the senator for continuing to focus us on why we're here.

we're frankly not here just to talk. we're here to try to bring some resolution to this debate and to move on on the consideration of the c.j.s. appropriations bill. we're asking for two votes on what could be consensus measures with respect to protecting americans. one, we want to make sure that if you are on a terrorist watch list, if you are on the no-fly list, that you cannot buy a gun. that you are prohibited by law from buying a gun. no controversy about that in the american public. it would make a tremendous difference. second, in order to make that provision truly effective, we need to make sure that no matter where you buy a gun, whether you buy it at a bricks and mortar store, online, or at a gun show that you are subject to background checks. one of those provisions without the other doesn't protect us. both of them together protect americans from terrorist attack, protect the flow of illegal guns into communities like chicago without having any effect on

individuals' second amendment rights. if you were a law-abiding citizen in this country, the two measures that we are proffering for a vote on the senate floor will have zero impact on you. if we can get an agreement to move forward in a consensus way on those two measures, my hope is that we could come together and find language that both sides could agree with. at the very least, we should have a vote on these measures so we can see where people stand, then we will gladly relinquish the floor. mr. durbin: i would ask the senator from connecticut without yielding the floor another question. our colleague from california, senator feinstein has filed an amendment. i believe she's making some slight changes to it, but the amendment addresses the first issue. it authorizes the attorney general of the united states to deny requests to transfer a firearm to a known or suspected terrorist. now, the senator from connecticut has said repeatedly and i'd like to repeat it

myself, this is something the vast majority of americans say you mean a terrorist can buy a gun in america and you can't stop them? so overwhelmingly democrat, republican, independent, gun owners, non-gun owners believe this is common sense. the senator from california in this amendment says hereafter the attorney general maiden nye the transfer of a firearm if the attorney general determines based on the totality of circumstances that the transferee, purchaser of the firearm, represents a threat to public safety based on a reasonable suspicion that the transfehrees has been engaged, been engauged, in preparation for, in aid for or related to terrorism or providing material support or resources thereof. so in the first sentence of about six or seven sentences amendment, the senator from california in a few words says exactly what the senator from connecticut has said. we want to give to the attorney

general the power to stop a suspected terrorist from buying a firearm in this country, the power. today we had a briefing and i know you couldn't attend because you were here on the floor with this important responsibility. the briefing came from the leader of the federal bureau of investigation, jim comey. jeh johnson, the head of the department of homeland security. and they talked about what happened in orlando. some of the things they told us cannot be repeated outside of that closed door briefing. and some of it will come out as the investigation unfolds. but here's something that they told us that can be shared. this man who went into that pulse nightclub at 2:00 in the morning in orlando had two firearms with him, and before that evening was over, that tragic evening ended, he had shot hundreds of rounds into that crowded nightclub. this one man, hundreds of

rounds. and what i asked him was, please put this in perspective for me. since 9/11, since 9/11, we have focused on what happened that terrible day when 3,000 innocent americans died because terrorists took over airplanes and crashed them into the world trade center, into the pentagon, and might have crashed them into this building had the brave passengers and crew not stopped them over pennsylvania. what we do every single day is to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for safety on airplanes and airports because we don't want to run the risk that a passenger will get on board a plane and endanger the lives of passengers, up to 200 passengers or more with a bomb or some other means. we go to elaborate lengths. think about t. how many times have you taken off your shoes, opened your bags, put things on the conveyor belt? we've done this now no 15 years

so we don't have to relive the tragedy of 9/11. well think about this for a second. if that same terrorist decides not to use an airplane but to use a semiautomatic weapon, the kind of weapon used by this man in orlando, that person can endanger the lives of hundreds of people and kill 49 in that tragic situation. so my question to the senator from connecticut is this. as we are focusing on the use of these military-style weapons, are we not reflecting the new reality of the terrorist threat to america, not just airplanes and the other means that they've used but now what appears to be a more common weapon of choice, commonly purchased at gun stores by even suspected terrorists? is that not what you are focusing on and we are focusing on as the first thing that needs

to be changed in the law? mr. murphy: senator, let me read you the transcript of a video from one of al qaeda's most important operatives, an american by the name of adam gadeon. he's deceased now but here's what he said in a video that he sent to potential converts in the united states. quote, "in the west you've got a lot at your disposal. let's take america, for example. america is awashed with easily obtainable firearms. you can come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card. so what are you waiting for?" this is an al qaeda operative, an al qaeda recruiter specifically instructing their potential followers in the united states to go to gun shows to buy assault weapons in order

to carry out lone wolf attacks. this isn't theoretical. we aren't making this up on the floor of the senate. this is a clear strategic decision on behalf of these groups. they are losing territory inside iraq and syria. they are more dependent on lone wolf attacks than ever and they have figured out that the quickest pathway to massive death and destruction is not to hijack an airplane, is not to construct an explosive device, but to buy an assault weapon. mr. durbin: if the senator would yield further for a question mufer i would -- mr. murphy: i would. mr. durbin: without yielding the floor. despite the worst mass murder in the united states of america that occurred in orlando, florida, despite the national reaction and international reaction to this tragedy, there was no issue scheduled this week in the united states senate on the issue of firearms and terrorism, not one, not until the senator from connecticut took the floor ten hours and 20

minutes ago and said i'm not going to sit down until there's an agreement that we're going to debate this issue on the floor of the united states senate. it was not even on the schedule of things for us to discuss this week until this senator from connecticut and his friends and colleagues decided to make an issue of it. and i ask the senator if he is aware of the fact that today the american medical association put out a press release in chicago. i think it's historic and i'd like to read it if my colleagues will bear with me for a minute. the word -- when is from the american medical association. the worst mass shooting in modern u.s. history has prompted the american medical association to call gun violence, quote, "a public health crisis" and urge that congress fund research into the problem. the american medical association which lobbies on behalf of doctors said on tuesday it will press congress to overturn 20-year-old legislation that blocks the centers for disease

control and prevention from conducting research on gun violence. a 29-year-old gunman slaughtered 49 people at a gay nightclub in orlando, florida before dawn on sunday. the ama adopted a policy at its annual meeting in chicago. it called u.s. gun violence a crisis that requires a comprehensive response and solution. i'm going for ask consent that the remainder of this a.m.a. release be made part of the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. durbin: i thank -- and to complete the question. i'd like to complete the question and i'm happy to yield the floor. the point that we're getting to is this is the beginning of an important national debate brought on by the tragedy in orlando. it is a debate which would not have occurred this week had the senator from connecticut and his colleagues not taken the floor with this filibuster on the senate floor. i thank the senator for his leadership on this. and i ask the senator if we can

reach a point, if we can reach a point where we have a statement by the republican leadership in the senate that they'll give us the votes on these two key issues that we've raised over and over again, is that the purpose and intent of your filibuster? mr. murphy: i thank the gentleman for this question. that's exactly why we're here. let me just reiterate the supposition, the premise of his question. i and senator booker and senator blumenthal and i know you share this view as well just couldn't come back here and debate amendments on the c.j.s. bill that had nothing to do with this epidemic of gun violence witnessed most recently by the worst mass shooting in the history of this country. i just simply couldn't come back here and pretend, and pretend that there's nothing we can do about it because of course, of course we can come together and find a path forward. and so, yes, we're on the floor demanding a vote because it would be unconscionable to leave

this week without having a specific debate on these measures and without trying to find a path forward. now, i will say to my friend that my greatest hope, my greatest hope is that we can find common ground on these measures, but in absence of common ground, in absence of a willingness on behalf of the majority party to actually sit down and negotiate this, then let's have the vote. then let's have the vote and see where members of this body stand up or down. let's see what members choose to do a week after the worst mass shooting in the history of this country when they are proffered with the question do you want terrorists to be able to own guns in this country. do you want individuals who have known connections to terrorist organizations to be able to buy military assault-style weapons? let's put that question on the floor of the senate and see what everyone's answer is. i thank the gentleman and i would yield the floor to senator

brown for a question without losing my right to the floor. mr. brown: first of all, i so appreciate senator durbin -- i so appreciate your -- mr. brown: i so appreciate the work that senator murphy has done. i appreciate the work he's done, senator booker, senator blumenthal. i welcome others of my colleagues to the floor and i heard senator king said something, say something from maine. we know what happened with this terrible shooting in orlando with 49 innocent people killed. we know what happened in sandy hook. we know, we heard senator kaine talking earlier today about what happened at virginia tech. we heard what happened in denver when they shot the planned parenthood clinic. we know what happened in san bernardino. we know what happened in

southern ohio and rural appalachia area of my state where a number of people were killed. it didn't get quite as much attention. we know what happened in my city of cleveland, a 12 crearld boy who was -- 12-year-old boy who was gunned down but what senator king said was so interesting. we see these awful massacres of five or ten or 20 or as many now as 49 people murdered in cold blood but what he said, if i could hear it exactly right was every hour on the average a person is murdered in this country. to or three people die from gun violence. since the orlando massacre, about a hundred people have been killed by gunfire, twice as many as were killed in orlando and it just begs the question we have briefings -- we had a briefing today, an intelligence briefing from the f.b.i. as senator durbin said about this mass killing. we all get together and talk about these mass killings but we

don't talk about the day-by-day gun violence. and i think the american people, they surely know of the mass killings. they also write our offices. they always tell us to do something and then interest tends to diminish as it becomes a day old, two days old, three days old, four days old news. but what senator king said was so important that this just happens every day. as senator booker says, it's often a poor kid that's murdered. i was on the floor earlier tonight and i mentioned how my wife and i live in zip code 44105 in cleveland. that zip code in 2007 had more foreclosures than any zip code in the first half of the year, any zip code in the united states of america. it's a zip code where there are a lot of -- there's a lot of poverty. there's a lot of vie lens -- of violence. the other night when i was in washington my wife heard gunshots and heard a police siren. that's happened far too many times when i'm home. if my grandchildren are there,

you're alarmed. it's usually the gunshots may be a quarter mile away, a half mile away but we know each time it might be somebody who's badly injured or worse. my question for senator murphy is, how do you -- you know, we see what's happening. we see maybe the members of the senate who have been at the beckon call of the gun lobby, maybe they're listening now. how do we make sure that we remind them and remind the american people, buzz i don't think -- because i don't think the american people think about what senator king said, that there's one murder an hour roughly in this country on average, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, that there are two or three people that are -- two or three people that are victims of gunfire day -- hour after hour, day after day. all we really read about, all we really react to is these terrible, terrible mass shootings but not the day-by-day, hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute violence. how do we bring that to people's

