employees killed. santa monica, five americans killed. in washington d.c. here at the naval yard, 12 people killed in fort hood. three people killed. .. people killed in a high school cafeteria. charleston, south carolina, nine people at a church killed. chattanooga, tennessee, at a military recruiting office, four marines and a naval petty officer killed. roseburg, oregon, ten people

killed at a local community college, colorado springs, colorado, three people killed. at a planned parenthood clinic in san bernardino in an act of terrorism, 14 people killed. in orlando this past weekend, this saturday night, 49 innocent people murdered, killed. so i rise to ask senator murphy a question because there is a question on the hearts and minds of the majority of the people of our nation. they're asking the question, how long will this go on? they're asking the question how can we be a nation so mighty and great yet hold this distinction on the planet earth where these kind of mass killings go on at a rate, at a level nowhere el seen

on the plan -- nowhere else seen on the planet earth. it's here in this country founded on the idea that we formed this government for our common defense, that we formed this government to ensure domestic tranquility, that we formed this government based on the idea that we can make for a safer, stronger, and more prosperous land. that question is being asked from coast to coast, from north to south. and senator murphy and i talked yesterday about coming to the floor today and not letting business as usual happen. we talked with our other colleagues who will come to this floor today who all have in their hearts that word enough, enough, enough. what we are seeking is not radical. what we're seeking is not something that is partisan.

what we're seeking is common sense that is supported by the overwhelming majority of this nation. study after study, poll after poll, survey after survey of gun owners, of people who have weapons, who take to heart their second amendment rights, when you ask them what should we do, do you support closing the terrorist loophole, creating practical, common sense bars for people that are suspected of terrorism from buying a gun, 82% of gun owners say yes, we should do that. they say enough. a senator: mr. president? i raise a point of order about whether there's a question. i would like to ask a question.

the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut may yield for a question only without losing his rights. a senator: mr. president, i have a question but i think i can have a preamble to my question to set the context of the question. the presiding officer: ask the question. mr. booker: the question i'd like to ask is given the fact that the overwhelming majority of americans support common sense gun legislation, given the fact that 82% of gun owners support closing the terrorist loophole, given the fact that 75% of n.r.a. members support closing the terrorist loophole, my question for the senator of connecticut is why does he feel that this body is not moving on common sense legislation that will protect our nation, that will defend us against terrori terrorists, that will prevent

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

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

amendment. it's not an absolute right. it comes with responsibilities and conditions. i think a lot of it is a misunderstanding about the data that suggests, you know, state by state, community by community if you have tougher gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals or prevent these powerful military-style assault weapons from flowing through your streets, you're going to have less level of gun homicide. and so part of our effort here is to come down to the floor today, and part of my belief is that we need to continually reinforce what the real story is about the nature of the underlying right and about what the data tells us. but also, senator booker, about what we know to be the threat to this country. research shows that on u.s. soil people who are seeking to commit acts of terror rely almost exclusively on guns. and when guns are used in

potential acts of terror, they are vastly more likely to result in casualties, when guns are used. and it isn't me talking, it is an analysis of domestic terror attacks in the united states by a professor from the university of massachusetts. she showed that since -- he showed that since september 11th, 2001, 95% of the associated deaths connected with terrorist attacks, with terrorism, were committed with guns. and according to a project run by the department of homeland security center for cleanse at the university of -- excellence at the university of maryland, this is a government database run by the department of homeland security, terrorism attacks in the united states are ten times more likely to result in fatalities when they involve guns than when they do not. between 1970 and 2014, non-firearm terrorist attacks resulted in deaths 4% of the

time, whereas 40% of the attacks involving firearms resulted in deaths. and if you really want to get down to the chilling bone here, mr. president, listen to the words of one of the most notorious al-qaeda operatives. actually an american who's now deceased. his name was adam gadahn. he released a video in 2007. and in it he said in the west, you've got a lot at your disposal. let's take america, for example, absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. you can go down to a gun show and come down with a fully-automatic assault rifle with a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card. so what are you waiting for? even if his facts weren't 100%

correct, whether or not you can get a fully automatic weapon or not at a gun show, this is clearly a message being sent by some of the most notorious operate i haves and recruiters -- operatives and recruiters within the al-qaeda and isis network. go get a gun. they're easily obtainable. do as much damage as possible. and so i guess to answer your question, senator booker, i don't -- i guess i don't want to sit here and impute malevolent motives or intentions or the interference of interest groups on my colleagues. i just have to believe that we have the facts wrong and that we're, you know, maybe misreading our constituents. i know that people who listen to the nra are very vocal, and i

know that they call into all our offices frequently and express their opinions very strongly. and, you know, i will admit that the majority of americans -- and this majority exists in every single state -- that supports expanded background checks, supports keeping terrorists off the watch list, they are maybe not as passionate in their views. so it may also be that there's a misread coming on where the american mix exists on this question. public exists on this question. i think there's more and more americans who are rising up and choosing to make this a priority when they come to the polling places, when they talk to us. so, senator booker, i think that this is just about trying to do our best to correct the record. and as you said, doing our best to explain that what we're

asking for is not revolutionary. it is not radical. it is simply common sense. and if you lay it out in plain fact to most of the people we respect, they would expect that we would have already taken care of this. if you told them that we have not yet put individuals who are on the terrorist watch list on those who are prohibited from buying guns, i think they would be very surprised. if you told them, you know, perhaps close to the majority of background checks, majority of gun sales happen without background checks, i think they'd probably be surprised by that. i think they expect us to act on i know the senator from nebraska is looking to ask a question. i'd be happy to yield to the gentleman from nebraska to can a question without losing my right to the floor. >> thank you. and i'm happy to refer to the assistant democratic leader if you had a question first. okay. to the junior center from new

jersey, thank you for leading us into questions. i think the question was asked that there is due process for, i think, what you've been calling the terrorist watch list. i would just like to ask if you can explain to me what the terrorist watch list is. i'm familiar with the terrorist screening database. there are a series of lists that fall from the database, but i don't think there's any such thing as the terrorist watch list, and i certainly don't understand what due process rights would apply to this list. if you could help clarify that, that would help me. >> i thank the gentleman from nebraska for his question. there is something called the consolidated, right, watch list which is an amalgam of a number of different databases, as the gentleman understands one of them, for instance, is the no-fly list. the legislation that senator feinstein has propounded and will propound would refer to

those consolidated lists and then provide for an ability for an individual to contest their placement on those lists, to be able to be notified why they were prohibited from buying a gun and be able to contest that with either the agency that put them on that list or with the database itself. and so i take seriously this issue of due process because this, as we know -- there, as we know, are certainly people who are on that list that should not be as, frankly, there are people on the list today as prohibited from buying guns that should not be. there are mistakes on the nix list today, names that shouldn't have been put on, people that may have been wrongfully convicted. so i would agree with the gentleman that this is important, that the legislation that we come to agreement on specifically refer to the set of lists which i would suggest mirror the consolidated database

that's maintained by federal law enforcement and have a very explicit right to get off that list. i don't think that's impossible that we can come together on that in very short order. >> thank you. >> yield to the gentleman from illinois for a question without losing my right to the floor. >> senator from connecticut will yield for a question. first, at the outset, i thank him for his leadership. i'm happy to join with this willful band who feel as he does, that this is an issue long overdue, that the american people have asked us over and over again when is congress going to do something about these mass shootings and the carnage which is taking place. i would like to ask a specific question, though, about an element here. we've talked about terrorism, those who may be on a terrorism watch list or some version of it which senator feinstein will address in her amendment. but there is a second part of this which is equally if not more important from my

interspective. -- perspective. we define mass murder as those which involve more than four victims, but many of us are living and represent communities where there is massive murder taking place over long periods of time. yesterday our colleague from new jersey eloquently explained to us in our private caucus luncheon about the carnage in his hometown that has taken place in new jersey for a long, long period of time. my question to the senator from connecticut really goes to a city which i'm honored to represent, the city of chicago. there were 488 homicides in chicago in 2015, the vast majority of those were shootings. chicago's 488 murders were the highest total number of any united states city last year. in new york there were only -- only -- 339 in comparison, and in los angeles 280.

