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 lives.

lord, we stand weak and mortal, surrounded by the immensities of your power and the unfolding of your loving providence. today, use our lawmakers as servants for your purposes. may they remember that life is a dress rehearsal for eternity and a time of training and testing. may their world be centered not in themselves but in you, as they better comprehend the vanity of the temporal and the glory of the eternal.

as many recover from burning the midnight oil, lift their minds beyond all time and space to you, the author and finisher of our faith. woe pray in your mighty name. amen. the president pro tempore: pleae join me in reciting the pledge f allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: mr. president, for 14 hours and 50 minutes beginning late wednesday morning and ending early thursday morning, the entire nation watched the junior senator from connecticut give our republican colleagues a lesson in a number of things, not the least of which is courage. it's easy -- i say he stood for 14 hours. mr. president, we talk a lot

about filibusters in the senate. they don't happen very often. i've been in congress for 34 years. i've probably been involved in two more -- i've led two more than most anyone else. they just don't happen very often. we talk about it and there are a lot of fake filibusters. this was real. i admire and appreciate very much the junior senator from connecticut. four days after 49 innocent americans were gunned down in cold blood, senator murphy stood here on the senate floor, as i indicated, for 14 hours pleading with republicans to join in doing something to stop our nation's scourge of gun violence. and it is a scourge. 30 other democrats joined him on the floor. without exception, others -- all of us, all 46 of us united with -- united together, led by murphy, in support of what he

was doing. because we all believe that he echoed the words that we wish to speak. what -- to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals. it was inspiring. it was a reminder to senate democrats -- to the senate that senate democrats will not cave in. throughout the course of senator murphy's filibuster, hundreds of our constituents came and watched from the senate gallery. there were 100 people still sitting in the gallery at 2:12 a.m. this morning, as senator murphy brought his filibuster to a close. thousands and thousands and

thousands of constituents called senate offices demanding that congress do something to address this gun violence. senator murphy's filibuster took over social media. hold the floor was a top trending topic, nationally and globally. senator murphy got the world's attention and certainly america's attention, and i hope he got the attention the of the senate republicans. in the recallly morning hours, the republican leader and i spoke, and we talked, and he indicated that he would commit to allowing votes on two important gun safety measures. the booker legislation -- murphy -- booker-feinstein legislation to extend background cherks and

the feinstein measure to prevent terrorists from walking to a gun store buying all the explosives they want. mr. president, why -- why the passion of murphy? why? could it have been the death of these little babies by some madman walking into the sandy hook school? of course it was. as he indicated, he can't get that out of his mind. every day that's what he thinks about. every day. not 24 hours a day, but every day. why was cory booker here every minute of the time with senator murphy? he was here because he lives in an area where people are killed -- several a week where he lives in his neighborhood. he gave one of the most passionate speeches on tuesday

in our caucus about holding a little boy shot in the head and dying in his arms. senator schumer, the third sponsor of this, has been involved in gun issues since his early days in the house of representatives. feinstein -- dianne feinstein, doing something about guns has been on her portfolio since she was a member of the board of supervisors of san francisco and became mayor as a result of the mayor being murdered. dianne feinstein led the charge a number of years ago to pass on this floor, when filibusters was not the way we did things around here, stopping every piece of legislation going through. no, she persevered and passed legislation to stop the easily

obtainable assault weapons. does anybody think these assault weapons are good for hunting or protecting your family? this evil man that went into this nightclub in orlando, florida, i don't person aally know -- i don't personally know how many clips he had, but at least three -- three 30-bullet clips. it takes less than three seconds to shoot those, less than three seconds. it takes, if you're not really very god at it a couple seconds to -- very good at it, a couple seconds to reload. show to fire off 90 shells would take ten or 15 seconds, if that's what he wanted to do.

so dianne feinstein, it was right many years ago. she's still right. these assault weapons are not for the american people's entertainment, they shouldn't be. but the n.r.a. and the gun owners of america, they love to sell these guns. so we're going to vote on the murphy-booker-schumer legislation to expand background checks. we're going to vote on the feinstein measure to close the terror loophole, preventing terroristterrorists from walkina gun store and buying all the firearms and explosives they want. these are commonsense safety measures that the american people overwhelmingly support. according to a december poll -- december, september, october, august -- it doesn't matter, it's been this way for years -- almost 90% of americans are in favor of expanding background checks. i ask anyone, do we want someone who is a criminal or has

problems with their mental capacity, do we want them going in purchasing a gun? of course we don't. that's what background checks are all about. more than 80% of americans warrant to close the so-called terror loophole, preventing suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms. and the legislation of senator feinstein will cover just that. i'm glad there are votes. i shouldn't be aprooshive of -- i shouldn't be appreciative of something that should just happen, but i am. around here we don't get -- democrats can't pass these gun safety measures by our severs.