attention so people in this body go home and do their job. in senate is not doing its job in confirming a supreme court nominee, not doing its job for the mine workers that senator donnelly and senator durbin have in our states or the pensioners with the teamsters central state fund. they're not doing their job there either, but on one, how do we until this senate does the right thing, senator murphy, how do we keep attention on this issue when people's memories are so, memories fade and we go back to work and do nothing? that's why you're standing on this floor hour after hour after hour. understand anybody that's watching -- and i know we're not speaking to the country here -- but this is a senator from connecticut who has not sat all day, has not been able to eat, just stands here and leads this debate and leads this filibuster, pleaing for this senate, most of our colleagues are out for dinner or home now, but pleading for our colleagues to actually stand up and do the

right thing. and i give him so much credit for that. how do we sustain this until we get our colleagues here to finally do their job in. mr. murphy: i thank the senator for the question. i'll give credit to senator booker and senator blumenthal who have been here. i think senator booker has been physically standing for the exact same amount of time that i've been physically standing as well. but hopefully we're answering that question right now. let me just give the, give you the evidence of what's happening in social media today. this filibuster has been the number-one trending topic on twitter all day long. so there is nothing being discussed more on the most popular social media application in the country than our effort to bring light on to this epidemic of tragedy that exists in our cities every day. you probably don't know this, most people don't know this but last year there was a mass shooting on average more than once a day because if you

categorize a mass shooting as four or more people being shot at any one time, there were mass shootings happening in cleveland and in baltimore and in new orleans and in bridgeport and chicago on a regular basis. and so this effort, i hope, is not just in the service of trying to bring a vote and a debate to the floor on these two measures, but on opening this country's eyes to the epidemic of gun violence that exists. secondarily, i think we need to do more of what senator baldwin did earlier tonight. we've got to come down to this floor, go out in our communities and tell the stories of who these victims are. tell the stories of who these young 17- and 18-year olds are who died in your cities, in my cities. tell the story of their moms and their dads that were left behind. personalize this in a way that right now is not real for most americans.

i've gotten the question a number of times tonight why haven't we been able to move this debate? and i think some of it is on us. i think some of it is on us for not being as relentless as we can on the floor of the senate, out in our tkreubgts -- districts in commanding attention to this issue. it frankly warms my heart to look around this room today and see eight or nine or ten senators still sitting on the floor at 10:00 at night, and maybe this is a means to recommit ourselves to bringing this message of the reality of everyday gun violence in our cities to every single corner of this country. and so i thank the gentleman and would yield for any further questions. mr. schumer: mr. president, would my colleague from connecticut yield for a question? mr. murphy: i yield for a question without losing the right to the floor. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague. before i get to my question, let

me say i just came from the sandy hook promise dinner, family members who lost loved ones in that horrible tragedy of sandy hook. they were so inspired by the actions of their two senators who are chairs of this organization, the senator from new jersey and so many who have taken the floor tonight, that when i mentioned it they just rose up in standing ovation. and they inspire us. i know they have inspired our good friends from connecticut. they're amazing people. and the scriptures, when something like this happens, a loved one is taken from you, as so many loved ones were lost in orlando, as the good senator from wisconsin so eloquently documented earlier this evening, the natural inclination is to curse the darkness, to say why me, to be angry, to turn inward, to say i don't want to live life

anymore. and for those who can light candles to try and prevent this from happening to others, even though their losses will never, never, never be extinguished, the holes in their hearts will never be gone, is an amazing thing. and before i ask my question, i wanted to convey to my good friend how his activities and the activities of his colleague from connecticut and the senator from new jersey and so many others here today has inspired this group as they have inspired us. and i think the senator is correct. if we can have a virtuous cycle of being inspired by others and then trying through our small efforts to inspire others, we'll win this fight. and i have every confidence we will. we will. dr. king said the arc of history is long but bends in the

direction of justice. that's something that we're all mindful of. it will bend in the direction of justice. and my colleague from connecticut has helped bend it a little bit more. and for that, we are so, so, so thankful. i'd like to ask my colleague a question just about what we hear from some on the other side. second amendment, and the kind of proposals that we've seen from the senator from texas and the senator from pennsylvania as they seek compromise, talk about the second amendment. and to them, it almost seems that the second amendment is absolute. now i, for one, believe in the second amendment. i believe there was a right to bear arms even before the heller decision. i believe that it is not fair to read the other amendments of the constitution in such an

expansive way and say second amendment means just malicious. some will agree, some will disagree. but my question to my colleague is very simple. even if you have a strong belief in the second amendment, no amendment is absolute. the first amendment, so dear to us, but you can't falsely scream "fire" in a crowded theater. that is a limitation on our first amendment rights. we have laws against child pornography, as we should. that is a limitation on our first amendment rights. we have libel laws. you say something that's false and hurts or damages someone, you can be sued. that's a limitation on first amendment rights. well, just as we have limitations on first amendment rights, there are reasonable limits on second amendment rights. and it would seem to me that one of the most logical limitations

is to say someone who is totally dangerous or might be totally dangerous and can wreak the kind of havoc we saw so tragically in orlando and in newtown and in aurora and in places across the country, san bernardino, should not have an absolute right to a firearm. and another point here before i get to my question, i find it ironic that so many of my colleagues who are so, so meticulous on the second amendment in terms of civil liberties and due process don't really seem to care about it on all the other amendments. that's the sort of inverse. we don't hear rousing speeches from some of the senators who have gotten up in the past few days about let's make sure we don't make a single mistake when it comes to the criminal justice system, we have a number of

senators in new jersey, illinois, here tonight who have worked hard on criminal justice relief. but we don't hear from the other side about the need for making sure due process is followed when it comes to the criminal -- except for the second amendment. and so let's try to be consistent here. let's believe in all the amendments, but let's realize that every amendment has a limitation, that a balancing test has always been the watch word of the supreme court from the founding of the republic. and i would ask my colleague to explore with me a little bit about this contradiction, about the idea from some that the second amendment, and maybe to some of them the second amendment alone is the only one that should be absolute. would my colleague talk a little

about that? would my colleague -- i'm sure he has thought, we've talked about this together in the past about the need for reasonable limitations on every amendment, including the second as we are attempting to do here with the two pieces of legislation we seek a vote on. simple vote. mr. murphy: i thank the senator for this question. i would just remind him and others that this concept of the second amendment that you offer is embedded in the heller decision. the heller decision itself, and the senator can chide at me for referring to the majority opinion in that decision by justice scalia earlier, but it says very -l specifically that though the majority holds there is an individual right to hold a gun that that right is absolutely not absolute. and he actually gives specific examples in the majority decision of ways in which you

can condition that right in order to effect the public safety. like, for instance, restricting the type of weapons that are bought or restricting guns and firearms from individuals who are deemed dangerous. and so this isn't theoretical. this is the law, the law, the interpretation of the second amendment as determined by this court. and on this question of inconsistency, let's just keep it packed into the question of the terrorist watch list. i have not heard one of my republican colleagues come down to the floor and defend the right of those on that list to get into any airplane they want and travel anywhere in the world. there's no one that has done that, nor will they. and that is because of this inconsistency. this inconsistency in which the absolute protection of second amendment rights is treated in a

fundamentally different way than the protection of other rights. it is no less dangerous for an individual to pick up a dangerous assault weapon that can kill hundreds of people at a time than it might be in order to get on a crowded airplane. you could conceiveably kill the same number of people with an assault weapon as you can with an airplane. yet those two rights, the right to travel and the right to own a gun, are treated differently. mr. schumer: i thank my colleague. mr. murphy: i thank my colleague from new york, and i would, through the chair, yield for a question to the senator from minnesota joining us, without losing my right to the floor. ms. klobuchar: thank you. i ask the senator from connecticut to yield for a question without yielding the floor. mr. murphy: i would. ms. klobuchar: thank you so much to the senator from connecticut. one of our colleagues noted not many people are watching this. but having been around, a lot people are watching this.

the country is watching this because people are waiting for action. for so many of us that have been involved in law enforcement, for me it's a series of pictures. it's the pictures of those victims in orlando. and with every picture there's a story. everyone killed in that massacre was someone's brother, was someone's son, was someone's loved one. i think of the little girl with the blue dress with stars on walking down a church. her dad had been murdered by a mad man, someone who was mentally ill, someone who was a perpetrator of domestic violence. her dad was a police officer. lake city, minnesota, beautiful little town on a beautiful lake. and he was just doing his job one day, and he was called to this home. he went to the front door. he had on a bullet-proof vest, but the guy shot him and he shot him in the head. and there we were all at the

funeral. the same church where only a week ago the children had been in a nativity play and their dad was sitting in the front proudly watching them. a week later that same family was walking down the center aisle of the church, a little girl in a blue dress covered in stars. or i think about those sandy hook parents, the ones that senator murphy knows so well, who were in my office as they were in many other senators' offices the morning of the vote of the background check bill. i told this story earlier this afternoon. and the mom is sitting there, and they're all so, so sober, so glum because they actually thought there was a chance that the people in this chamber would respond after they lost their little children in another senseless act of violence. the mom in the office looked at me and said you know my story? she said my son severely

autistic could hardly speak. and every morning he would point at a picture on a refrigerator. it was a picture of the woman who was with him every day. and the next thing she knows, she gets a call, she goes to the school, she sits in that firehouse with those parents. some kids come in, and all the parents that are left know that they are the ones that babies are never coming back. and as we sat in that fire hall, she kept thinking about, of course, her son, but she also thought about the woman who was with him, who sacrificed her life for him, who was found with her arms around him in that school, both shot dead. those are the images that i think about. the little girl in the blue dress at the funeral, her daddy, police officer, shot dead at the door. that mom in my office, her son and her son's faithful aide shot

dead in that school. and then you think of all these young people killed in this massacre right in our midst, right in orlando, florida. we all know that one solution won't fit all. we all know that in some places, it's about an assault weapon. in some cases, it is about background checks. in some cases, it is about getting someone off a terror watch list that shouldn't have a gun. every solution may be different, but when you start doing the right thing, you start saving lives. tyesha edwards, a little girl shot at her dining room table doing her homework. her mom said you get your homework done, you can go to the mall. gang bullet right through the house. melissa schmidt, police officer, minneapolis police officer, young, excited to do her job, shot in a bathroom by someone who was mentally unstable.