cities much larger than chicago with much smaller numbers of homicides. the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms has gone to the areas of chicago where we have the most intense gunfire and killings taking place on a regular basis. here's what they found. 40% of the crime guns that were confiscated after these homicides and killingsing -- killings came from gun shows in northern indiana, just across the border from chicago. the reason i raise this question is that i believe the second part of this suggestion, approach -- terrorist loophole, closing that once and for all -- and, secondly, closing the loopholes when it comes to background checks would include a vision putting an end to what we see happening in chicago where 40% of these crime guns are crammed into the trunks of cars at gun shows in northern

indiana with no background checks, and then the people who buy them head for the city, to the streets of chicago to sell them. usually the teenagers who then spray their bullets at night in gang warfare and other activity. so my question to the senator from connecticut, there are so many other aspects that we need to address. straw purchasing is one, assault weapons, another. but you were trying to focus on here not just the horrible tragedy that occurred in orlando, but to really are expand -- to really expand our reach in terms of addressing new legislation when it comes to closing the loopholes in the law, loopholes which allow gun show sales without background checks and sales over the internet without background checks. i would ask the senator from connecticut the rationale behind including that provision. >> i thank the gentleman and senator from illinois. like senator blumenthal who's been, you know, a leader and a

hero on this issue i before i got to the senate, and he's exactly right. the stain on this nation is not just this repeated storyline of mass shooting after a mass shooting. it's the fact that even on days when there aren't a mass shooting, there's the equivalent of a mass shooting happening in cities like chicago or baltimore or new orleans every single day. those numbers over me moral day weekend -- memorial day weekend in chicago absolutely chilling. think about living in a city in which over the course of what should be a celeb rah story weekend -- closing bell rah story weekend there are 60 some instances of gunfire. and that's just gunfire that hits people. it's critical that we acknowledge that this epidemic we are focused on is an epidemic that exists every single day in this country. and you are right, senator durbin, that part of the reason why we are asking that background checks, expanded

background checks be part of this agreement that we come to over the course of today is because while we are on the bill that funds the justice department, well we are debating the background checks system, let's make sure it works. and the data as you know, senator durbin, is clear. in jurisdictions that have mere universal background checks, there are less gun deaths. period, stop. in jurisdictions that decide that they are going to apply background checks to as many sales as they can -- let's be honest, you often can't hit every sale, but if you're selling guns at a gun show which is organized and marketed, those sales should be subject to background checks. in states that do that, they have lower rates of gun crimes. but as you to know, so painfully because chicago sits right at

the intersection of other jurisdictions, states can't do this by themselves. even if a state decides to expand out the forms in which a gun sale is subject to a background check, if the other state next door -- let's say indiana -- has a lower standard, then your law is virtually meaningless. and, of course, that is the storyline in chicago. the storyline in chicago is a handful of gun dealers, irresponsible be gun dealers across the state line selling guns to individuals that then take them into chicago. and so this is certainly a debate that's brought on by another mass shooting. and we certainly have an obligation to make sure that terrorists don't obtain guns. but the senator is right to that this ultimately has to be an issue of doing something about urban gun violence as well. >> would the senator yield? >> i'd yield to the senator from

connecticut for a question without losing my right to the floor. >> thank you for yielding for a question only x i want to ask more specifically about a point that he made so well at the very beginning of this conversation that the fight against gun violence and extremism abroad and at home is not an either/or, that we need to fight the violent extremism abroad whether it's called jihaddism or radical us -- islam or viability extremist -- violent extremist. whatever label we give it, this fight is about that battle and about enlisting our allies abroad in supporting us in that battle. and combating the home grown terrorists, the extremists who are supported or inspired by

isis or others abroad. we do not have an either/or situation here as he said so well. they are really complimentary. and so my question to my colleague from connecticut is whether these kinds of measures that we are seeking to advance on the floor today also empower and enable stronger alliances with our allies abroad who are joining us in this fight. and i ask that question of him because he is a member of the foreign relations committee. as i am a member of the armed services committee, aware of the importance of asking with our -- acting with our allies abroad. these measures, do they not enable us to form and enlist and advance those alliances? >> i thank the gentleman for the question. of course, this is a global fight against terrorism. this is not a battle that can be

waged by one country and one country alone. and he is right that we are right now calling op our allies -- on our allies in europe to take steps that would better protect all of us from these terrorist plotters. we, for instance, have real concerns about the cree to which -- the degree to which european nations are sharing data about potential terrorist plotters. right now law enforcement and terrorism surveillance in europe is largely done on a country-by-country basis. even within some conditions it's heavily siloed. in brussels itself, i think by last count there were six different police departments that didn't often communicate with each other. so there is a big problem in europe about agencies not being able to talk to each other, and we are pressing europe and europeans to get more serious about both tracking terrorists

throughout that continent, but then sharing information with us. now, how is that relevant to the senator's question? well, it's very hard for us to preach to the europeans that they should get more serious about tracking terrorists if we have big holes in our databases as well. and we do today. we know in orlando from the information that's out there is that this individual was on a watch list. he came off of it. and because of the way in which the network of lists and noteifications work today, the -- notifications work today, the fbi was not notified when he went to buy a gun. we can have a debate as to whether he should have been prohibited, but it probably makes sense the fbi should have at least have been notified so they could do some follow up. firearms for potential terrorists, then i think it's

hard for us to tell the europeans to do better. and as the gentleman knows, or we also want to be able to connect what they know with what we know. there are american citizens that travel to other countries, and they may be radicalized in part many connection with those visits -- in connection with those visits. of we want to be able to get that information to the extent that a foreign country knows about the act at this times of an -- activity of an american citizen when they travel abroad so that it is incorporated into the list of people that we're concerned about getting access to -- >> i'd yield to the gentleman from new jersey without losing my right to the floor. >> i'm really grateful, senator murphy, and i think i want to drill deeper down on that point because i'm not sure that americans understand that there is a lot of bipartisanship when it comes to cve efforts, countering violent efforts. i'm very proud to have worked with members on the other side of the aisle to do a lot of common sense things to try to

counter environment extremism here at home. and those involve efforts of coordination like senator murphy was talking about, investing resources, frankly, in trying to counter violent extremist efforts here at home. there is a tremendous bipartisan effort that has gone on really in this country since 9/11 in trying to take down silos of information, sharing, cooperating, coordinating, investing resources in many ways to keep us safer as a nation. we should all be very proud of that. but it is clear especially from the what should be stunning to people who didn't know this information that you read, that the very enemies we are talking about, terrorist organizations that now have become common knowledge in this country, people know al-qaeda, they know isis, folks are focused on that. that our very enemies that we

are fighting against, they are aware of the big loopholes that exist in this nation. that someone who is a suspected terrorist, who has a terroristic intent, who is even known by the fbi can come to our nation or can be a citizen of our nation and go to a gun show and buy weapons. and i want to just clarify what i said, and that was not an accident. they could, this could be someone who is in our nation as a citizen, or it could be someone who has come to our nation on a, through a vis a vis waiver -- visa waiver program and could still exploit this loophole of buying weapons without a background check. so we have actually enough sharing of information to go on that we actually can stop an individual from getting on a plane. think about this. we can, we can take an action to stop someone from flying, but we