we are the minority party as a result of the elections two years ago. there will be a new majority here come this first part of the year. but now we're a minority in this chamber. the republicans must join us for those measures to pass. but that won't happen if the republicans continue to take their orders -- and i mean orders -- from the national rifles association and gun owners of america. we need americans to understand that we need republicans to follow senator murphy's lead and senator feinstein's lead and show courage in standing up to the gun lobby. in the aftermath of the worst shooting in modern american history, our constituents to looking to us for help. they want to feel safe. they want to be safe. we can help provide that safety by closing the terror loophole and expanding background checks today and do it immediately. i hope republicans will do the right thing and work with us to

protect americans from this gun violence. we need gun safety, not more guns. we must take a stand in the senate and say, enough is enough. on another subject briefly, mr. president, this sunday, june 19, is juneteenth, a day we celebrate each year as a reminder that liberty and justice must reach all corners of our great nation. on june 19, 1865, nearly two and a half years after president lincoln's emancipation and nearly two months after general lee surrendered at appomattox, a number of slaves in galveston, texas, learned that the institution of slavery was no more. there was no press, no internet, no television. it took a while for them to understand this. as we celebrate juneteenth, i hope we take a moment to reflect on what it means, the celebration of liberty and freedom for all americans.

sadly, 151 years later, we have much work to do to ensure that all citizens, no matter their race, religion, national origin, or whom they love, are treated equally under the law. we must ensure that all our citizens can assert their right to vote. our nation continues to struggle, to make the ballot box more accessible. we continue to bedisenfranchises in anumber of areas. we want them to come back and be the citizens that are part of a network of our great communities, let them vote. right here in the capital, washington, d.c., more than 600,000 reserv residents of the district of columbia continue to face taxation without representation. i have been here a long time, and i've always supported tatehood for d.c.

-- statehood for d.c. why not? i hope all americans will look to the example lincoln sent when he sent troops to galveston, texas. no matter who you are and where you may be, this nation is a land of liberty and justice for all. and let the record reflect i understand protocol here and i was told that senator mcconnell will be a little bit late, so i was told to move forward. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senate majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of debate only until noon today. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: over the past few months terrorists inspired or directed by isil have

committed mass murder in brussels, in california, and in france. when isil issued a call for lone wolf attacks against the west during ramadan, its followers heard the call. this week just out paris more innocent lives were ended brutally by a terrorist who broadcast news of the attack over the internet. this week in orlando, americans were targeted deliberately and taken forever from their families by terrorists isil has claimed is one of the soldiers of the caliphate. it's clear from his behavior that this was not a random act of violence. this was a calculated, a calculated act of terror. as c.i.a. director john brennan testified this morning before the senate select committee on intelligence, islamic state militants are -- quote -- "training and attempting to deploy operatives for further attacks on the west."

he also called this terrorist attack an assault on the values of openness and tolerance that define the united states as a nation. well of course he's absolutely right. he throws into stark relief the troubling reality we now face. isil is not the j.v. team. isil is certainly not contained. isil is the personification of evil in the world and it will continue to bring tragedy after tragedy to our own doorsteps until it's defeated. president obama needs to finally lead a campaign to accomplish this objective, or at the very least prepare the military and intelligence community to help the next president do it if he won't. this is his primary responsibility in the wake of this terrorist tragedy. here's ours, here's what we need to do. our responsibility in the senate is to make a choice. work on serious solutions to prevent terrorist attacks or use

the senate as a campaign studio. as a campaign studio. yesterday the f.b.i. director came to deliver a critical briefing on orlando and explained what's needed to prevent similar terrorist attacks in the future. senate republicans attended and asked serious questions. a rather significant group of senate democrats skipped it. skipped the briefing altogether for a campaign talk-a-thon out here on the senate floor, which also prevented us from going forward on the bill, offering amendments and votes. it's hard to think of a clearer contrast for serious work for solutions on the one hand and endless partisan campaigning on the other. doing what we can to fight terror beyond our borders and to prevent attacks within our border were priorities of ours well before the terrorist attack in orlando.