these are the images that i think about. and as senator booker has pointed out so many times, this isn't just about the massacres. it's also about the individual cases that happen every single day, the domestic violence cases that happen every single day. so while it is so important to focus today on this bizarre situation where you can have thousands of people on a terror watch list who can still get access to firearms, there are other things that we can do as well. we can put sensible background checks in place. you think about senator manchin, senator toomey coming together, at the time two a-rated n.r.a. legislators who are willing to come together and put that background check bill together, and those parents from sandy hook who knew that that bill would not have saved their babies but looked at what is the thing that could most get done in this body, what is the thing that we could pass that would save the most lives, because they know that the background checks, when done right, when

done thoroughly have saved lives. and they mostly help in cases of suicide, in cases of domestic violence. and they had the courage to come to this chamber, to come to our offices time and time again to advocate for something that they knew wouldn't save their babies' lives. but they did it because they knew it was the right thing and they had the courage to do it, the courage that many people did not have in this united states senate chamber. domestic violence, background checks help. you know what else helps with domestic violence? going after stalkers. right now you can get convicted of stalking and still get a gun in this country. that's why we have a bill that's a bipartisan bill in the house and the senate that would stop that. we also bizarrely don't include dating partners even though in many parts of the law they are included, you don't have to be married to someone if you have a domestic violence conviction, you can have dating partners. even the republican witnesses at our judiciary hearing agreed that that part of the law could

change. but we cannot get that simple thing changed in the law because people are not willing to take just the slightest risk to vote for it, even when their own constituents favor it. as senator murphy has pointed out over and over again, you have a situation where a majority of gun owners support these commonsense changes. you have a situation where the majority of people, the vast majority of people want to see these changes. so i just want to thank the senator from connecticut and ask him just one question focused again on the terror watch list, and i know that senator feinstein released updated information from the general accounting office just yesterday which showed that roughly 91% of known or suspected terrorists who attempted to purchase a firearm were able to clear a background check in 2015. i think people would be pretty shocked if they knew that statistic, and obviously one of the reasons that we are talking all day today is that people understand how bizarre this situation is, that we can't even close that loophole. and senator murphy, what does

that show to you when you hear a statistic like that that you can have 91% of suspected -- known or suspected terrorists who can purchase a firearm but still able to clear a background check? senator murphy? mr. murphy: it shows, senator klobuchar, that we are intentionally putting our constituents in danger, that we have data that tells us that when people on the terrorist watch list are walking into gun stores, they are getting approved at a 90% rate. and by the way, the 10% that aren't aren't getting disapproved because they are on the terrorist watch list. they are being denied a gun because they are on some other list. but that is a chilling statistic, and if you play that out over the course of ten years, it's the same percentage. over the course of ten years, 90% of individuals who have walked into gun stores while being on the terrorist watch list have been handed a gun that they can walk out with, and it's a small number on a year-to-year basis, 200 people, but it only takes one of those individuals in order to commit a mass

atrocity. and so i thank the senator for coming back to the floor here tonight and making this very clear case because what we are asking for is imminently reasonable. we are asking, senator klobuchar, as you know for debates and votes on two commonsense bipartisan amendments to the underlying bill. one legislation that would make sure that if you were on the terrorist watch list, if you were on the no-fly list, you cannot get a weapon, that you were prohibited from buying a weapon just like a violent criminal. second that background checks be extended to gun shows and internet sales so we make sure we're casting a net wide enough to capture these terrorists wherever they're trying to obtain weapons. that will, as senator durbin has said over and over again during the last ten hours, have an ancillary positive effect on the

gun violence that is plaguing his cities, my cities, your cities, senator klobuchar, because many of the ceps that flow into chicago, into hartford, into minneapolis, come through sales that happen outside of gun shows that aren't subject to background checks. and so it is thrilling to me, frankly, to have a floor right now that is full of senators at 10:00 at night. it is thrilling to me as i stated earlier that we have been, our collective effort has been the number one trending topic of twitter over the course of the entire day. it's thrilling to me that as i just heard our phone lines in our office are still ringing off the hook right now as we speak with people all around the country who are demanding that we continue to stand on this floor as long as we can, as long as i can until we get these votes. and so i thank the senator for bringing this issue back to the

floor with us, and i would be thrilled to yield for a question without losing my right to the floor to the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president? mr. president, i want to ask the senator from connecticut -- first i want to thank him for his tremendous leadership out here tonight and all through the day, and i think for senators if you have ever led a filibuster, up until that point you probably don't know for sure that you are ready for this task, but a moment occurs in which you know you must act, and steel is inserted in your spine and you come out here and you give it your all, and i want to before asking a question thank the senator from connecticut and his colleague, the senator from new jersey, for showing such steel in making sure america hears our

response to the events that have happened not just this past weekend but for so many weekends and so many days and so many incidents and simply say to our colleagues we deserve to have a vote on these two issues. so i know my colleague is impressed that there are other colleagues out here, but we are so admiring of your courage in the face of such tragedy in your state to not forget the effort that needs to happen in the united states of america, to let the american people know that policies that they would like to see debated and discussed are getting bottled up, and that's what tonight is all about. it's all about saying don't bottle them up and yes if you want to test the fortitude of a human being to see how long they can stand on their feet, we will

find out the answer to that. but the real question is are you going to let us vote on important public safety issues that the american public wants us to do something about? that's what's so ironic about the fact that we can't have the votes, is that the american people want us to have these votes and are fully supportive. i think my colleague who was just here who was a prosecutor herself, so she knows what this is all about. she knows on a day-to-day basis what it's about. so this issue of voting on the terrorist watch list an arms purchase, we say to people if you're on the terrorist watch list, we're not going to let you on an airplane, but yet you can get a gun if you're on that list. and according to a 2015 poll, 77% of the american voters supported banning sales of guns to people on the terrorist watch list. so we know that the majority of americans support us in this

effort, and yet we cannot get the support to make that happen here on the senate floor. now, i also want to bring up this issue in general about public safety because i'm reading a statistic here that washington is one of just 14 states where more people die by gunfire than by motor vehicle accidents. so we also have a statistic, 61% of perpetrators who killed police officers with gun in washington between 1980-2013 were prohibited from possessing guns but were still able to get them. so this issue for us is something that we spend a lot of time here debating and there are other of our colleagues who have led the battle on trying to have background checks and closing the loopholes that exist in current law, and i want to thank

them for that. i want to thank them for their battles and effort, but i want to ask the senator from connecticut if he is aware, which i'm sure he will be somewhat aware of this, that this issue being neglected by the united states senate is being taken up by citizens of the united states in every measure and vehicle available to them. in the face of growing violence in our state, washingtonians demanded change, and in 2014, voters in our state overwhelmingly passed a ballot initiative to require background checks for all firearm sales including online sales, sales at gun shows and sales between private citizens. so that's what we passed. that's what we passed by initiative in the state of washington. was the senator from connecticut aware that states are taking up

this effort? mr. murphy: i am aware, and i wish that weren't the case. i wish that citizens through referendum didn't have to take up this cause on a state-by-state basis because of utter inaction from this body. now, i cite the statistics in a moment maybe senator cantwell, but when states acts makes a difference, when states acts results in an appreciable decline in gun homicide rates, but it's much more effective if the federal government acts. ms. cantwell: i so appreciate the senator and wanted to ask him because his comments are right online with the comments that i think are so important for people to understand. this past march, we got the first hard numbers from the impact of this law that we passed in washington state, so in addition to the nearly 4,000 felons that we caught trying to buy a firearm in washington through a licensed firearm

dealer, so that was 4,000 felons that we caught, another 50,000 -- i'm sorry, another 50 felons were prevented from buying a gun from private sellers because of the provisions of the new law. so to me, according to data from the f.b.i., nearly 8,000 private sale background checks have occurred that otherwise we could have been prevented as you were saying as if we had a federal law across the united states of america. so the fact that we now have this law in place in our state and are now seeing the results that we are actually stopping felons from getting firearms, it says to me that these are results that the rest of my colleagues and their states should look at but we should do the united states american citizens by a favor and

noncontinuing to have this done state by state but do it at the federal level. and i ask my colleague from connecticut how aware he is of this movement and how important it is that the american public continues to demand that we deal with this issue. mr. murphy: let me just respond by giving some statistics about what happens in states with strong background check laws, that they require for every handgun purchase, and we know what the numbers are. this is unequivocal. this isn't guesswork. this isn't conjecture. we know what the gun homicide rates are in states with universal background checks laws and what they are in states without them. in states that have background check laws, 60% fewer guns are trafficked out of state. 48% fewer firearms suicides, 48% fewer police officers are killed, 46% fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners. now that's in states that have universal background checks and those numbers are to be even better and even stronger if we

had that law applied nationally because what we know is that those intimate partners who are buying a gun in the midst of their fury, those trying to traffic in illegal arms, all they have to do is sometimes cross a simple state line in order to find those weapons of destruction and bring them back into a state which has these universal background check laws. and so there is no doubt that stronger background checks laws lead to fewer gun deaths. period, stop. that is what the data shows and washington is proving that. connecticut is proving that. and it is absurd that the united states congress with 90% of the american public supporting this proposition doesn't assure this protection for everyone who lives under the umbrella of the security of this congress. a senator: i would just say to the senator from connecticut and i thank him for his leadership, we need to come together and explore ways we can stop gun

violence. we need to improve our mental health system and i know there are people who talked about that this evening as well. ms. cantwell: i just want the senator from connecticut to know in the state of washington we're looking at an additional ballot initiative to prevent gun tragedies involving mental illness and so i think people are going to continue to explore all the ways in which we can make sure that our citizens can become safe and if it takes that initiative process, i think people are going to see the result. but let's have a vote. let's at least know where your representative, your senator is on these policies that are important to have terrorists not -- if you're on the terrorist watch list and can't get on a plane, you shouldn't be able to have a gun and let us have, like the good law that's been enacted in the state of washington, a background check that is producing the result of catching felons and stopping them from having access to a gun. so i thank the senator from connecticut for answering those questions and for his leadership

again tonight on the senate floor. mr. murphy: i thank the senator from washington and i thank her for the work she did to allow the citizens of washington to be able to pass that referendum. that was a big bright spot and it was a reminder that when you take this question out of the political morass that is washington, d.c. and you give it to voters, you give it to citizens, they choose the protections that we're asking for votes on here. i would note senator king is still on the floor, there are referendums planned in maine, a referendum planned in nevada. this campaign of citizen-base activism demanding change in gun laws to reflect the overwhelming majority will of the public is happening. it is inevitable. it is not stopping. it is marching forward. we would do well to listen to that tempest and adopt these measures here. i would at this point yield the floor for a question without losing my right to the floor to

the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: mr. president, thank you for the opportunity to appear tonight. i share my praise for my colleague, the senator from connecticut. we came to the senate together and his leadership on this issue is something i admire. but more than leadership on the issue, i admire his heart and his compassion because he has suffered because his citizens have suffered. and if you suffer and you don't try to change things, you don't try to do things differently, then you're not fully alive. so i just honor that in you that you're willing to be vulnerable and in your suffering try to find help for others. i have a little scar tissue on this, mr. president, and i'd love to just describe the virginia experience in my -- and my own personal experience on this and ask a series of questions to my colleague from connecticut. i was elected to office for the first time in may 1994 to the

richmond city council. at the time i was elected, richmond had the second highest homicide rate in the united states per capita. i was sworn in on july 1, 1994. in october 1994, october 14, i'll never forget that day, in my city council district in a public housing community that is the largest between washington and atlanta in open court, a 35-year-old guy walked into an apartment and gunned down a family of six from a 35-year-old woman to her younger sister to tiny little babies and children. and i got a call as a city councilmember and i raced to the scene and it was chaos. and that has begun a 22-year experience of being too intimate with this problem. that funeral of the family in the arthur ash center in richmond with 3,000 people and six little white coffins at the front of the room is something that i will never ever forget.