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

carnage, isn't this a glaring gap in our overall security procedureses, policies and structures in this country? >> i thank the gentleman. and it is a glaring loophole, and it's unclear why it has persisted. this idea of closing the loophole, it's been backed by both democratic and republican administrations, and i think the gentleman talked about how this has been a bipartisan commitment. the george w. bush department of justice supported the exact same bill that we're talking about today in 2007. attorney general holder, in response to a question from senator fine sign at a 2009 judiciary committee hearing, said i think that legislation was initially proposed by the bush administration, and it was well conceived, and we'll continue to support that. so not so long ago this was an issue that was, in fact, conceived by a republican

administration. it didn't seem to become controversial until gun lobbying organizations decided that it should be. and, you know, we should remember that about all the things that we're discussing here. because, you know, we hiv in a world -- we live in a world today in which we think the issue of gun laws is the third rail of american politics. but, in fact, all of the legislation that we're talking about could not have passed if it for republican -- if it wasn't for republicans and democrats coming together whether it be to support the existing background check system, to sport the existing -- to support the existing ban on assault weapons or to conceive this idea of terrorists being kept off the list. and, you know, here's how it plays out in realtime. elton simpson is the name of the individual who opened fire on a texas community center that was hosting an event displaying

cartoons of the prophet muhammad. and i think we all agree that that was an act of terrorism that was perhaps a result of radicalization of this individual. he was reportedly on the u.s. no-fly list. one of the boston marathon bombers, tamerlan tsarnaev, was reportedly played on two terrorist watch lists in 2011. now, he committed that act with an explosive device, but he also killed a police officer with a handgun. and so we do know that there are individuals -- and, of course, orlando is the latest example of crimes being committed by those that were in and around this database. the gentleman from nebraska asked the question earlier, well, how do we make sure that people aren't on there by mistake? well, we, i think, will only support both parties legislation that gives --

[inaudible] and i think at some level we should accept that in virtually every federal database that exists of people that are ineligible to buy a gun or people that are eligible to receive medicare reimbursement, there are occasionally mistakeses. but that doesn't stop us from trying to engage in collective action as a community to better protect our nation. let's get that list right, let's give people the ability to get off it if they are on it wrongly. but let's accept that what we know is that in 90% of the cases over that ten year period where people tried to buy a gun and were on the terror watch list, they were on it. listen, let's be honest, this is only one element of what needs to be a broader strategy to combat either the potential radicalization leading to violence of american citizens or this broader question of combating gun violence writ large that senator durbin

brought up. but it's an important, glaring hole that needs to be corrected, and i'd yield to my friend from connecticut for a question without losing my right to the floor. >> thank you, my friend and colleague from connecticut, for yielding for a question and his holding the floor. and i want to follow a question that was asked by our colleague from new jersey and, in fact, i've heard him speak so eloquently about the people in histy of newark -- his city of newark. in fact, children tieing in his -- dying in aiz arms as victims of gun violence. those kinds of acts of violence are unpredictable. the fbi was investigating the killer in the orlando tragedy, knew of his potential dangerousness, but there are countless individuals who commit

these acts of murders, 30,000 deaths every year occur as a result of gun violence. many of them unpredictable and perhaps unpreventable under current law but which could be prevented with stronger laws. and so my question to my colleague from connecticut is whether this measure will enhance the fact-finding and investigative powers of the fbi in seeking to stop gun violence where we know it may occur, and in fact as much as i respect -- and i deeply respect the dill gents and dedication -- diligence and dedication of the fbi -- whether additional resources combined with this kind of measure will enhance their ability to stop these acts of hatred and terror such as we saw so tragically in orlando. >> thank you, senator

blumenthal. and i want to thank you for your work on the judiciary committee leading this fight to try to make sure that law enforcement has what it needs to protect this country. again, i spoke to this broader conversation about how you protect this country from domestic terrorist attacks, and i think there are a lot of people who want to drill it down to only, you know, one silo of conversation. and as i remarked at the beginning, some people want to make this just about the fight in the middle east. some people want to make this just about surveillance, other people want to make it just about gun laws. it's not any of those things. it's about a combination of efforts. and so we have to have admit that this fight against isis and against al-qaeda in the areas in which they have large amounts of control, that is an ongoing fight. and that is not going to be concluded tomorrow or next week or the month after. we think we're making dramatic progress, but it's going to take us a while. and as i remarked at the outset,

it also means there is an inverse proportionality between our success in taking the fight to al-qaeda and isis inside theaters of war and their importance in attacking us here at home in the sense that they are going to need to take fight to us here if they are having less successing in repelling -- success in repelling our efforts to push them back inside the middle east. so that's where law enforcement comes in, senator blumenthal, and you're exactly right. let's make it a priority to defeat isis, but let's admit for the time being they are going to try to launch lone wolf attacks here. what we know is they generally don't go through the trouble of trying to coordinate these attacks ahead of time. so it makes it much more difficult to stop. they are trying to find someone who is on the fringes of society, who may be mentally ill or prone to radicalization and weapon size them. -- weapon size them.

it makes it sometimes difficult for law enforcement to find that needle in a haystack. but what we know is that in this case they had found in that needle in a haystack. they had found him twice. and perhaps because his inclusion permanently on one of these lists wouldn't have done much good because it wouldn't have prevented him from getting a firearm, there wasn't as much due diligence done as should. so this clearly is an important tool of law enforcement. we need to give it to them. and then i hope, and i think senator mikulski talked about in her hoping comment, we can also talk about giving the broader resources to fbi and to law enforcement to do the job that they do. we ask them to do more and more, but we don't give them the resources that are necessary. so if we're going to give them additional responsibilities, keeping a better-monitored, consolidate canned database -- consolidated database, having a process for individualings to

aggrieve their inclusion on it, then we have to make sure they have the resources necessary. the gentleman from new jersey, i'd yield for a question without losing my right to the floor. >> so i appreciate, again, this point i want to keep coming back to which is that we are in, both republicans and democrats talk about us being in a war with the determination to defeat our enemy. and yet our enemy has spoken very clearly about exploiting the loopholes that exist in the way for those who are seeking to do terror to buy end withs. -- weapons. in other words, someone who's even suspected already by the fbi, suspected by the american government to have designs on the kind of terroristic acts that could take many americans like we saw this past weekend, if we know already who that person is, our enemy has