and they continue to be at the forefront of our efforts now. we just passed the annual national defense authorization act. it will go a long way toward helping americans confront global security challenges today and toward preparing the next commander in chief to take on threats tomorrow. so we're now working to pass an appropriations bill that will give the f.b.i. and other law enforcement officials more of the resources needed to track down and defuse threats right here on american soil. as we consider that measure, we're continuing to explore additional tools that can help prevent devastating terrorist attacks like tools to help us permanently address the threat of lone wolf terrorists and to help us connect the dots when it comes to terrorist communications. now, now is the time for democrats to finally join with us in pursuing serious solutions that can actually make a real

difference. as we said on tuesday, there will be amendment votes on this bill. there will be amendment votes on this bill. and yesterday we were prepared to begin that process but were unable to get amendments pending because of extended floor debate that went until 2:00 this morning. we'll try again today to move forward with amendments from both sides, and once there is an agreement to do so, we'll update everyone. so look, of course no one wants terrorists to be able to buy guns. no one wants terrorists to be able to buy a gun. so if democrats are actually serious about getting a solution on that issue, not just making a political talking point, they'll join with us to support senator cornyn's shield act. it will give the justice department the abt -- ability to

prevent known or suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms. it will protect the constitutional rights of all americans. it will go a step further as well and actually allow terrorists to be taken into custody if a judge finds probable cause. now that's a serious solution on this issue. let's remember, however, that this issue represents only a piece of a much, much bigger challenge. director brennan also told the intelligence committee today that despite all our progress against isil on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group's terrorist capability and global reach. that's brennan. if we want to prevent isil-inspired and directed attacks, we have to defeat isil in iraq and in syria. if we want to prevent isil-inspired and directed attacks, we have to defeat isil

in iraq and in syria. here's what that means. from the white house, it means we don't need another lecture -- another lecture -- or another threat to veto the defense bill. it means we need real leadership and a plan of action to defeat isil. from our colleagues here in the senate, it means we don't need more campaign talk-a-thons like we witnessed yesterday preventing us from actually voting. it means we need serious solutions and hard work. after all, that's what our constituents sent us here to do. we may have gotten held back by a day, but now we're able to keep moving forward to set up votes on both sides just as we always expected. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration

of h.r. 2578, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 120, h.r. 2578, an act making appropriations for the departments of commerce and justice, science, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. most mornings as the senate is in session, the minority leader comes to the floor, senator reid, talks for awhile, sometimes talks about things in the news. so i come today to the floor to talk about headline in the news today. "the new york times" of all places, with a headline "obamacare premiums are rising and not by a little." obamacare premiums are rising, and not by a little, today's "new york times" headline. because it's interesting when i hear senator reid come to the floor so often he's coming to the floor to defend the obama

health care law. a couple of weeks ago he came to the floor and he said that obamacare, he said is continuing to work. those are his words. so today i find it interesting in "the new york times," "obamacare care premiums are continuing to rise and not by a little." it says even in urban areas where competition was expected to be brisk and the risk pool relatively young and healthy -- expected is the key word there -- insurers appear to be struggling. in 14 major cities it says insurers are asking for 2017 increases twice as big as 2016. twice as big as last year. yet, senator reid says obamacare is continuing to work. the next day after he said that, he said the affordable care act is working. well, i don't know anyone who could be a member of the senate and could be going home to their home states on the weekends and listening to people that live in their home states, anyone who

could believe that obamacare is working. across the country people are seeing how much more money they're expected to pay for health insurance premiums next year. i just read that story from today's "new york times." yesterday's "washington post," "premiums for health plans sold through the federal insurance exchange" the one that democrats came to the floor said they loved, was going to work, could jump substantial next year from "the washington post" yesterday. perhaps more than at any point since the affordable care act marketplaces began in 2013. does senator reid read the newspaper? does he talk to his constituents? otherwise, how can he be so terribly confused about the impact of this health care law and the damage it's done to the american people? so far 31 states and the district of columbia have released information on what insurance companies plan to