a number of years later i was governor of virginia, i had just taken a trade mission to japan and had landed, checked into the hotel, had fallen asleep and someone knocked at my door. it was april 16, 2007. my security det.p.a. -- detail says you have to call home. something horrible has happened in virginia. it's still under way. and i called to find that a shooting was still then taking place at virginia tech university in blacksburg that eventually killed 32 people, injured dozens of others. at that point, at that point the worst shooting incident in the history of the united states but no longer. that was the worst day of my life and it will always be the worst day of my life. comforting the families of the victims, talking to the first responders who went into a classroom where bodies littered the floor and heard in the

pockets of deceased students and professors cell phones ringing as parents who had seen it on the news were calling their kids just knowing they're at virginia tech to ask them if they would be all right, a call that would never be answered. this traumatized some of the most hardened first responders that i know. i knew priests and ministers in that community who had seen a lot and were traumatized in the days to follow. and to the senator from connecticut, you have a reasonable proposal on the floor with respect to background record checks. the deranged young man who had committed that crime and then killed himself was not supposed to get a weapon. he was federally prohibited from getting a weapon because he had been adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous, but the weaknesses of the background check system. gaps in the background check system had enabled him to purchase this weapon and commit this unspeakable carnage.

we learned everything we could learn from that tragedy. we fixed what we could fix, but to my everlasting regret, i could fix part of the background record check system but when i went to my legislature and said let's have universal background checks so this won't happen again, even in the aftermath of the worst shooting tragedy in the history of the united states i couldn't get my legislature to do the simple thing that the voters, that gun owners, that n.r.a. members said they should do. and then a year ago it was in july of -- i'm sorry august of 2015 in the same community, the blacksburg-roanoke community in virginia, a young woman i know who was the tv reporter at wdbj television, allison parker who covered senator warner and me, we know her parents, she was shooting a live piece in the morning about an anniversary of a local chamber of commerce and a mentally ill former employee

of the station came up live on television and videoing himself and killed allison and adam ward, her cameraman and ultimately took his own life later that day. we got scar tissue in my town. we've got scar tissue in my commonwealth. we've got scar tissue in this country. we've got scar tissue personal personally. and after every one of these instances, we resolve to be better. we resolve to do more. we -- why do we need to be passive? why do we need to do nothing? reresolve to do better and do more yet here in this broad we can't. -- this body we can't. we were together here, my colleague from connecticut. i talked about the worst day of my life at blacksburg but the worst day in the senate was standing here on the floor in april of 2013 and having a debate about this very piece of legislation about background

record checks. and we were surrounded in the gallery by the victims and the families from newtown. and they were watching us. there's a line in the letter to the hebrews that talks about being surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses and we were surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses and with them were virginia tech families. and they were together and they were watching us and they were praying i know for us that we would do the right thing and yet even with the family members who had suffered from your state, senator murphy and senator blumenthal, even with those family members hoping we would do the right thing, we couldn't get there. and as surely as night follows day, there have been other tragedies and now something i hoped would never happen, a shooting tragedy that eclipsed -- that eclipsed even this horrific tragedy in blacksburg in 2007.

so the question that has to be asked is what will it take and when will we act? and so, if i could ask you a series of questions because i'm -- you know, i'm not just grappling withs as a legislator. i'm grappling with this as a person, as a parent, as a friend, as somebody who's got the scar tissue that we all have. i have an organization in my state that -- that's headquartered in my state, the national rifle association, that says we can't do anything because of the second amendment. so let me ask you a couple of questions to my colleague. you would agree with me, would you not, the second amendment, it's in the constitution. so of course it's important. it's important like the first amendment is important, wouldn't you agree with me on that? mr. murphy: it's in there for a reason, senator kaine cain cain it's been there -- mr. kaine: it's been there and it's in for a reason and is important. let me ask you about the first amendment.

the first amendment says there is a right to free speech and a right to freedom of the press. now, does that mean constitutionally that i can go out and slander and libel anyone and there's no consequence for that? mr. murphy: the first amendment is as important as the second amendment but comes with conditions and responsibilities. one of them is you can't slander your fellow citizens. you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. there are important limitations since the beginning of the republic built around the first amendment which frankly is a sacred as any of the individual rights that are encompassed in the bill of rights. mr. kaine: there's another part of the first amendment that says you have a right to assemble. now, my understanding and you're a lawyer so you tell me if i'm wrong about the right to assemble is you've got a right to assemble but a government can condition that. it can say you've got to get a permit or you can assemble here, not there. it can't discriminate among point also of view but the common constitutional provision is that there can be reasonable

restrictions on the time, place, and manner of assembly under the first amendment and that's completely constitutional. is that your understanding of the clause? mr. murphy: it's another qualified right within the bill of rights. mr. kaine: i can do the same thing on the third amendment and do the same thing on the fourth amendment. i can do the same thing on the sixth amendment and on the seventh amendment, the right by trial -- of trial by jury. each of these rights are important just like the second amendment is important. and each of these rights we commonly accept -- actually we demand, not just accept that consistent with the constitutional rights, there be reasonable limits so that we can live together in peaceable harmony as citizens and would you agree with me that there's nothing about those reasonable restrictions in the first or the second or the third or the fourth or the sixth or seventh amendments that is at all inconsistent with the constitutional framework that we

take an oath to uphold when we come into this body. mr. murphy: i have memorized portions of the constitution as well as senator king has, but he very eloquently stated for us the preamble of the constitution which commits us first and foremost to preserve domestic tranquility and to protect the common defense. so at the very beginning of the constitution is this obligation to take the issue of public safety as a sacred duty upon inheriting the mantle of preserving and defending the constitution. and so as you have stated, all of those rights in the bill of rights come with conditions and responsibilities demanded by the american people. and when we talk about the second amendment, it is educated by that very important preamble which commands all of us to do whatever is necessary to protect the safety of our citizens. mr. kaine: am i not right that the second amendment even has the phrase in it well regulated.

it even acknowledges the notion that this particular right is one where regulation is contemplated? mr. murphy: whereas the first amendment doesn't place the conditions in the text, they are read into it. the second amendment has conditions in the literal text. mr. kaine: the organization in virginia that makes this argument about the second amendment, i think we can demonstrate it is specious. the second amendment is important. we take an oath to uphold it and we do uphold it but there is nothing inconsistent with the second amendment in terms of the provisions you're talking about. here's an argument they also make. i hear them make it all the time. what these guys want to do who are advocating these appropriations is they want -- these propositions is they want to take away all your guns. you were in the house before i got here. has there ever been to your recollection in your time here a proposal that's been put in place in congress to take away the guns of american citizens? mr. murphy: it is a wonderful

subtext to all of the rhetoric that comes from the gun lobby and the n.r.a. that there is this secret agenda to essentially get the cam phrel's nose -- camel's nose under the tent through an expansion of background checks or an description of individuals on the terrorist watch list because the ultimate goal is to parachute into people's homes and take away your weapons, gun confiscation. that is a mythology created by the gun lobby in order to sell more weapons, in order to make people scared of their government so that they have to arm themselves. there is no logic to it. and as you state in reference to your question, there has never been a proposal before the united states congress to engage in any of the widespread confiscation efforts that have been imagined out of thin air by these advocacy groups. mr. kaine: i thought that was the case. i'm a gun owner and advocate of the second amendment. i'm unaware of this body

threatening to take away folks guns. we don't want to have things that restrict law-abiding citizens. we just want to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. that was for a very long time the n.r.a.'s position. don't restrict law-abiding citizens. keep guns out of the hands of bad guys. as far as you know, is there any way to enforce the existing laws and keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys pursuant to the federal laws that have been in place for a very long time that prohibit nine categories of people from owning weapons? is there any way to do that job and keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys without a comprehensive background record check so that somebody who's selling can determine whether or not somebody who's buying is a bad guy? mr. murphy: we we passed the

background checks law initially it was pretty good at keeping the hands out of of the bad guy. what has happened since that time, as you know, is that sales of the guns have transferred from bricks and mortar stores to online sales, to sales in gun shows. and because the law has not caught up, there are quite literally thousands of criminals and convicts and felons that are now walking into gun stores, are now just typing in armslist.com online and buying guns with no background check because the law has not kept up. if you are truly sincere about stopping the bad guys from getting the guns, then you have to by definition expand the number of sales that are subject to background checks to those that are happening in 40% of the sales which occur now online and in gun shows. never mind the fact that the baddest of the guys are probably the ones that have had known connections in communications with terrorists groups who are not on that list today of those

that are prohibited from buying guns. mr. kaine: can i ask you this since we started to talk about this question, has anybody come up to you and said people on the terrorist watch list, we just shouldn't be worried about them? why would we worry about people on the terrorist watch list? have they tried to argue that those are good guys? mr. murphy: quite the opposite. they would rise to the highest level of concern for most of our constituents. mr. kaine: an organization that says they are the about the second amendment, they advocate a position that has no support in the second amendment, an organization that shakes their fist we're trying to take their guns away, that has no basis and an organization that says they want to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, the only way to do that is to have a background record check. doesn't it seem like the organization's principles are really, well, let's start with this. it seems to me that they're at odds with the point of view of

not only most americans, but also most gun owners. most gun owners support the commonsense provisions that you are describing here on the senate floor. mr. murphy: i assume you have gun clubs like we have in connecticut. if you walk into a gun club in connecticut there is going to be a pretty solid consensus that criminals shouldn't buy guns and those law-abiding gun owners that sit in those gun clubs on saturdays and sundays have no problem with sales online or sales at gun shows being subject to background checks because they've gone through background checks and they know that on average a background check takes less than ten minutes. they know that it is nothing more than a nine-minute on average inconvenience for someone that's buying a gun, and they support it. further, frankly, those guys in the gun clubs are amongst the loudest in their concern that terrorists have the ability today to buy dangerous weapons and commit mass murder like we saw in orlando. so this consensus that exists

out there in the american public is not a consensus amongst progressive democrats. it's a consensus among gun owners, nongun owners, democrats, republicans, moms, dads, conservatives, liberals, georgia, connecticut, california. there isn't a cross section of the american public that doesn't support keeping bad guys from getting guns and, thus, the two reforms that we are asking for here today -- a law that prohibits people on the terrorist watch list from getting guns, and a law that expands background checks to all of the forums in which guns are sold today. mr. kaine: not only is it consistent with what the american public wants in sreurlt wawel any -- virtually any zip code in this country, i think the notion of keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys which for a long time has been the stated principle of the national rifle association, i think that is in accordance with the