basically said publicly, our enemy has advertised the fact, well, that doesn't matter. if you are already suspected by the fbi, if you've been interviewed by them last year, five years ago, hey, they said explicitly don't worry about that because america singling us out from european countries and others that are terrorist target, they said america in particular has this loophole that we can exploit. even though you've been suspected of terrorism, even though you may have been interviewed by the fbi, you can still find ways to obtain weapons easily by taking these measures going to a gun show, ordering online. and i wonder as this body which is so focused -- we just passed a defense authorization bill. billions and billions of dollars for our national defense. i'm not sure and i don't mean to be in any way over the top, but if our past enemies in past wars

specifically told us what our vulnerability was and specifically told us that they were going to exploit this vulnerability and literally had isis-inspired individuals who have carried out actions, who have been interviewed by the fbi as we saw this past weekend are using this loophole, it seems to be common sense when you are at war with folks who are inspiring people to take so much human life, it seems to be such common sense that we would close that loophole. but i guess the question i want to ask to my friend from connecticut is that when we talk about this context of closing the terrorist loophole, we need to be very articulate. because if that is done in a way that just has to do with people as it stands now going through the nix system, the system which you can potentially check to see if a person is on one of those aggregated watch lists, i want

to ask the senator from connecticut doesn't it make sense though that we have universal background checks in this context? that's really what i'd like to get at, is that if you have steps to stop terrorists from exploiting this loophole but it's not a uniwith versal stop -- universal stop, we're not solving this problem. we're not really arresting it in the way that we we should. >> i thank the gentleman for that question. and that's why these two are so important to be linked together. this idea that if you really want to protect this country from terrorist attack by firearm and again, as i stated before, that is the weapon of choice on behalf of those who would try to do harm to this country for political reasons, then you have to both make sure those individuals are on the list of those prohibited from buying weapons, and you have to make sure that when you go and buy a weapon, you intersect with that

list. and, you know, this has been a long trend line as both of my friends know. you know, it used to be that, you know, almost everybody that bought a gun went into their local gun store to purchase that weapon. and over the course of time, for a variety of reasons, the means by which you bought a firearm has diversified significantly. so you now have lots of sales occurring online as you do with almost every other commercial good, and you have this buildout of gun shows which are places in which both licensed dealers and nonlicensed dealers come to sell their guns in a very organized, control ared controlled fashion. and we have story upon story of individuals who have gone to buy guns in those gun shores in mass quantities snowing they would

not have to go through a background check and then selling them on the black market. so someone who nose they're prohibited -- knows they're prohibited from buying a gun. they go buy a number of weapons at a gun show which is unregulated in which sellers who are not licensed gun dealers are able to sell their weapons without background checks, and they get as many as they want. and that's not a secret. i mean, you don't have to scratch the surface of american gun law or debate on the subject very hard to find out that there are easy ways to get guns without getting a background check. or you just go online. you go on the arms list, and you very easily can buy a weapon without going through a background check. ..rom terrorist attack by firearm unless you do

both. that's why those two are linked together. the reason we are on the floor today is also because this slaughter happens outside of the let's not shy away from the fact that the reason for this is because this happens outside the realm of terrorist attack and in fact the majority, the majority, not even 5% of americans killed by guns are not killed in terrorist attacks but many are killed by guns that were sold outside the background check system. a 2 for one. if you pass some version of the bipartisan mention to me bill, objections on the republican side the provisions that i hope throughout the course of this afternoon we come together on those, if we pass some version of that legislation to support 90% of the american public and the vast majority of gun owners, and you do that in conjunction

with putting suspected terrorists on the same list then you protect our country from terrorist attack but you also address this epidemic that we all live with on a regular basis whether in newark, bridgeport or chicago. t the regularity of gun crime associated with weapons purchased outside the background check system is not an inevitability we have to accept. we can do something about it by coming together today and that is what the gentleman is gettind at, linking policies together that are interdependent to protect us from terrorist attack but also about this broader issue of taking on crime in our city and i yield to the gentleman without losing my right to the floor, gentleman from connecticut.

>> i want to draw out the point he was making by another question, there is no 1-size-fits-all to hatred and terror attack in this country that involves gun violence, the kind of attacks we saw in orlando may have been motivated by insidious bigotry that involves deep-seated hatred or pernicious extremist ideology inspired by isis or some enemy abroad or mental illness. the facts are developing. we will know more as the gentleman from connecticut knows. the point is the laws now enable

our enemies to weapon eyes, people in this country who may be prone to use the kind of weapons to kill people, assault weapons designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. this idea of weapon i sing our enemies, homegrown terror, people who can be inspired by twisted insidious ideology that isis creates should really bring us to recognize it is not only a security threat abroad but one at home so i would ask my colleagues from connecticut whether people who are too dangerous to be permitted to

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

message to everyone in this country that we are serious about taking on this epidemic of violence whether it is by terrorist attack or an attack of someone deeply mentally ill like the attack in newtown or ordinary everyday violence that is just as epidemic in the cities, it is incredibly important to send a message thab we are serious about this and not worry whether we have addressed every aspect of this debate, whether we have solved every problem at once, not allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. i say that for two reasons. i say that for two reasons. one, the notion i talked about earlier in which i do worry that there is an unintentional message of endorsements and when we do nothing or when all we do is talk.

when there is not a collective condemnation with policy change from what is supposedly the world's greatest deliberative body, there are very quiet cues that are picked up by people who are contemplating the unthinkable in their mind. signif i am not accusing anybody of being intentional in their ic endorsement but when we don't act there is a quiet signal that is sent to people whose minds are becoming unhinged, who are thinking about doing something truly awful and terrific, and for four years we have been talking about this, since sandy hook, have not heard anything that would suggest to the highest levels of government condemn it with real policy change. second, this is more deeply personal and i know both colleagues on the floor today share this. almost every one of us has had a conversation with a family

member who lost a son or daughter to gun violence and too many of us have had that h collective conversation with a large number of families who lost loved ones in an episode oo mass atrocity. speaking personally, mister president, i need to be able to tell them something. they need to be able to hear something that helps in their healing and the fact of the matter is every day there are 80 sets of families to begin a process of grief surrounding the taking of a life through a firearm and their process of an healing, for many of them is encumbered by the fact that their leaders are not doing anything to stop it. country if we are something , compassionate as a body, forget the broader systemic impact of passing laws that will actually

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

is an easy place to start, an easy place to start where we know there is no real disagreement among the american public, 80%, 90% approval. we know republicans and yb democrats can start negotiating this afternoon and this evening, and easy place to start. maybe it is a muscle, maybe once you start to exercise that muscle, once you start to get in the habit of coming to get to find ways to address gun violence makes it easier to make the next step.ha and the sky doesn't fall. people see that if you expand background checks, hundreds don't lose their right to go practice their support. people who want to shoot for sport don't lose access to that pastime, maybe we will also see as we have seen in connecticut the sky doesn't fall when you pass commonsense laws, that tc

people still enjoy the right to own a firearm so long as they are not a criminal, not on a terrorist watchlist, they haven't been adjudicated as mentally ill. i yield to the gentleman for additional question. gun >> to be realistic, as the president has said we are not going to prevent every death from gun violence and i think we owe the president a great debt of thanks for his leadership and courage and strength in advancing the debate on gun violence, seeking specific constructive steps that will help to stop it. but we know that we are not going to be successful in preventing every single death as a result of gun violence.y

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

prevent all 30,000 deaths or every act of potential terror and hatred like orlando but we can make a start, can't we? >> senator blumenthal, through the chair, that is exactly right. a start.ve what is so offensive to the people senator blumenthal and i represent is we have done absolutely nothing. in the face of mass slaughter after mass slaughter this body has taken absolutely no action. i know it is tough. we are often at each other's throat, but that in and of itself is unacceptable. let's find limited common ground on issues the broad american electorate supports and let's move forward on it.ha maybe we way to litigate some of the more controversial pieces until later on.