charge next year. the average american is facing premiums that are 22% higher than this year. that's what's bringing about these headlines in "the washington post" and "the new york times." in iowa, an insurance company says that it wants its customers in the obamacare exchange to pay as much as 43% more next year. one customer wrote into the state insurance division and said -- quote -- "you're killing me." does senator reid understand that impact of this law? another wrote in and said "who can afford this? it's disastrous." does senator reid note any of that? in north carolina, the largest insurance company in the state said it plans to charge people an average of 19% more next year. in pennsylvania, one company said it's going to charge people up to 48% more starting in january. in arizona, people are facing

premium increases of 53%. that's the average increase in arizona. so it's not surprising to see a headline in "the new york times" today -- and i hope senator reid read the paper -- "obamacare premiums are rising and not by a little." well, whose fault is this? who should people across the country blame when they see these outrageous price increases that affect them at home? well, i believe they should blame senator reid and every democrat in congress who voted for obamacare and all of the expensive requirements, regulations and restrictions. so the question is, is obamacare working. let's use president obama's standard, the one that he set for himself. well, he promised if you like your doctor, you could keep your doctor. well, insurance plans have been trying to cut costs by doing what? narrowing the network of doctors that patients can see.

people are finding that they can't keep their doctors. they have been losing their doctors because the doctor is no longer covered by their insurance. well, that's -- you say is that just a guy who practiced medicine for a long time talking? no. it's a whole weekend review second of the sunday review of "the new york times." "sorry, we don't take obamacare care. sorry, we don't take obamacare." people that have obamacare, people that actually supported the idea of obamacare who cannot see a doctor, cannot go to a hospital because of this health care law. president obama said if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance. well, can you? 92,000 people in colorado are losing their insurance plan because companies are pulling out of the state. 22,000 people in ohio who are now scrambling to find new health insurance because the co-op that they were in went

broke last month. the health care law actually created 23 different co-ops. 13 of them have gone out of business. over the past couple of years, 745,000 americans who were promised by barack obama that if they like their insurance they could keep it, lost their insurance because their co-ops have closed down just under the health care law. president obama promised -- this is his standard -- that under his health care law the average family would see their health care rates go down by $2,500 per year. anyone who wants to know if obamacare is working should ask one simple question: did your health insurance rates go down by $2,500? that's the standard that the democrats should be held to. now we know that obamacare did take millions of people and put them into medicaid, which is a failed system, a broken system. many refer to it as a second-class citizen, hard to

see a doctor, hard to get care. it took other people, and it gave them big taxpayer subsidies paid for by the american taxpayers to help them afford the high premiums, the subsidies to help them afford the high premiums for this overpriced obamacare insurance. but those people will tell you it left them with deductibles and co-pays so high that they can't actually use the insurance. for for millions of other americans, there are no subsidies, just enormous bills. the president says, well, don't worry, you're going to get a subsidy. but let's take a look at how many people get subsidies and how many people will get none, who are buying insurance through the exchanges fl according to the congressional budget office, the people who look into this thing, there are 12 million americans who get some kind of subsidy to buy obamacare insurance. the premiums go up, the subsidies go up, but that's a

bill that hits the taxpayers, the hardworking men and women of the country who pay their taxes year in and year out. so that's 12 million. but there's another 12 million, an equal number of people, who have to buy this insurance without any of these subsidies at all. so when the president takes a look at and talks about these 12 million, that's a significant hit to the american taxpayers, and it turns a blind eye to the 12 million americans who buy insurance without any of the subsidies. they are left to pay the full freight for the enormous premium increases that we're looking at next year. well, there was an associated press story on monday. i did the story from today's paper, the story from yesterday's paper, the associate the press headline on monday, "rising premiums rattle consumers paying their own way. " are senator reid and the

democrats rattled by it? they should be because the american public is rattled by t tells the story of a woman from queens, new york. we have two democratic senators in this body who voted for this health care law. this is one of their constituents from queens, new york. she got a notice from her insurance company that they plan to raise her rates by as much as 25% next year. on top of this, her plan dropped the hospital network that she wants. well, president obama promised she could keep her insurance, her hospital, her doctor. doesn't apply to this lady. she says "for people like me who are in the middle, there is very limited choice." she says, "and now that limited choice is going to get more expensive." how dot senators from -- how do the senators from new york respond to that? why aren't they on the floor talking about it? well, for most americans, the democrats' health care law has

meant higher prices, less freedom to choose what's right for them and their families. that's why the polls show that on average only four out of ten americans have a favorable view of the health care law at all. and it's because the premiums keep going up and up without end are hitting them in the pockets. it's because people are also paying higher deductibles, higher co-payments just to see a doctor. so the kaiser family foundation did a survaivment they said -- did a survey. they said, what about these deductibles? for people who have deductibles of over $1,500, even those people that are getting the subsidies for obamacare that the president says is so great, 70% of them when they see that their deductibles are over $1,500, they rank obamacare as "poor value." poor value for them. this is a $1,500 deductible.