opinions of the members of the national rifle association. as i've seen polling of the members, the members of the organization support back background record checks. mr. murphy: n.r.a. members support it at the same rate that nongun owners and non-n.r.a. members support it. in fact, n.r.a. members, frankly, have been historically those who have been most supportive of provisions that would prevent guns from getting in the hands of criminals because the n.r.a. members by and large are law-abiding -- are law-abiding gun owners. and so they historically have had some of the greatest concern about this which is why it's so hard to understand this disconnect between where their members are, where gun owners are and where the advocates are the organization. mr. kaine: how about disconnect between what our citizens and gun owners and n.r.a. members want and expect

us to do and the complete lack of action and, frankly, counterproductive action. let's talk about that. congress has given gun manufacturers a unique form of liability protection that virtually nobody else gets in this country. we have given, put a number of restrictions in place to stop research into causes of gun violence, to stop the ability to trace weapons in gun violence. don't all these -- these are not only not doing the right thing but doing the wrong thing in the sense of the thing that seems completely contrary to the wishes of the constituents who send us here to represent them. mr. murphy: and when you present these issues to the american public, they scratch their heads. or they scratch their heads because they assume already that individuals on the terrorist watch list can't buy guns and they think it's absurd that we passed a law that subjects toy

guns to a greater standard of negligence than real guns. i mean that's what that law effectively did. that law said if you sell a toy gun, then you are going to be subject to a higher standard of negligence if that gun misperforms than a gun company is going to be held to if its gun, its real gun misfires. and when you explain that to somebody in your state, whether you're in a red state or a blue state, they scratch their head. it doesn't make sense to them. mr. kaine: finally, if i could do this, i know as part of standing on this floor, you're not standing here over, you know, words and legislation. you're standing here because of people. i sat with you and we talked about people in your community who had been affected. i would love to tell you the story about just one virginian, if i could. and then i would love to have you comment on the story that

i'm going to tell you. and i could tell a lot of stories and a lot of different people that i could, but one just epitomizes to me so plainly this challenge. it's the story of a man named liviu u librescu. he was one of the people killed at virginia tech, professor of aerospace engineering. an amazing professor. on april 16, 2007, when cho came into norris hall and started shooting people, he stood in front of the door and he told his engineering students to try to get out of the window so that they would be safe. and he blocked the door and cho was shooting bullets through the door and he kept saying hurry, hurry until the last breath he took, he told students to hurry. and everyone in his class got

out the window except one other student, anyone in a ponchall who stayed behind and encouraged others to go ahead of him. professor lebrescue is one of the 32 killed that day. here's the amazing thing about him. he was 76 years old. he was born in the 1930's as a jew in romania. when hitler and the nazis started to sweep across europe, he and his family with put into labor camps, in concentration camps. but this amazing survivor who was a young boy and a teenager, survived the holocaust, most of his family was killed. he survived the holocaust. and now he's a teenager with a lot of his family gone and a lot of people who had been through that experience in romania decided to leave. they were so shattered.

but this is my home, my family's gone but this is my home. i'm going to stay in romania. then the soviet union took over romania and they asked that he renounce his judaism, and he wouldn't do it. and then they asked that he pledge allegiance to the communist party, and he wouldn't do it. and so he had gotten a ph.d. he was a well-recognized engineer. but suddenly first you can't travel to go to academic conferences. and then second, you're going to lose your job. and this holocaust survivor now has to live under soviet communism and be persecuted, but he wouldn't give up his faith and he wouldn't give up his moral integrity, and he kept trying for a better life. and finally in 1977, when he was past 40, he was allowed to emigrate to israel. and he moved to israel. and that had been his dream. and he was a teacher in israel. in 1985 he got a one-year

teaching tpeup at virginia d fellowship at virginia tech to teach engineering. he came in 1985 for a one-year fellowship and kept renewing year after year because he found in virginia, he found in america, he found in blacksburg a community that he loved and a community that he cared about. so somebody who survived the holocaust of the nazis, who survived the soviet oppression of his native land couldn't survive the holocaust of gun violence in this country. and there's one -- and there's one more thing about lebrescue. it's about the day that he was killed because it was a very different day for him than it was for his students. it was a monday. it was april 16, 2007. but that day was a special day in the jewish faith, for somebody who is jewish. from sundown on the 15th of

april 2007 to sundown on april 16, it's the day to remember the holocaust. and jews worldwide and people who care about judaism worldwide, it's a day to remember the holocaust. and when you remember the holocaust, well, it's one thing to reflect upon it but it's another thing to reflect upon it as a holocaust survivor. and what you reflect upon is the perpetrators and the gravity of the tragedy that they perpetrate. and you reflect upon the victims who lost their lives and you reflect upon the survivors. and you reap tphrebgt upon the heroes -- you reflect upon the heroes. and you also reflect upon the bystanders. you also reflect upon the bystanders. and so while the students who went into that class on the morning of april 16, they weren't thing about the holiday. lebrescue was. i've got to believe when that shooting started on this day when he's thinking about what

he's been through, he's faced with an existential, am i going to be a perpetrator? am i going to be a victim? am i going to be a survivor? am i going to be a hero? and he chose to be a hero. and he lost his life. he chose to be a hero, and he lost his life. would i do that? would i stand in front of a door and block it and take bullets and tell my students to get out the window? would i do that? i cannot honestly stand here and say that i would. i can't say that i would have the courage that he had. he was a hero. i can't say i would be a hero, but in this body, we don't have to be heroes. we just have to not be bystanders. we have been bystanders in this body, we have been bystanders in this nation as this carnage of gun violence has gone from one tragedy to the next.

to cast a vote, that's not heroic. to stand up and say we can be safer tomorrow, we can protect people's lives, that's not heroic. that's just saying i will not be a bystander. and that's all we have to do, stop being bystanders. and, mr. president, i would just ask my colleague from connecticut if he has any thoughts on that, and i appreciate the chance to engage in this dialogue with him. mr. murphy: i thank the senator from virginia. that is as compelling a case as can be made, and before i yield the floor for a question to senator blumenthal, who has been here with me and senator booker for every one of the now 12 hours that we have been standing here, i want to put that challenge to stop being a bystander to the body in very personal terms. this for senator blumenthal and i is rooted in our history as

well. i was not more than 30 days from my election from the senate, a celebratory moment in my life when i was sitting on a train platform to go to new york city with my then 4-year-old and 1-year-old to go see the christmas lights when i got the call about the shooting in sandy hook and senator blumenthal and i were there hours later, and there are certainly days when i wish i wasn't there and i didn't witness the things that i saw and connect with the tragedy that was evidenced that day. but our challenge from those families is to stop being bystanders, and there are similar stories of heroism that maybe i will get the chance to tell later tonight from inside those classrooms, but a letter that i keep with me is from a mother whose child survived sandy hook, and so let me just read an excerpt from it before yielding the floor to senator

blumenthal. to make this challenge real from a mom who thinks about this every day. she said in addition to the tragic loss of her playmates, friends and teachers, my first grader suffers from ptsd. she was in the first room by the entrance to the school. her teacher was able to gather the children into a tiny bathroom inside the classroom. there she stood with 14 of her classmates and her teacher, all of them crying. you see, she heard what was happening on the other side of the wall. she heard everything. she was sure she was going to die that day. she didn't want to die before christmas. imagine what that must have been like. she struggles nightly with nightmares, difficulty falling asleep and being afraid to go anywhere in her own home. at school she becomes withdrawn,

crying daily, covering her ears when it gets too loud and waiting for this to happen again. she is 6, and we are furious. i want to read you the rest of this to challenge us to stop being bystanders. we are furious that 26 families must curve with grief so deep and so wide that it's unimaginable, furious at the -- that the innocence and safety of my children's lives has been taken, furious that someone had access to the type of weapon used in this massacre, furious that gun makers make ammunition with such high rounds and our government does nothing to stop them, furious that the ban on assault weapons was carelessly left to expire, furious that lawmakers let the gun lobbyists have so much control, furious that somehow someone's right to own a gun is more important than my child's right to life, furious that lawmakers are too scared to take a stand.

this mother of a child who survived one of those sandy hook classrooms finishes by saying i ask you to think about your choices. look at the pictures of the 26 innocent lives taken so needlessly and wastefully using a weapon that never should have been in the hands of civilians. really think. changing the laws may inconvenience some gun owners, but it may also save a life, perhaps a life that is dear to me or you. are you willing to risk it? you have a responsibility and an obligation to act now and to change the laws. i hope and i pray, writes the mother of a girl that survived the massacre at sandy hook, that you do not fail. i'd yield the floor to my colleague from connecticut who has been here with me and

senator booker since the beginning 12 hours ago, i'd yield to him for a question without losing the right to the floor. mr. blumenthal: thank you, and i will ask question of my colleague and friend from connecticut, but first i want to thank all my colleagues who have been here over these 12 hours off and on speaking so powerfully as our friend from virginia just did about his experience. every one of us has this kind of experience that brings us here and binds us together in this cause because we have seen the flesh and blood and emotional impacts, and i want to read a letter also from a newtown survivor, another -- i read one earlier -- from someone who lived through newtown and wrote me after orlando, and she said as a newtown teacher who was in

lockdown at the middle school on 12/14, this work is particularly important to me. that could have just as easily been my classroom, and i find it abhorrent that we have chosen as a nation to be complacent in the face of mass shootings. it is incumbent upon us, our elected officials, to enact meaningful change in order to save lives. i urge and implore citizens around the country, people who are watching this proceeding who are listening to the powerful words of my colleagues, most especially senator murphy, to let us know that you hear us and equally important to let the other side of the aisle know, which right now is vacant,

completely empty. this side is full. the other side is empty. let them hear how you feel, how this teacher who lives in trumbull, connecticut, feels. there is a lot of talk these days in our politics about the need for change on the presidential campaign, in the senate campaigns, at every level of our elective process. politicians are telling people they will change things in washington. well, we can give people change in our laws, in our enforcement practices, in our culture. it all has to change for lives to be saved. it isn't only new laws. there has to be more resources for the enforcement of that law.

the background check is actually an enforcement tool. expanding that check gives law enforcement the ability to stop people already prohibited by law from buying guns. the terrorist watch list and the attorney general's discretion based on evidence to stop people engaged or preparing for terrorism to be barred from buying guns is an enforcement tool, it protects people, and so people should demand changes, not just in the abstract and general terms, but in the way we deal with guns. this day has been enormously meaningful because of the reaction it has provoked across the country, in our offices.