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

on gun deaths in america versus gun deaths in every other industrialized nation. not it doesn't happen other places like it happens here. it is not because america has more people who are mentally ill. not because america spend less money on law enforcement, not because america has less well-funded system of mental health.ep we had a terrible system of fix, but the reason we have epidemic levels of gun violence is not because we are different from other countries in all of these other ways.re it has got to be claimed in part because we have allowed so many people who shouldn't have guns to have them. there is a reason we are different and we shouldn't accept it. we shouldn't accept it.r: >> if i may, if the gentleman

would yield for a question. >> i yield to the question. >> mister president. i want to ask the senator about the weapon that was used in orlando. my home is in orlando. i was there right after the shooting. as i speculated at the time, this was going to be a combination of isis inspired hate crime, anti-gay, very likely anti-hispanic because 44 of the 49 had hispanic surnamess so i want to ask the senator if

he is aware of the difference of the lethal killing machine that was used, between the ar 15 which is a military weapon used by the military, called an m-16, and the sig sauer mc x. they can use the same bullets but this one in fact can use and even larger, more lethal bullet traveling at 2000 mph. i wanted the senator to see this. is he aware that down in orlando this killer used this rifle?

>> thank you for the question. from the layman's perspective those don't seem like terribly different weapons. they are both incredibly powerful weapons, they are both derivatives of weapons that were intended to kill as many peoplee as quickly as possible. i yield for additional question. >> the senator no doubt not wholly understand but unfortunately agrees along with. the rest of us about what happened in orlando, that these are not weapons for hunting, these are weapons for killing. particular weapon has a collapsible stop. with the senator be surprised?y >> this is how he got it in.

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

conceal them easily. they don't shy away from the fact that the collapsible elements make them easily concealable. no one is suggesting they are used for mass slaughter, but they are certainly selling them in a way that speaks to an audience that is contemplating what they were contemplating. question.dditional >> those of us that are s listening to us if they are concerned about this stilted parliamentary language we are using, the senate rules that i am requesting through the president of the senate permission to ask a question so i will ask this in the form of a question. with the senator believe these are the shoes of one of the trauma surgeons? trauma center in orlando regional it just so happens that two blocks from the nightclub is the

trauma center in orlando regional medical center, number 1 trauma ctr. with trained trauma surgeons. they call them all in in the middle of the night and senator like me to read what the doctor who owns these shoes said? >> it doesn't surprise me because we know the level of carnage that entered the emergency room. it should pain everyone to look at that pair of shoes, the blood splattered on it, the amount of blood that was lost by those guys and lived, and think we are not going to do anything about it. i yield for additional question, senator from new york is waiting. >> since the senator would like to know what doctor joshua,

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

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

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

from connecticut who held the floor for some time today, both senators from connecticut have done amazing jobs and i know we are looking forward to hearing from our friend from west virginia. to all of us on the floor i want to thank you because this is so so important senator from connecticut said it has been four years since sandy hook at this body has done nothing this body is changing - shameful in its obeisance to the hard right of the gun lobby and not most reasonable things that almost all americans support that don't affect the rights of legitimate gunowners that simply make the country safer. as i asked my question of the senator from connecticut we are in a new world, in a world where lone wolf can get hold of the

gun and do huge damage as we saw, our friends in florida eloquently talked about his home states. we have to change and adapt to that world. maybe in the old days people would say terrorism won't happen here. we need to make sure we do everything we can to prevent terrorists from getting guns. i want to asked my colleague this question. a person, the authorities suspect might do terrorism and planning a terrorist attack and also know that a gun you purchased, that person purchases could be used in that attack,

would stop them from getting a gun. second, legislation so we have universal background checks because you need both. my question to my colleague is along these lines. if we close the terror loophole we could have a terrorist go to a gun show or go online and buy a gun and if we just deal with making sure there are universal background checks we haven't permitted terrorists from getting guns whether it be at a gun show, online or at a gun shop as we saw. is the author of the braden law, there was no online then so we didn't ban online purchases, the nra had the last minute to get the votes, let gun shows getting. at that point gun shows were what they used to be, not a

massive place where people buy guns but people who needed to sell the one gun they had and what has evolved is the people who want to get around the law use gun shows methodically and regularly to avoid the background check. isn't it true these two pieces of legislation go hand-in-hand? isn't it true that if we did one, either one but not the other, terrorists could still get their hands on guns, suspected terrorists and isn't it true that both pieces of legislation have the overwhelming support of a huge number of americans? >> i think the senator for his lifelong leadership on this question. i feel i am in a caucus of giants, people coming to the floor from senator durbin to

senator blumenthal, senator schumer, working on this issue to protect americans from gun violence far longer than i have and as one of the authors of the original bill you know better than anyone that had you known you were building a bill that would only cover 60% of gun sales you would have never designed to voted for it on the terms that exist today. what has happened is overtime gun sales have migrated to other places so what we are simply trying to do is reinforce the existing intention of the law. not change the law at all. for everybody that voted for that bill initially to make sure criminals are not allowed to buy guns they did so because they believed they were going to cover the majority of sales that were done in a commercial atmosphere. now commerce in gun shows, online, we need the system to migrate to it. you are also right that protecting america from terrorist attack is ineffective

unless we do both, make sure people on the terrorist watchlist can't buy guns and in which that list reaches is both gun stores, gun shows but also those internet sales and you are also right this is the only place where this issue is controversial. this is the only place in which there is a 50/50 argument over this question. any other form of 100 random people around the country and it is 90-10 on this issue which i think is why my friend from west virginia led on this because he knows in all our states this is something that brings republicans and democrats and gunowners together. maybe other things don't but this issue does and i yield to the gentleman. >> one more question if i might, the senator from connecticut, we all want to hear with the senator from west virginia has said. he has been such a courageous

leader on this issue. there is some talk on both issues of, quote, a compromise. i just want -- i have talked to the senator from connecticut and all my colleagues on our side of the aisle, we -- it doesn't have to be one way to do it but i would just ask the senator the question isn't it true that we don't want to compromise so we can say we did something and not close these loopholes? that a compromise that says for instance, built around what the senator from texas has said which is you have to go to court to prove a person might be a terrorist and after three days you can get a gun, no court proceeding, would be a meaningless compromise. a. victory in the kind of thing the vast majority, just about all of us on our side of the aisle could not accept. >> very important point i think

the senator for making it. we can find common ground but let's be honest, the american people support the proposal that is an underlying feinstein legislation, the american people support the underlying legislation incumbent in mention/to me. we want to find common ground but that common ground can't result in loopholes big enough to drive a truck through allowing people on the terrorist watchlist to get guns and this idea that give law enforcement 72 hours to go to court to stop somebody from obtaining a gun is ridiculous. there aren't enough resources in our system of law enforcement in our judicial system to track everyone and bring every single one of those sales to court. second the legislation i have seen would only give you 72 hours to do that which would let thousands of these sales go

through without prohibition. we can find common ground but let's remember the american public by big numbers already support the proposals put before this body that failed previously. >> i agree with my colleague and look forward to the questions from the senator from west virginia. >> i yield to the senator of west virginia for question. >> let me thank all our colleagues and senators for being here today and speaking about this most important issue for the welfare of our citizens and each of our respective states. my question is going to be to the senator from connecticut. on gun culture. i don't think there is another state. if there is i don't know, more of a gun culture than west virginia, we take that extremely seriously, second amendment rights. i want to make sure we are on the same page here because some people come from states that don't have much of a gun culture. is a young person growing up --