mr. president, the average silver plan in the obamacare exchange here has a deductible of more than $3,000. insurance plans for next year are starting to come with deductibles of $7,000. how account president say this is valuable? the people who are getting it, even with his subsidies, his expensive disirks paid for by -- subsidies, paid for by taxpayers, say this is giving them very little value and is a poor vasm that's why this law is so unpopular. that's why obamacare continues to be under water in terms of those who oppose it and those who support it. the average deductible for a silver plan this year is $600 higher than it was two years ago. that's why when we see these headlines in "the new york times" today, "the washington post" yesterday, you realize that people all across the country are being hurt by this obamacare health care law. one out of four americans say that they have been personally hurt by the health care law.

not that they know somebody who has been hurt, but they have personally been hurt by the health care law. so even for people who are getting the subsidies for their premiums, the deductibles, the co-pays, they have been rising very fast. you know, people never get to point to -- poo the point of being able -- to the ponts of being able to use their insurance. that's the real problem with thsm the way this thing was set up, they have coverage. they still can't afford care. and it is interesting to listening to the president's speech. he doesn't actually use the word "care." he uses the word "coverage." well, if you can't get care, coverage is useless. you talks about coverage, refusing to talk about care. this is about health care. a as doctor, people want care, not empty coverage. but in the face of all of this evidence, the democrat leader harry reid has stood here on the floor of the united states senate and pretended in front of the american people, pretended

that obamacare is working. he has repeatedly ignored every broken promise that every democrat member in congress made about the health care law. he comes to the floor and has repeatedly ignored every american who has lost their insurance. he repeatedly comes to the floor and ignores every american who has had to pay outrageous amounts of money for insurance that for many of them is unusable but is mandated by president obama and the democrats that they have to buy under penalty of law. none of that seems to matter to the democrat leader, who personally supervised the writing of the health care law in his office behind closed doors. it's a terribly flawed law. but behind the closed doors of his office, it was written and passed on a party-line vote. well, the american people have spoken, and they have given senator reid's efforts and the

obama health care law a failing grade. even those with the subsidies say it is of "poor value" to them. americans all across the country are hurting because of obamacare and senator reid and president obama bear the responsibility. how much more do the american people have to suffer before the washington democrats will accept the facts? people want the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. republicans have offered ways to give people what they've been asking for all along. it is time for democrats to work with us. it's time for democrats to stop trying to deliberately deceive the american people by pretending this broken health care law is working, pretending. that's what this is all about. because it's not working. obamacare remains very unpopular

because people realize that, for them personally it is a very bad deal. but republicans have better ideas, better solutions. republicans are offering the american people the freedom, the flexibility, and the choice that they want when it comes to their health care. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call throll --the cl. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, as my colleagues know, i come to the floor each -- the presiding officer: we are in a quorum call. mr. coats: i ask that the quorum call be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. coats: mr. president, as my colleagues know, i come to the floor each week with a waste of the week. my concern over excessive government spending and spending on nonessential programs in wasteful ways needs to be given to the american people, and my colleagues need to know that a lot of hard-earned tax dollars are wasted through waste, fraud, and abuse. some of these have been very serious, resulting in literally billions of dollars of waste.

some have been smaller expenditures, but ludicrous expenditures, the kind of expenditures where people say why in the world does the federal government have to do that? or why -- where's the common sense here? because people are working very hard for those dollars. they are trying to, a lot of them scraping by to pay their mortgage that's due at the end of the month, to pay the rent that's due at the end of the week, to get the groceries in the house or the savings put in the savings account for education; any number of ways the american people today, as the statistics are showing us, have less spending money. the average american worker today has up to $3,000-plus less money earned than they did at the beginning of this administration. so i don't know how the president keeps going on the