the phones that have rung, the tweets that have emanated, the messages that we have received in every form, but it must be followed by action. in this chamber, we hear words. this place is filled with words. it is what we do in this place. we talk. but actions speak louder than words. now is the time for action. enough is enough. give us the votes. give us the votes on these amendments. let us vote. that is the reason that we're here. let us act to fulfill the expectations and the wishes of the american people who are begging for us to take meaningful action, and we need to do our job. that's our job, is to act and to

protect the american people. so i would ask my colleague from connecticut whether he believes that we can reach a resolution here that will permit us to act, whether reasonable minds can come together, what we can forge consensus involving the other side of the aisle, whether we can bridge the partisan gaps and come together in a meaningful way as we have done on veterans issue, on immigration reform, on other issues where we may not have crossed the finish line in the house of representatives but in the past we have succeeded i bridging our differences. is that possible, because i want to hear from the american people that they think it's not only possible but necessary, and it's our job.

mr. murphy: i thank the senator for that question, and i guess we both agree that of course it has to be possible. there just aren't -- there just aren't many moments in which the american public are so resolute in their belief that we should do something, and this place is so resolute in its belief that it should stay on the outside of con -- consensus, and there just aren't many issues where the american public has decided at a 90% act and we should act and we have refused to do so. i will be honest with my colleague, the burden is not so much on us. the burden is on our republican friends to come to the table with proposals that mirror those that are supported by the american public. today the proposals that we are asking for votes on enjoy the support of 90% of americans increasing the range of background checks and making sure that terrorists don't get weapons, and so given the fact that the american public supports our position frankly

would be irresponsible of us to agree to something that is an abandonment of those fundamental beliefs on behalf of americans. and our frustration is that we have had lots of time to work out a compromise. it was nearly six months ago when we last had a vote on the issue of terrorist access to weapons, and we still have not had any effort, any outreach from the republican side of the aisle to try to find common ground, so the answer is of course yes we can find that common ground, but there has to be another party to work with. and i would commend my republican friends to take a look at the language that senator feinstein filed today. it's not her original bill that was 18 pages long. the bill she filed today is a simple bill of about two to three pages which simply gives to the attorney general the ability to put a system in place whereby individuals who have demonstrable connections to terrorist organizations cannot buy weapons and a clear exit ramp for individuals who were on

that list wrongly to be able to purchase firearms. so that amendment i think has addressed the concerns that republicans have raised, and i hope that if we can get an agreement to bring that vote to -- bring that bill to a vote, that they will see it as that consensus product and allow us to adopt it. senator donnelly, thank you again for joining us, and i would yield to the senator from indiana for a question without losing my right to the floor. mr. donnelly: i have a question for the senator from connecticut, and it is is this vote as simple as it appears? we are -- we are all moms and dads, all of us in the senate and the gallery, many of us, all of us, and these 49 beloved people in orlando all had moms and dads who -- who today are

absolutely crushed. the unthinkable has occurred. the same as at virginia tech in my senate colleague's state, the same as at charleston, the same as the little children in newtown, connecticut, in my two colleagues' home state. and as i said every one of these is a precious child and is there any mom or dad anywhere on this floor or in our senate who when you look at this would say if we can avoid this, these tragedies by saying someone on the terrorist threat list shouldn't be able to buy a gun or that we expand background checks to online sales or gun shows so they're just the same as if you

buy them at the local store in town, that these two bipartisan proposals are what we are talking about. and my question is, are these as simple as they appear and why on earth not only would any mom or dad ever be against them but anyone on the senate floor be against them? mr. murphy: i think this is a wonderfully simple question which a lot of people are probably asking. what's the problem? is there a catch? why isn't there a consensus? and the simple answer, senator donnelly, is that there is no catch, there is no secret agenda. there is no alternative story line. this is about saying that if you

are on the terrorist watch list, you shouldn't buy a gun, period, stop. and if you want to buy a gun in a commercial sale, you should prove take you're not a criminal first, period, stop. those are the only two things that we are asking for a debate and a vote on. no secret agenda, no hidden prem misses, that's t. i would thank you, senator donnelly. i yield to my great friend who's been with us for a majority of the evening here on the floor and has not yet posed a question. i yield to my friend from hawaii for a question without losing my right to the floor. a senator: i thank the senator from connecticut and the senior senator from connecticut for their leadership. i want to read something i received just about a half-hour ago from a constituent.

dear senator schatz, i'm following the filibuster online. though i know you don't need more convincing about what we need to do i thought to reach out to you anyway. i felt so paralyzed since sunday's shooting in orlando. mr. schatz: on sunday afternoon i brought my 4-year-old to the uh campus, university of hawaii campus for a film screening and i found myself for the very first time strategizing about where to sit and what i would do if there was an active shooter and how i could best cover my son's body if we couldn't escape. i'm not an anxious person by nature, but i refuse to accept that powerlessness to gun violence -- that gun violence must be accepted as our new normal. i work diligently at my job and as a mom and to care for my own kids and the community of students that i work for. i am intentional in trying to create opportunities for their growth and learning so it seems completely insane that in 2016

we have nothing more inspiring to offer a nation of families other than hoping that loved ones are not in the wrong place at the wrong time. that is totally unacceptable to me and i'm willing to help in any community or national efforts to bring about the necessary change. i have personally sent postcards to every senator who voted against background checks. please let your supporters in hawaii know what we need to do. i will show up, hashtag not one more, your constituent anessa ito. i want to thank senator murphy for his leadership and this is moral leadership. i was in the presiding chair and both senator murphy and i were new to the senate under very, very different circumstances, in a lot of ways both tragic circumstances. but i was sitting in that chair and chris murphy gave his maiden speech. he was my friend.

we had just sort -- had just sort of met and became fast friends. the first speech i gave was on this topic. and i understood his personal passion. but what he's doing now is bigger than that. he has displayed physical courage, emotional courage, and political courage that i think we couldn't imagine even at the beginning of the week and even though all of us are committed to this issue, he shocked our conscience in that caucus room and laid down a marker for all of us to do better and to do more. and i just want to say one thing before i go into a sort of preamble to my question, and that is this, my instinct about this is that our political opponents absolutely rely upon our being despondent. i think they absolutely rely upon the idea that we will give up by the end of the week, that we get our memo about this week

is the national defense authorization and next week is commerce, justice and science appropriations measure and every week it's a different topic and donald trump will say something to distract the national media and everybody will move on. but here is why i am so hopeful about what has happened today. it's not just that we have a bunch of members of the united states senate on the floor pretty late at night. it is very difficult to get any of us together for anything other than lunch for anything. and yet here we are. and senator murphy, you know, he did some recruiting through staff and everything else but this was organic. we saw what was happening and we wanted to offer our moral support and not frankly to him as a friend and a colleague but to everybody across the country who deserves people who are going to fight on this issue. and the other really exciting thing that is happening is outside of the senate, and that's more important.

the gallery doesn't usually get more and more crowded through the day. people visit, you know. people do their capitol tour and they come and check out the gallery and then we're yammering at each other and voting and shuffling around and then they leave. but what's happening in the gallery physically is people are actually coming to see that something meaningful is happening. senator murphy's phone lines are ringing off the hook. chris murphy himself is the number one trending topic on facebook. and it's not about chris murphy. it's about this sense that maybe we can actually do something here, maybe we can actually do something here and so for all of those people who are watching this online or observing it on twitter or hearing about it for the first time, i want peep t -i want people to understand that this is a continuation of a movement but this is an inflection point. this is a point at which we're not going to accept that if 90% of the public is demanding that we take action, that the united

states senate and the united states house won't. that is unacceptable to me. since i got to the senate there have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings. that's not 1,000 people killed, that's 1,000 mass shootings, over 40,000 americans killed by guns and zero changes to our gun laws. the shooting in orlando was the worst mass shooting event that our nation has ever seen in one night, 49 people killed and 53 shot and injured. and those numbers are shocking, but here's what i think is even more shocking. and senator booker mentioned this both in public and in private. since then more than that many people have been killed as a result of gun violence. this happens all of the time. now, the orlando situation was uniquely shocking because of the public dimension, because of the homophobia, because of the awful graphic, shocking violence in

one place at one time for one purpose, to strike terror in people's hearts and to strike terror in the hearts of people who are gay. and so that was uniquely shocking. in terms of the number of people killed, this was actually pretty similar to any other day in the united states. and so my first question for senator murphy is, you know, you haven't -- you haven't taken a break. you haven't had a meal. you haven't been able to interact with your son or your wife except in the gallery and at your podium, and i guess my question for you is do you feel momentum now? do you feel momentum now? mr. murphy: senator schatz, thank you for that question. i appreciate you talking about how much of this has happened organically. we didn't decide to do this until this morning.

we certainly have been talking about the need to show that we were sick and tired of the normal trajectory of thoughts and prayers being sent out and then a dissipation into nothingness is the trend line after these tragedies. we knew we had to do something different. but what is wonderful about this is that much of this is organic. this is now a dozen colleagues who are on the floor at close to midnight this evening. the gallery is increasing in numbers at this very time i think i saw a hundred thousand people talking about this right now on twitter, the top trending topic all day long and thousands of calls coming into our office. i hope this is a moment that we all get to remind ourselves that in change will not happen without vigilance. it's not just going to be this moment. it has to be repeated moments in which we engage the

consciousness of this nation. i do feel momentum here. we're hopeful we will be able to proceed at least votes on these measures so that we can show the american public where everybody is. if we don't win those votes, we'll live to fight another day but these are galvanizing moments, and it's heart warming to know that there's so many colleagues who have stepped up to the plate to take part. shamr. schatz: i thank the sena. i want to talk about the loophole. it seems straightforward that we would want to prevent terrorists from getting guns yet we can't get the other side of the aisle to even show up, let alone to vote to close this loophole. as you know, last year 53 senate republicans voted against closing the terrorist gun loophole that allows known or suspected terrorists to get guns. and they had several excuses but i kind of want to go through the main complaint. and that is there was not enough

due process for these individuals. and that's just plain false. there are several layers of due process starting with the procedures that are available to anyone who does not pass a background check when trying to buy a gun. anyone denied a firearm transfer has a right to find out the reason for the denial, submit correcting information to the attorney general and even bring a civil action against the government. the bill that senato senator fen has introduced which i think every member of the democratic conference is a cosponsor provides additional due process. a person denied a firearm transfer because he or she was determined to be a known or suspected terrorist can challenge the determination in court. and according to the f.b.i. -- quote -- arrange a -- a range of quality control measures are used to ensure the database contains accurate and timely information. this includes regular reviews, periodic audits and posting counterreviews conducted by the terrorist screening center and

the agencies that nominated the record to ensure the information continues to satisfy the applicable criteria for inclusion. just yesterday the majority leader stated the obvious, that nobody wants terrorists to have firearms. but what is really being proposed? and the bill being proposed by senator cornyn, a very skilled and good legislator, is just not viable. the republicans who would vote for this bill over senator feinstein's proposed legislation would keep the loophole wide open because this bill is unworkable, it will require law enforcement officials to prove to a court that a gun buyer has already committed an act of terrorism instead of stopping likely terrorists ahead of time. or the government would have to prove to a court that there is probable cause that the gun buyer will commit an act of terrorism. so in order to stop somebody from buying a gun, you have to show that this person is going to commit an act of terrorism. now, i'm not the lawyer and i'm