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

or they are a criminal are said to be a criminal just because they own it then you have to assume they are law-abiding and will do the right thing. if they are going to do the right thing the right thing is we don't sell to strangers, we don't sell to criminals, we don't sell to mentally unstable question. does it make sense if, same in connecticut, if you go to a gun show that allows somebody not to go through that but go to a table where there is not a licensed dealer selling it and doesn't require by law to have a background check to say wait a minute, you can't do that. it is a commercial transaction and as a law-abiding gun owner i don't do that. don't know who you are, i don't know you. i will show you my gun. i won't do it. i know you are capable and able to have the gun. and understand how it operates. that is what we said. we did so much more. i would say to my good friend in connecticut, senator from connecticut, is the gun culture the same? you come from a state that has a gun culture and even those

wonderful families, the tragic loss of their children, they were not trying to ban anything, they want common sense, treat people as law-abiding gun owners and do the right thing at the right thing is find out who wants to buy your gun and don't let them go to a gun show or on the internet and be able to get around that. >> let me answer the question and ask another question is a follow-up. people are going to say in connecticut and west virginia, very different states, there are a lot of differences between connecticut and west virginia. but i have found gun owners are not that different in the sense they are serious about their guns, serious about being a collector, having the right to protect themselves, the right to be able to hunt but they also recognize it is a responsibility

and you lose their responsibility if you commit a crime. almost every single gun owner i talked to said yes, absolutely criminals -- every gun owner in connecticut says to me that i ask this question to, terrorists, people on the watchlist are allowed to buy guns? as different as our states are i think gun owners are largely the same in they come to this issue with the sentiment of i don't want the government taking away my ability to own a firearm. i want diversity of product available to me. i want to make sure i am able to collect, able to hunt but i also don't want to criminal, somebody convicted of domestic violence or murder or assault and battery to be able to get their hands on a weapon. i think that is where both our

gun communities are. i yield to the gentleman for another question if he wants to correct me. >> my question is a follow up on that. did you in connecticut after the mention to me amendment, what we tried to do and tried to put common sense as law-abiding gun owners, how we operate every day, did you have anybody say to you that took away my gun rights? i can't keep my gun, i can't buy a gun? in fact those who took time to read it, we protected the second amendment greater than it has ever been protected, we protected a law-abiding gun owner being able to do with the second amendment gives the right to do. we never banned anything. we know law-abiding gun owners do the right thing. i think in west virginia and connecticut 70% to 80% of the real ardent collectors, shooters, sportsman said that

make sense. when we had a roadblock, do you have anybody come to you in your state saying senator murphy please don't vote for that because it will take my right away? >> no one in connecticut thought this was taking the right way and we have a pretty strict background check in connecticut already so in connecticut we had already subjected most sales to the background check system and my impression is our hunters, sports shooters, collectors never felt they were on the precipice of being able to lose their right to enjoy their support for their pastime, to be able to build on their collection. this disputes when you get into the area of talking about banning this kind of weapon was that kind of weapon but that is not with this is about. it has nothing to do with this bill. this bill is about saying that if you are a criminal, you can't buy a weapon. yielding for another question,

in connecticut, this is pretty noncontroversial in connecticut. other things are controversial but this is not controversial and you have told me that it is not controversial and west virginia either you lay it out as to what it really is. >> when you take time, whether it be if i can ask my friends from connecticut another question, when you take time to go home, you explain it. they understand it, they read it and if anything we are protecting them more to do the thing they do every day the way they were trained and they believe we are but start saying did you -- if you do that then they will expand it further and take more of our rights away. this is a constitutional amendment. it can't be by executive order. it has to have the action of congress so don't worry about someone expanding it or some office saying we are going to

expand the rule or the interpretation of it or the executive, the governor will have an executive ruling that takes more of my rights away. you can't do that with a constitutional amendment. we have to do what we are doing right now. can't we do the logical thing and pass something that is a building block for us to make sure those who are unstable, who have been criminals and want to do harm to all of us should not be able to conveniently go anywhere they want, in a gun show or on the internet, do you have any feedback on that? >> i did. we hear it constantly, this belief that there is a secret agenda, this is about a slippery slope, gun confiscation, and you state eloquently in your remarks there is a second amendment, and interpretation by the supreme court of the second amendment guarantees the individual's

right to a firearm. that we cannot breach. as a legislative body. that is unquestioned. the question whether there is a secret agenda is one we have to confront. the reality is when we passed the initial background checks i am sure people said this is the camel's nose under the tent and it was not. that system worked for a long time, always gun sales migrated out which we have plenty of examples in which we have passed sensible common sense gun laws that didn't lead to the worst-case scenarios that many people proffer to us. >> i understand yourself and most of my colleagues will do two amendments. we have two minutes to vote. basically common sense building blocks to protect the citizens of this great country and each of our respective states. the one on terrorists.

if you are on a terrorist watch list. i heard my colleagues on both sides and on the other side of the aisle said there is no due process and basically we are taking people's right away which is the foundation and cornerstone of this great democracy of ours and i said there is not another nation on earth that have a target on its back the way the united states of america does. i would say, senator, with that, understanding if a person is being called in, take the shooter in orlando and our hearts and prayers go out to the families of those who lost loved ones and those who are still suffering. with that being said this gentleman was called in a couple times, was suspected to say terrorist, how was he able to legally go to buy the firearms

he did? he didn't go legally. you can't even stop that from happening and due process, one of my colleagues send me two hours which we know is not even reasonable or practical but on that both 5, democrats or republicans both went to keep terrorists from getting firearms and the question you people are asking from connecticut how do you go further, how do we get to the point where if you have been questions, you should be least on a watch for five years, on the next know by list. and in connecticut, my goodness if a person is thought to be of a terrorist mindset and flagged them not to fly a commercial airline in the united states of america don't you think we have the same concerns about them being able to buy a weapon legally? >> through the chair to my

friend, it is important to remember there is consensus in this body those individuals shouldn't fly. nobody came to the floor of the senate and proposed a law that we should -- on this watchlist and give back the ability to fly. they would get tarred and feathered by their constituents. everyone investigated by the fbi on the terrorist watch lists, depriving them of their right to travel and let them fly. no one would propose that. if it is not controversial that individuals who had intersections with law enforcement over terrorism are not permitted to fly, why is it so controversial they should be stopped from buying a firearm? at least until they greet the process and make it clear they had no reason to be feared. >> anybody in the state of connecticut coming to you, i have a friend suspected of being

a terrorist and their rights have been taken away? they are an american citizen and for some reason they were on the internet and checked out and fbi came to their home and suspected them and questioned them and should that person be on the know by list if you will because they are suspected terrorists? >> people are shocked in my state, there is something other people don't understand this hasn't been baked into the background system as is. this is simply not the controversial issue anywhere but in this chamber. we broached the amendment, the bill of rights, taking people's right away? nobody believes that. in west virginia -- if anything they say error on the side of caution, keep and my children safe.