airwaves saying things are just great and look at how much better we're doing when people are earning on an average, the middle class, $3,000 less than they earned eight years ago when the president first took office. however, on walking over here today to the floor to deliver this -- and this one is one of those -- you can't make this up. it's so ridiculous. can you believe that really an agency that's held in high regard, the national science foundation, actually is issuing grants of taxpayer money for these kinds of projects. normally it would bring a lot of laughs and a lost outrage over this -- and a lot of outrage over this waste of money. but i couldn't help think what most americans think is plaguing them, after the tragic shooting

in orlando, and sandy hook, and san bernardino, and all the breaking news tragedies that we've been hit with as americans -- i'm having trouble with it, as all americans are having trouble with it. we're traig to fight for -- we're trying to fight for a solution. i'm not sure what that solution is. it's not a simplistic solution. clearly, we, in a democracy as free and open as america, whether it is isil-inspired or terrorist- inspired or whether it's just someone mentally ill, someone who hatred drives their life, whether it is somebody sitting in their basement at 2:00 a.m. being inspired by isis web sites or just simply some of the stuff that comes across the internet, we're facing a tough

situation here. but this week seems to be importantly difficult. we're searching for ways. the last thing we need to do is politicize this issue. do we have to address issues to make sure that we've done everything that we possibly can to prevent the wrong people -- to prevent terrorists from purchasing and owning weapons of mass destruction or destruction that can cause the kind of issues that we're dealing with here in orlando and other places? there's not a member of this body, republican or democrat, that doesn't -- has not been impacted by what has happened, not just in orlando but by a series of events similar to this. there's not a senator here, republican or democrat, liberal or conservative, that doesn't want to try to find a way to address the situation in a way

that would reduce the incidence or hopefully eliminate the incidence of these issues. we're working through that now, and we're working through that in a way that's difficult, because we do want americans to have the ability and the rights that are promised to them under the constitution, the second amendment, to protect themselves from such type of assaults. we want to give them their constitution -- make sure their constitutional rights aren't breached for their own self-defense. what do you say to a woman living alone in a neighborhood that is -- that has a lot of drug dealing going on, a lot of random shooting and home invasions? you can't protect yourself? we don't want to do that. what do you say to someone who owns a business and wants to ensure that that business is not

broken into and loses everything that he's invested? so he hires a security guard or someone to provide protection for thim. we don't want to take that away. by the same token, we don't want these kind of weapons that are used in these mass killings to be in the hands of the wrong people. so we're trying to find that balance. and the best way to do that is for all of us here to work together, to try to find that balance instead of blaming one side or the other side for not doing enough or for doing too little. this is not an easy issue to resolve. so what i'm going to do -- it just doesn't seem appropriate for me to come down here and talk about this "waste of the week" because it involves something that people normally would laugh it. this is not a week to laugh. this is a week to mourn. this is a week to work together to find a sensible way of trying

to prevent these kinds of things from happening. so we are working through that. so next week i'll come down and i'll do two "waste of the week" speeches because this is a issue that we all need to be aware of because the people we represent are forced through the tax system to send money to washington and they want it reasonably spent and reasonably to be used for necessary purposes. so with that, mr. president, i think let's keep our focus and our eyes on the task at hand, in respect and in mourning for what has happened in orlando and what has been happening across our country far, far, far too often and work together to find a reasonable solution that can take us in the right direction to try to prevent these things from happening. not one of us -- not one of us

-- wants to have a process which puts these weapons in the hands of terrorists or those who mean to do us harm. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. president, it appears there is an absence of members here, so i suggest a call of the quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, in the wake of the horrific -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. cornyn: i beg your pardon, mr. president. i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, the past few days we've been contemplating the who ar -- horc shooting in orlando and asking

ourselves how could this happen? and, of course, praying about those who were injured. yerksd as the presiding officer knows, we had the opportunity to be briefed by the f.b.i. director and by the director of homeland security. and what we learned is that there's a lot that's -- there's a lot still left to learn and that the investigation is on-going. but clearly this was not an act -- a random act of violence. this is not about somebody going to purchase a gun at a store and then going out and deciding indiscriminately just to kill the first person they met. but then again neither was the shooting in san bernardino a random act of violence or the attempted shooting in garland, texas, which was thwarted by a security guard. these were calculated acts of terror and a reminder, a reminder of the threats to our