looking around and i'm seeing a number of lawyers on the floor, but my instinct is if you have probable cause that someone is about to commit an act of terrorism, you don't allow a database to be pinged and say i'm sorry, sir, we can't give you your gun today. you would arrest that person. you would detain that person. and so my question for senator murphy is, first about this proposal from senator cornyn and whether you think it would be workable and then if you wouldn't mind flushing out even if we are able to solve the so-called terror gap issue, i want you to talk about traw purchase -- straw purchases and the gun show loophole and how we have to be complete in our strategy, that even if we solve this problem legislatively, that there are gaping holes in our sort of security when it comes to this issue and i'd like you to talk us through how all of these issues work together. because one thing i know about you, senator murphy, is that you're deadly serious about actually solving this problem. you don't want to run on this problem. you don't want to tweet about this problem. you want to actually fix it

because you feel it in your gut so i'd like you to talk through what we actually need to do. mr. murphy: i thank the senator for bringing up this boogie man issue that continues to come up about due process. so let's first be clear that there's a double standard here. there's not a single member of the republican majority that decries the lack of due process when it comes to individuals who are denied the right to fly because of their inclusion on this list. nobody stands up and says there isn't the ability to grieve the fact that you are on the list of those individuals that are prohibited to fly. and yet there is some special consideration that's supposed to be given to an individual who is deemed to have an association with the terrorist group who wants to buy an assault weapon. it would seem almost the opposite, that maybe that individual should be given extra consideration. of course this idea that's been proffered in the cornyn amendment that we voted on back in december, it's laughable. it's not a serious attempt to solve this problem in that it would provide for a court

determination and a court process before anybody on that list would be denied a firearm. that individual would have to walk into a gun store. the gun store would say no, you've been flagged by the department of justice and we're going to call them to see if they would like to take you to court over the next 72 hours in a process no one knows what it would look like. there would be the pros of discover, it would be a laughingstock, a mockery of the judicial process. i think those that have supported the amendment probably know that. they are voting for it so that they can claim that they supported something other than the piece of legislation that the majority of americans support which is the simple addition to the list of those that are prohibited from buying weapons of individuals who are on the terrorist no-fly list. i will just state very quickly as to your second question, yes, of course. if you're serious about solving this problem you can't just put those individuals on the no-fly

list, on the list of those who are prohibited from buying weapons. you have to actually also close that loophole that allows for thousands upon thousands of gun sales to occur at gun shows and online because a terrorist or a would-be terrorist may get denied at the bricks and mortar gun store but then they can later that day go online or that weekend go to the gun show at the convention center and buy a weapon. so you have to do both which is why we're asking for both of these votes. mr. schatz: i thank the senator from connecticut. i believe firmly and i really appreciated the conversation between you and senator kaine about the second amendment. i'm a second amendment democrat. a lot of us are. i believe firmly as senator schumer said you can't pick the amendments you like and pick the amendments you don't like. i believe that we can protect the second amendment while protecting communities from gun violence. as stated by the late justice

scalia -- and i quote -- "like most rights, the second amendment right is not unlimited. it is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner some whatsoever and for whatever purpose." and so to senator murphy, i'd like to ask you how do you view the second amendment fitting into this conversation? because i think that speaking of bogeymans that there is this sense that if you are for reasonable restrictions on purchasing a gun, that you are against guns. and it seems to me, at least in the state of hawaii, that people who are the most concerned with gun safety, the p people who impart gun safety to their children, the people who do this right are gun owners, are hunters, are people who even have a gun for protection. and so the question i have for you is what is the right

balance? both under the law and from the perspective of keeping our people safe. mr. murphy: this may sound strange, but you look to -- excuse me. you look to justice scalia for that balance. he writes in the majority opinion in heller a decision that a lot of our friends disagree with, that the second amendment right is not an unlimited right just like all of the other amendments senator mccain and i spoke about. and so in an interaction i had with senator udall earlier in the day, you know we were remarking that neither of us believe that this really was a debate about the second amendment. this has nothing to do with the second amendment because the second amendment very clearly, as interpreted by the supreme court very recently is a right that comes with conditions. there are certain weapons that civilians shouldn't be able to own and there are certain individuals who shouldn't be able to own any weapons at all if they have lost that right through, for instance, the

commission of a felony. and so we just shouldn't accept this juxtaposition that gets made between those who say that you either support the second amendment or you want to stop criminals from getting guns at gun shows. these two goals are not mutually exclusive. every single one of us can be a supporter of the second amendment and recognize, as the supreme court has very clearly that there are limitations on that right, for instance, your ability to lose that right if you committed a crime or if you have have had known associations with terrorist organizations. mr. schatz: i believe the senator from wisconsin has a question for you. mr. murphy: i yield to senator baldwin for a question without yielding the floor. ms. baldwin: thank you. through the chair, i would like to ask the senator from connecticut a question. about actually a number of

things; about the need for us to stand united as a country in the fight against lay -- hatred and terrorism and easy access to what are really weapons of war. about six hours ago i came to the floor to participate in this very important discussion. mr. murphy: that was six hours ago? ms. baldwin: yes. mr. murphy: wow. ms. baldwin: one of the things i did was read through the names and just tell a little bit about each of the 49 victims of the shooting and orlando. i'm not going to do that again,

but i do want to display their beautiful faces because i do think telling these stories is such an important part of creating the resolve that we need as a nation, as a nation united to take action. not to repeat too much of what i said earlier this evening, but our thoughts and prayers are no longer enough. and it gets me thinking about what will it take, how many mornings do we have to wake up to news of a shooting in an elementary school or college

campus or a theater where people are gathering for a chance to escape and enjoy a movie. or as we learned hrafpt sunday morning, a nightclub during june, which is gay pride month, where people were celebrating the accomplishments of a movement and enjoying themselves and recognizing that we still live in a world with discrimination, but feeling safe among friends, colleagues. it was an act of hate. it was an act inspired by

terrorists and terrorism. and it couldn't have happened without such easy access to a weapon of war. and we offer our thoughts and prayers, but our thoughts and prayers simply are not enough. and again, it makes me think of what will it take. i am ashamed that it's taken us this long. earlier i read some names, and i'm going to share a list of catastrophic events, each one brought terror to a community, brought grief and sadness to families, and they have been reduced to just ways of

referring to them much in the way that we decided to call the terrorist attacks on september 11, 2001, 9/11. so if you just look back a decade -- and this is not a data base of all of them but it's a data base of many of the mass killings in our country. the amish school shooting in lancaster county, pennsylvania, in 2006 killed six, wounded five. the trolley square shooting in salt lake city, utah, in 2007 killed six, injured four. you heard senator kaine talking just moments ago about the virginia tech massacre in blacksburg, virginia, in 2007.

33 dead, 23 wounded. the crandon shooting in crandone, wisconsin, 2016, six dead, one wounded. the west roads mall shooting in omaha, nebraska, in 2007; nine dead, four wounded. the kirk wood city council shooting in kirkwood, missouri in 2008; six dead, it two wounded. the northern illinois university shooting in dekalb, illinois, 2008; 6 dead, 21 wounded. the atlanta plastics shooting in henderson, kentucky, in 2008; six dead, one wounded.

carthage nursing home shooting, carthage, north carolina; eight dead, three wounded. the binghamton shootings in binghamton, new york, in 2009; 14 dead, 4 wounded. the fort hood massacre, fort hood, texas, 2009; 13 dead, 30 wounded. the coffee shop police killings in parkland, washington, 2009, four dead, one wounded. the hartford beer distributor shooting in manchester, connecticut, in 2010; nine dead, two wounded. the tucson shooting in tucson,

arizona, nine dead, two wounded. i'm sorry. six dead, 13 wounded, including my dear former colleague in the house of representatives, gabby giffords. the ihop shooting in carson city, nevada, 2011; five dead, seven wounded. the seal beach shooting in seal beach, california, in 2011; eight dead, one wounded. the su jong health saw in a shooting in norcross, georgia in 2012, five dead, zero woundings. the university killings in californias in 2012, seven dead, three wounded.

the seattle cafe shooting in seattle, washington, in 2012; six dead, one wounded. the aurora theater shooting in aurora, colorado, in 2012; 12 dead, 58 wounded. the sikh temple shooting in oak creek, wisconsin, in 2012; seven dead, three wounded. the accent signage systems shooting in minneapolis, minnesota, in 2012; seven dead, one wounded. the newtown school shooting in newtown, connecticut, in 2012. 28 dead, 2 wounded. the mohawk valley shootings in

herkimer county, new york, in 2013; five dead, two wounded. the pine wood village apartment shooting, federal way, washington, 2013; five dead, zero wounded. the santa monica rampage in santa monica, california, in 2013. six dead, three wounded. the hailea apartment shooting in hailea, florida, in 2013. seven dead, zero wounded. the washington navy yard shooting in washington, d.c., in 2013. 12 dead, eight wounded. the alturist tribal shooting in

alturist, california, in 2013. four dead, two wounded. the fort hood shooting two. i can't believe i have to say that. the second fort hood shooting. fort hood, texas, 2014. three dead, 12 wounded. the isla vista mass murder, santa barbara, california, in 2014. six dead, 13 wounded. the marysville pilchuk high school shooting in marysville, washington, 2014. five dead, one wounded. the trestle trail bridge shooting in manasha, wisconsin, in 2015. three dead, one wounded. the charleston church shooting, charleston, south carolina,

2015. nine dead, one ruinedded. the chattanooga military recruitment center shooting in chattanooga, tennessee in 2015. five dead, two wounded. the umpqua community college shooting in roseburg, oregon. 2015. nine dead, nine wounded. the colorado springs shooting rampage, colorado springs, colorado. in 2015, three dead, zero wounded. the planned parenthood clinic, colorado springs, colorado, 2015. three dead, nine wounded. the san bernadino mass shooting in san bernadino, california, in