that is what they are saying. we are not taking any people's rights but we have to have a process that person over a period of time has shown they haven't engaged or been involved in come back, we all said that makes sense, we can do that and i think senator feinstein has a five your provision in their for that which is really reasonable and i can't go back home this weekend and explain to the people in west virginia why we haven't moved forward on this and there could be another orlando and god for bid, one of our states. >> i think the gentleman for joining us on the floor today and that is what this is about, not being able to go back to our states especially those that have been touched by these crimes and tell them that we wasted another week thomas sat here and ignored the problem for yet another week. the reason i am on the floor, the reason senator blumenthal

and senator booker are joining me as we have had enough of these shootings, enough of this talk, we think it is time for action and time for action now. >> thank you for the questions we have had, thank all of you for the questions we have to further ask. >> i want to thank you very much for what i think has been one of the more remarkable exhibitions of grit and toughness. you have not only been on your feet, not only have not left the floor to use the facilities, but you have stood in the saddle and have been for this entire time as your colleagues flowed through this chamber answering question after question after question after question on a topic that you are passionate about, a topic that you feel deeply and personally and i want to thank you for your leadership because it captured the attention of our nation. this filibuster right here, i know a little bit about social

media. this filibuster right here has been the focus, trending on twitter, focus of facebook, it has created a media attention on a problem because in a sense you are giving hope, you're very intention of coming here has met the urgent need the public has seen for this body here, this auspicious body, the greatest deliberative body on the planet earth, the senate designed by the constitution to deal with the biggest problems of our land, that this body would not just go on with business as usual. which you chose to do, to say enough, stop. we are going to have a discussion about an issue that is not just on the minds of the

american public, but his previously affecting the heart and spirit of our nation. tens of thousands of people, since sunday, have been standing around our country individual -- in vigil, in solidarity, expressing their pain, expressing their sorrow, expressing the feelings they have that we should be better than to allow such grievous, terroristic, hateful acts to happen on our soil. and so while the american public has and stepping up, this body today had a different plan, to move on a piece of legislation. before i want to reframe this, i want to say thank you to you for the courage you have put forth

to say enough is enough. no business as usual. we are going to stop. we are going to push for two commonsense, sensible, common sense amendments that cannot end gun violence in america, cannot stop terrorist activity here and abroad, but we can take a step, a constructive step towards beginning to choke the flow of commonality of these incidents on american soil and have said time and time again, as has been said by a number of senators today, what reason with our government organized in the first place? you heard angus king wearing the constitution on his tie, talk to

that preamble. common defense, domestic tranquility. and so i want to frame this again, the first frame i have to say, i talked about it after caucus lunch yesterday, we talked about it during the day, talked about it last night and you are not talking about it today, you're doing it. no business as usual. for that i am grateful. and it is merited that we also thank the many people who were involved. when the senate is open past midnight, hundreds of people have to be here as well, not just the people you see on the floor, the pages on their first days, this is one of your seminal experiences. not the folks who are working behind the day us, not the great republican colleagues in the chair, security guards, subway

operators, the people who were seating folks in the gallery. i point out the fact chris has helped pay for food not only for a lot of the folks here, but including the republican group. i appreciate you, senator murphy but i want to get to the framing of what this is about because there is a lot to talk about tonight. a lot discussed, a lot far afield, two issues are of common sense. one is the united states of america, our investigatory authorities, see people as threats, investigating people because they are believed to be doing acts of terrorism on american soil.

people who have already been banned from flying on airplanes, that we should take a step, we should make it the law of the land for the person who is a suspected terrorist, the person who can't get on an airplane, to buy an assault rifle. that is so common sense that as you said earlier today four or five hours ago many people in america are shocked, the terrorist loophole actually exists. it is not radical. it is not out-of-the-box, common sense. what is more important in this day and age where partisanship does, does cripple this body from time to time on big issues this issue is not partisan.

study after study have shown survey after survey, poll after poll, overwhelmingly americans agree with this. american gun owners already say we need to close the terrorist loophole. nra members, 70% say we should close the terrorist loophole. what nation when they are at war where your enemy is trying to incite terrorism in your country, when your enemy is explicitly saying exploit this loophole, what country would keep that lop loophole wide open where it is easy for someone with terroristic aims to hurt, injure, destroy and kill? you took it one step further and i was happy to work on an amendment with you, that says

you can't just close a terrorist loophole and leave open, as you called it hours ago, a backdoor for those terrorists to use. if you do background checks they need to be universal because if it is just brick and mortar gun retailers you go there and have to do a background check and by the way those background checks stop people every single year, not just people who may be suspected of terrorism, but criminals. we now know we as a nation have changed buyers of weapons have migrated from the brick and mortar stores to another market, online or gun shows. unless we close avenues for terrorists to use they will use them so very much common sense again, the second thing you are saying today, close the terrorist loophole and make sure we are doing universal background checks. that is the reason we are here.

the grit of a senator and the common sense of two amendments that are very critical. but i want for a moment to tell you perhaps the most touching time for me in this 13-14 hours and i checked the rules and you acknowledge people in the gallery, i have to say tonight, you are not here, i am not acknowledging anybody who is here but your wife and child showed up. when i heard you talk as a parent about the love of your child and how you did something so important for us as americans, it is at the core of who we are, what our country calls us to do which is to take courageous steps of empathy and say when other people's children

are dying, that is not their problem. it triggers empathy in me. i think of my own child, i think about my niece, my nephew, i think about my family. there is a privilege in this country that is a dangerous type of privilege, the type of privilege that says is something is not happening to me personally, if a problem is not happening to me personally then it is not a problem. not a problem, not happening to me personally. when that is contrary to what we say about ourselves as a country. the spirit of this country as we are all in this together. we all do better when we all do better. if there is injustice in our midst affecting another family, another state, another neighborhood, then that is an

injustice threatening the whole. senator murphy, this is one of your core values. it is expressed by martin luther king, one of the greatest pieces of american literature, the letter from a birmingham jail, this idea that if something is going wrong in connecticut, the tragedy happens, children are murdered there, that is not connecticut's problem. it is all of our problems. king said injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. we are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a common garment of destiny. so that to me is a core element of our nation. it is what our founders understood when they said we are in this together. the declaration of independence

end class with a nod towards that interdependence, the interwoven nature set by our founders on the declaration of independence, right at the end, in order for this nation to work, we must be there for each other. we must care about each other. we must invest ourselves in each other. of an injustice happens to my brother or my sister it is affecting me. the declaration of independence ends with those words, the mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. so now we see these tragedies. i don't want to believe we are becoming numb to them. we see them as some distant reality and not as a personal attack. when you attack one american you attack us all.