homeland from isis -- not just over in the middle east but right here at home by people who've never traveled to the middle east but who communicate through social media and online and become radicalized by this ideology of hate and one that results in terrible tragedies like we saw in orlando. sadly, our friends on the other side of the aisle have seen this as an opportunity to make this a political debate about gun control. and they simply are refusing to rack knowledge the threat -- to acknowledge the threat that we face from radical islam. and rather than trying to solve the problem, they're trying to drive a wedge between the american people and come up with something that basically does nothing. i think of of all the things that make people crazy about washington, d.c., it's when people stand upped and claim -- up and claim to understand the

problem and yet offer solutions that don't solve the problem. but, rather, fit some sort of talking points or ideological agenda. and it's clear that what we heard yesterday from our friends across the aisle has nothing to do with defeating isis or the threat of international terrorism or the radicalization of americans in their homes. so today i'm introducing an amendment that i believe will offer a solution. i believe, if enacted beforehand, it may have provided the law enforcement agencies like the f.b.i. this a -- the ts they needed in order to identify somebody like the orlando shooter beforehand and to take them off the streets. this amendment is called the shield act. it would not only stop terrorists from getting guns, but it would take them off the streets, and it would do so in a

way that's consistent with our constitution. i want to make this clear so there's no doubt at all. every single senator wants to take -- to deny terrorists access to guns they use to harm innocent civilians, but there's a right way to do things and a wrong way. my friends on the other side of the aisle put forward a measure that was voted on last december, sponsored by senator feinstein, the senator from california. the bottom line is that that proposal doesn't protect our constitutional rights and it doesn't go far enough to make our country safer. under senator feinstein's proposal, after being deny add gun for being -- after being denied a gun for being on some classified list created by the government, listed that, by the way, are often riddled with errors and include law-abiding citizens, the individual can go homing, search the internet for

thousand build a homemade bomb or go to the hardware to buy everything they need to carry out some other type of terrorist attack and they're free to walk the streets to plot that attack. as i mentioned, my legislation gives law enforcement first the notice that in individual is trying to buy a weapon and then the opportunity to take them off the streets and deny them access to a firearm. so their legislation does nothing to protect the due process rights of american citizens under the bill of rights and under our constitution. many of us remember a few years ago the late teddy kennedy cited his own frustration with showing up on a list that was created by the government in secret, only to find out that he, a united states senator, was on a no-fly list. back in 2004 he was put on the

list and he was denied an airplane ticket. and if teddy kennedy from the kennedy family, one of the most powerful political families in america in our whole history, if he was denied an opportunity to get on an airplane because he was erroneously put on a no-fly list, you can imagine the problems that the rest of us would have. senator kennedy said at the time now, if they have that kind of difficulty for a member of congress, how in the world are average americans who are going to get caught up in this kind of thing, how are they going to be able to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused? that's a pretty good question and if highlights my greater point, that we have to be very careful here. we need a robust response to protect american citizens be but one that doesn't infringe on constitutional rights. if senator kennedy was placed on a watch list and had trouble getting his name removed, do we have an confidence that average

americans, like the rest you won't have their constitutional rights stripped with no legal process to remedy it? we simply cannot in the united states of america that i was born and grew up in deny somebody a constitutional right without due process of law. and making the government come forward and presenting evidence to a judge so that a determination could be made not by the government but by an impartial third party. the proposal i've introduced earlier today will help fight terrorism at home and ensure that due process is protected. called the shield act, it would create a process for our law enforcement officials to actually investigate and look at the evidence. but it wouldn't just stop terrorists from buying guns. it would go further, certainly further thank the democrats' amendment, by helping law enforcement take them off the streets. under my proposal, if swrun who is known or suspected of being a

terrorist tries to buy a gun, they'll be blocked from doing so while the authorities carry out an investigation. followed by an expedited hearing where a judge can block the sale permanently, if adequately evidence is produced. and importantly, if the judge determines there's probable cause to block the sale, they can do more than just block the sale; they can take the terrorist into custody. if we believe that someone is dangerous enough to not be able to buy a gun, shouldn't we do our best to take them off the streets if they -- so this don't pose a danger tower communities? -- to our communities? we also learned from director comey yesterday, there are additional tools that the f.b.i. does not currently have that we ought to make sure it has, things to make sure that they can use, for example, national security letters to collect not only financial information in counterterrorism cases, which they currently can, but also to