2015. 14 dead, 21 wounded. the kalamazoo shooting spree in kalamazoo county, michigan in 2016. six dead and two wounded. the excel industries mass shooting in hesson, kansas. 2016. three dead, 14 wounded. the orlando nightclub massacre in orlando, florida. this past sunday. 49 dead, 53 wounded. what will it take? how many times do we wake up to these tragedies? now, i have the honor of

representing the state of wisconsin, and as you heard me read through that list, you heard that my home state that i love is not immune to these acts of violence, and i just wanted to talk about some of the mass shootings in wisconsin in recent years. in november of 2004 during hunting season in sawyer county, six hunters were killed and two were wounded. in march of 2005, a gunman burst into church services at the church of living god congregation and fired 22 rounds, killing seven, including the pastor and his family. in june, 2007, five people were killed by a gunman, including

twin infants, their mother and two other victims in dullivan, wisconsin. october, 2007, six young adults were killed during a party in cranden, wisconsin. in august of 2012, a gunman killed six and wounded four, including an oak creek police lieutenant when he -- when the gunman opened fire at the sikh temple of wisconsin during sunday morning services. he had a semiautomatic pistol, and as i mentioned murdered worshipers before he was killed by the police. he also injured four others,

including one of the responding police officers who he shot 15 times. the victims of the sikh temple shooting were satwa singh helika, age 65. he was the founder of that sikh temple. paramjit kalur, 41. prakash singh, 39. sita singh, 41. ranjik singh, 49. suvak singh, 84. just a couple months after the sikh temple shooting in oak creek, wisconsin, a gunman killed three and wounded four when he opened fire inside a

salon and spa in brookfield, wisconsin. the shooter was the he estranged husband of an employee and entered the azana spa in brookfield armed with a 40-caliber handgun and murdered three people, including his wife and injured four others, including a pregnant woman. the victims of the azana spa shooting were vina houghton, 42, the shooter's estranged wife. according to witnesses, she heroically tried to stop her husband from harming others before being killed. and carrie roebuck, age 32. maylin lind, age 38.

in june of 2015 in wisconsin, a gunman killed three, including two men and an 11-year-old girl on the trust trestle trail bridge in manatha, wisconsin. we also had some success in thwarting what could have been horrendous mass killings in our state. in late january, 2016, a plan for a mass shooting at a ma sonic temple in milwaukee was thwarted by the intensive work of the f.b.i. and the plotter was arrested and charged

criminally. i think it's important to note that while i talked about these mass shootings, these mass casualty events, we lose so many americans on a daily basis to violence in our communities, and it's an epidemic that since those shootings in orlando on sunday morning, throughout the country we have seen at least that many that's due to gun violence. in milwaukee, the local newspaper has taken to creating

a homicide tracker. they're literally counting the homicides because they are so rampant. so far this year, their homicide tracker notes 51 homicides, and this is just in one city in wisconsin. 51. 82% of those homicides were caused by guns, by people using guns rather than other means. i just want to tell you one more name and one more story. in may, last month, a little girl in milwaukee, zalea, zalea

jenkins. she approached a police officer and asked if they could keep her safe. the next week, one day before zalea's tenth birthday, she was shot by a stray bullet while watching television inside her house. she died 11 days later. whether these murders are perpetrated in violent communities, whether they are the acts of terror and terrorists, whether they are

hate crimes, the fact remains that we have to tackle this. when, when will be the time? and we have gathered here this evening. it's amazing for me to see so many of my colleagues on the floor of the senate as the hour nears midnight in washington, d.c. the time is now. we have a bill before us in the senate that is the appropriate opportunity to take up this measure offered by my colleague from connecticut and another colleague, senator feinstein from california. it's the commerce, justice,

science appropriations bill, and we can't let another moment pass without a vote, without doing everything within our power to have make the world a little safer, to do more than hold these victims and their families in our thoughts and prayers. thoughts and prayers are no longer enough. and i want to ask my colleague from connecticut, you know, you talked earlier about the power of this moment. you talked earlier about people taking to social media and urging their elected officials to listen and to act.

and i want the people's voice to be heard. i want it to be so deafening that our colleagues who would suggest that the american public for some reason isn't behind us, we know the opposite to be true. we know how much support there is for universal background checks and for doing something as common sense as making sure that people who are on the terror watch list are not eligible to purchase guns. something as simple as allowing the f.b.i. to deny a firearm sale to somebody who is not able to fly on a commercial plane or

being investigated for terror. so in addition to tweeting, what senator murphy, would you urge people to be doing right now to help us act? mr. murphy: i thank the senator for this question which is at the center of this moment. this can't just be about the 30 some odd senators who have taken the floor over the course of the last 12 hours and by the way we've now been on the floor for over 12 hours. this has to be about something bigger. this has to be about a national movement that commands this place to act. it's happened before. and it has to happen here. it means that voters have to elevate this issue in their priority list. it means more people have to start asking questions about why their members of congress, why

their senators are voting in a way that's contrary to the vast majority of their constituents. it means everyone in this country deciding not to accept what exists today as the status quo. and let's remind everyone has senator durbin has over and over again that what exists today is not just a regularity of mass shootings, that employer to 2008 happened at the pace of one per every two months. these are the big shootings that now happen once every single month. it is also the regularity of gun violence that happens in our cities, such that kids in hartford, connecticut explained to me a year ago that police sirens and ambulance sirens are their lullaby at night because it is just a regular facet of their existence. the american people can't accept that either. and let me just say before i

turn the floor to senator merkley how proud of am of all my colleagues not just for joining in but the way we've conducted this debate over the last 12 hours. we're angry at a lot of people, but i'm really proud that this debate has been on the level, that we've tried to remain as dispassionate as we can about the path forward. and let me add just one statistic to the mix. i just heard this. my office has received 10,000 phone calls today. actually i have no idea how my office could handle 10,000 phone calls so i ask to double and triple check that number. we only have two phones up front but we apparently received 10,000 phone calls today encouraging all of us to continuing on this mission. let me appreciate the work that's being done by the staff that's on the floor. they are staying and laboring extra hours. we know that is not in their job

description. this is both the professional staff who man the desk but also the political staff within both caucuses and the personal staff. there's a lot of people who didn't know they were going to be staying this late tonight, including those that are reporting our words that are doing so. i want to thank them as well. and i want to acknowledge that there is progress being made as we speak on trying to find a path forward and so i want to thank those on both sides of the aisle that are working to try to find a way forward to take these votes. so we are hopeful at this hour. we still have more to say and i will at this point turn over the floor, yield for a question to senator merkley without giving up my right to the floor. mr. merkley: thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to ask a question, my colleague from connecticut. earlier i came to the floor and i was reflecting on the

connection between connecticut and oregon in terms of the shooting at sandy hook and the shooting we add last year at umpqua community college, the ten individuals who were killed at umpqua community college, but as i've been pondering it during the day and my head was going further back in time to 1998 and i was running in my first race for state legislature and our primary was held may 19 of that year and i was immersed in this primary. i was running a race against two former state representatives and the head of the water district, and i was the individual who had never run for office and never held office and assumed i would lose but on may 19 when the results came in, i'd won this

primary. two days later, may 21, a young man who'd been expelled from his school, his name was kip kinkel, thurston high school, springfield, oregon, he took the guns from his house. he murdered his parents he proceed to go to thurston high school. he had with him a 9 millimeter glock. he had a 22 caliber semiautomatic rifle. he had a 22 caliber mark 2 pistol and he had 1,127 rounds of ammunition. and his goal was to shoot as many students to kill, as many students as he could.

and he shot a lot of students. only two died. 25 were wounded. but as he exhausted the ammunition in his semiautomatic rifle, he had to reload the magazine. and as he did that, he was tackled by one student who was already wounded. six others piled on and the carnage ended. but he'd only begun to tap into that 1,127 rounds of ammunition he was carrying. thank goodness that that individual, that student jacob reicher succeeded in stopping him when he was reloading that rifle. so the year went on.

november was the election, general election. i was elected to the oregon house and the oregon house came into session in january of 1999, and we said it's time to fix the background check system that we have in our state. it's time to close the gun show loophole. what makes no sense is to have this background check systems when you go to a gun store and then no background check system when you go to a gun show. and we knew that many people were seeking to acquire weapons who had felony backgrounds. we knew many people were seeking weapons who were deeply mentally disturbed, and they were being turned away at the gun store and they were going to the gun show.

or they were getting to the classifieds and so we tried to pass that bill to close that background loophole, the gun show loophole, and we failed. we could not muster the majority just as this body has not been able to muster the majority to address the complete illogic of this situation. and then the citizens of oregon took this into their own hands. they petitioned for an initiative. they put it on the ballot and the citizens of oregon voted overwhelmingly by a huge margin, they voted overwhelmingly to close the gun show loophole. but it would be many, many years later, not until 2015 that the

legislature took the additional step of closing the classified ads loophole or the craigslist loophole as it is often called. so in oregon if you go to a gun store or a gun show or to a craigslist listing, you have to go through a background check. but someone who is turned away in oregon can go to any of a number of states across our country, bypass that background check, buy those guns, and come back to our home state. this makes no sense to have a national system without national effectiveness. and i so much appreciate my colleagues being here tonight to talk about this, to talk about the fact that those who are on a

terrorist list should be on a list to deny guns, and that those who are denied guns to have that effectively you have to have a background check system. now, my state is a state that loves guns. we are a state with incredible wilderness. people love to hunt. they love to target practice. they love to just shoot guns. and they love the second amendment and the individual nature. but they voted for the background check system because they knew it doesn't make sense to have guns in the hands of felons or deeply disturbed individuals because of the carnage that comes from that. there's another story i wanted to share that's related to 1998.

this story fast forwards from the primary election may to the general election in october, november. so it was as we were approaching that first tuesday in november general election, the general election would be held november 3. the day was october 6. so roughly a month away, a month before. and a young man named matthew wayne shepherd was offered a ride home by two other young m men, aaron mckinney and russell henderson. they didn't give him a ride home. they took him out to a very rural area near laramie, wyoming. they tied him to a fence because he was gay. they robbed him.

they pistol whipped him. they tortured him. and they left him there to die. it was 18 hours later that a bicyclist riding past saw this young man still tied to a fence. the bicyclist thought that matthew wayne shepherd was a scarecrow. but went to investigate, realized it was a young man, proceeded to get help. matthew was extremely damaged. his skull was fractured. his brain stem absolutely inflamed. he never regained consciousness. he died six days later.

it was a hate crime that rocked the nation. it was a hate crime that shocked the conscience. these crimes were happening with some regularity, these hate crimes against our lgbt community, but this one caught the attention of the nation. and a bill was crafted, the matthew shepard hate crimes prevention act. and that bill was championed by my predecessor in office, gordon smith, but it didn't get passed until i came here in the senate in 2009, not because i came but because it took that long to build the support on the foundation that others had laid in the years before. so we passed that hate crimes

act, but the hate crimes act doesn't stop the discrimination against the lgbt community. it doesn't stop the promotion of hate. i'm going to be introducing a resolution and i thought i would read it tonight. it's a resolution that senator mark kirk has agreed to cosponsor, that senator baldwin has agreed to cosponsor, that senator cory booker has agreed to cosponsor and i hope many others will join us in this. and it says the following: equal treatment and protection under the law is one of the most cherished constitutional principles of the united states

of america. laws in many parts of the country still fail to explicitly prohibit discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals the failure to actively oppose and prohibit discrimination leaves our lgbt individuals vulnerable based on who they are or whom they love. vulnerable to being evicted from their homes, vulnerable to be denied credit or other financial services, vulnerable to being refused basic services in public places such as restaurants or shops or terminated from employment or otherwise discriminated against in employment. to allow discrimination to persist is incompatible with the founding p