when you have an avenue, where you can make a difference to preserve and protect life and do not claim it, to me that is a sin. there is a great writer, great thinker, nobel laureate who once said to the effect the opposite of love is not hate, it is in difference. the opposite of love is not hate, it is in action. lack of caring, lack of compassion. so what gets me upset about this issue is that we have common sense tools that have been enumerated by wide colleagues of mine who have legal scholars in

our caucus who understand clearly there is no absolute right when it comes to freedom of speech, even as has been quoted many times, the majority opinion in the heller case, there is no absolute right to bear arms. has been said by multiple senators just closing the terrorist loophole doesn't infringe the rights of any american to bear arms, any american sportsman, any american seeking self-defense. this is just saying hey, if you are someone believed to be a terrorist, you should not be able to purchase a gun. someone on the no-fly list should not be able to purchase a gun. by the way, even that as you decca out, should be due process. that is the process for which you being on that no-fly list.

for me, when i see your child come to listen to a father, when i see parents, many of my colleagues, all of us when we hear about a mass shooting don't just say i am praying for those families, that happening to my fellow americans is a threat to me, the we all are lesser as a result of it but we have to think to ourselves, how would it feel if i failed to act, to do what was right, to close the terrorist loophole, what is that person or enemy is working to radicalize, the person that our enemy is working to inspire,

what about that person seeking to do harm for americans, what happens if they exploit that loophole tomorrow, next month, next year, what happens if they exploit that loophole and go to a playground, train station, movie theater, school, church and it happens to be your playground, your movie theater, your school, your church, your child? if you know there is something we can do to stop our enemy from getting arms and doing us harm and we have seen from san bernardino to orlando, florida, the terrorists look to us harm and we can stop our enemy with common sense amendment that is believed and supported and

majority of gunowners and majority of nra members. we are setting ourselves up for future acts of violence and terror that could have been prevented. what is this, our family or our community or neighborhood? there is one more step i have to mention, senator murphy, one more step that is important to this because if you close the terrorist loophole and make sure those terrorists cannot exploit -- if you make sure background checks are universal, agreed to by the majority of americans, republicans, gun owners, the majority of nra members you are also going to benefit by

creating a background check system that stops criminals from getting guns, undermines their ability to get their hands on weapons they want to do to carry out violent in our neighborhoods, communities, cities. that is where it gets deeply personal to me. like you have for your child every american has for their kids, we have big dreams. this is a nation of dreams. we have something called the american dream which is known across the globe. it is a bold dream, a humble dream but this is a nation where our children can grow up, have the best opportunity, children can be better than us, the american dream. the challenge i see with

american reality where we have such a liberal access to weapons by people who are criminals what has resulted in i have seen it myself, so many children taken, killed, murdered, time and time again, every day, every hour, time and time again. another dream, murdered. and that is something that is not just words to me. i have seen it across my state. in our cities, on street corners where we set up shrines with candles and teddy bears marking place after place, street after street where children have been murdered, i have stood on too

many street corners looking down at bodies, 13-year-olds, 14-year-olds, 15-year-olds, 16-year-olds murdered in our nation with a regularity not seen in wars past. i have been to funerals with parents begging us to do something about the violence in our country. children that are living but yet live with trauma and stress because they hear gunshots too much in their neighborhood. we have the power to stop this. and we can't assume that these problems are not ours. winston hughes said it so poetically, there is a dream in this land with its back against

the wall, to save the dream for one we must save the dream for all. how many of our children's dreams must be destroyed by gun violence before we do the common sense things that we agree on to begin to shrink those numbers? it is written in genesis. joseph's brothers see him approaching with murder in their eyes. it says that they said here come the dreamer, let us slay him and see what becomes of his dreams. we have lost so many, so many have been slain. the dream of america can't buy, people want to take it from us, inject us with fear and hate,

the dream of our country cannot die. there are loopholes that allow mad men and terrorists and criminals to get their hands on assault weapons. we cannot let the dream of our country die and be dashed and killed, we can do something about it and it is unacceptable when you have the power to do nothing. and so elected to this body, we, caretakers of that dream, the torch of the light, the hope, the promise of this country that still attracts so many, hundreds of millions in our nation, so many outside our nation believe, we must make sure we form a more perfect union. we see that unfinished is this, the work to be done, we answer

the call of our citizenry. i return to where i began. senator murphy, there are literally thousands of americans taking to the streets this past week. saw them in new jersey. read about them in california and florida, see them in washington dc near our nation's capital and today, i am proud you decided that dream was worth fighting for. a call of our nation had to be answered, that dream demanded something more than business as usual. 13 plus hours you stood. i don't know how long it will take.

i know this is an issue, closing the terrorist loophole, closing the avenues for terrorists to go online or gun shows, just doing with such common sense to keep us safe. i know we will win this battle. not a matter of this, it is a matter of when. and so the our growth later and later, this filibuster drags on. i just want to ask this perhaps important question. you and i both know the thousands of calls in your office that one of the problems we have to have is we allow our inability to do everything to undermine our determination to do something, that when you have a majority of people that

believe in something, often the only thing that stops us from achieving it is not the weekend, not a matter of can we, but do we have the collective will? i know from scanning social media that there are thousands of people watching right now. as you speak to our colleagues and speak to the chair, perhaps my question is can you speak to those people who tonight, many of them who were cynical about this body found a little bit of hope in your actions. can you maybe take a moment to speak to them about how we can keep fighting this fight, what they can do to press forward, how we can make this dream of our nation stronger, mightier, more just, so that a week from now or a month from now we are not gathered together in morning

in our nation about dreams dashed by violent terrorists. >> i'm pleased the senate as a body has come to this conclusion. television in the senate will undoubtedly provide citizens with greater access and exposure to the actions of this body. this access will help all americans to be better informed of the problems and issues which face this nation on a day by day basis. >> what brought us here is not partisanship but the conduct of one man who happens to be the president, who happened to be elected by the people and given the most solemn responsibility in the nation to be the chief law enforcement officer of the land and failed miserably in that responsibility and deserves to be impeached based on what he did. >> i appoint the honorable susan collins from the state of maine form duties of the chair by

strom thurmond, president pro tem for. >> the majority leader is recognized. >> madam president. perhaps you have already noticed my colleagues, the senate seems to be extraordinarily well-organized and effective today and there is a reason for that. with apologies from the chaplain and the majority leader i think we should note a significant milestone in the 210 year course of the senate's history taking place today. never before has a team composed entirely of women members and staff opened the day's proceedings. >> celebrating 30 years of coverage of the senate on c-span2. >> the u.s. senate is adjourned at 2:13 this morning after democrat chris murphy held the

floor for nearly 15 hours calling for action on gun violence. today members continue work on $56.3 billion funding for the commerce, justice and science program. the white house posing the bill over inadequate funding levels for the 2020 census and bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, 200 additional agent to help enforce existing gun laws. now to the floor of the u.s. senate. .. o order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, you are from eternity past and future, the same yesterday, today, and forever. we are your children, seeking to understand the destinies you have choreographed for our