make sure that internet providers can provide i.p. addresses and e-mail addresses -- not content, not the content. that would require a court order and a showing of probably cause. but the fact of the matter is, if we're going to have the f.b.i. and our law enforcement officials connect the dots, we're going to have to make sure they have the tools to collect the dots, and that's what we need to be focusing on here, not pursuing some opportunistic political agenda that won't solve any problems at all. now, i believe that my amendment could have had an impact on the orlando shooting, because as we all have learned, while the shooter in orlando was not on a watch list at the time he bought the weapons he used in the shooting, he had been on a watch list, and he'd been investigated by the f.b.i. unfortunately, they didn't come up with sufficient evidence with

which to detain him at the time. but under my amendment, when somebody who was previously under investigation for suspicion of terrorism within the last five years, like the orlando attacker, when they go buy the gun, the f.b.i. and the state local law enforcement will be immediately note nied and they can then escalate their investigation. they can go to a judge and say, judge, we need a wiretap so week listen to the -- based on a showing of probable cause under the fourth amendment. and we can listen to the conversations to see if they're calling people that -- and engaging in another plot with coconspirators. in this way, i believe the shield act could have prevented the tragedy that occurred over the weekend in orlando because this shooter was on a watch list within the previous five years. if the f.b.i. had been notified, which they would if he was on the watch list, they could have

escalated the investigation further and perhaps discovered enough evidence to take him off the streets. this is a similar proposal, the one that i offered back in december that garnered bipartisan support and received votes more than my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. we had 55 votes on a bipartisan majority on my amendment last december. this new amendment is a small tweak in modification but it's a plan that reflects input from all sides and it will stop terrorists from buying guns and it will provide a means to get them off the streets. but doing so in a way that ensures that an american citizen's constitutional rights will be respected. i think this just makes sense. i think it's pretty reasonable and it's a good starting point if we're trying to address the real threat of islamic extremism rearing its ugly head here at home. but as i mention more, we must

do more than equip our law enforcement officials with the tools they need in order to collect the dots so they can connect the dots and hopefully prevent these attacks from occurring in the future. going forward i hope we'll come up with an agreement that any response to domestic terrorism must include providing the f.b.i. and other law enforcement the resources and authorities to track down terrorists and to take them off the streets. separately, mr. president, two weeks ago about a dozen soldiers were in a army tactical vehicle at fort hood, texas, as part of the a larger training exercise and were swept off the road and nine of them lost their life by drowning. this was of course the aftermath of heavy rain and flooding throughout texas, and their vehicle overturned as they tried to cross a flooded creek. as i said, out of the 12 people swept out of the tactical vehicle, nine of them drowned.

three, thankfully survived. the men and women who died came from all over america, from california, new york, new jersey and florida, indiana and texas. they were at various stages of their honorable career of serving our country and our united states army. and today at the spirit of fort hood chapel, the fort hood community is gathering to remember each of them and their service and their families and to offer prayers for their friends and family left behind and to consider how we can honor their legacy going forward. i of course send my prayers and deepest condolences to those who lost loved ones. i can't imagine their pain, but i share in their grief. fort hood is a resilient place. over the years it's experienced a number of tragedies: the shooting by major nidal hasan,

just to name another one. they've experienced tragedy before, and i hate that it has to do so again. but i know without a doubt that the community there that is nicknamed the great place is strong. and i hope and pray that the service today is a time of hopeful remembrance for those who committed their lives to protect and defend our freedoms. i thank them for their service, and i stand ready to support the fort hood community in any way i can while they continue to grieve the loss of these nine heroes. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today: s. res. 495, 496,

497 and 498. p. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the senate will proceed to the measures en bloc. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles pw-lgt -- be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i also ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 2815 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask -- the presiding officer: the committee is discharged and partisan senate will proceed. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: for the information of the senate, the

the clerk will report s. 2815. the clerk: a bill to establish the united states semi semiquincentennial commission, and for other purposes. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd ask consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, on a separate matter, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 462, s. 2348. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 462, s. 2348, a bill to implement the use of rapid d.n.a. instruments, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. cornyn: i ask consent that

the committee reported amendments be agreed to, the bill be amended -- the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: finally, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 463, s. 2577. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 463, s. 2577, a bill to protect crime victims' rights to eliminate the substantial backlog of d.n.a. and other forensic evidence, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. cornyn: i ask consent that the committee reported amendments be agreed to, the grassley amendment be agreed to, and that the bill as amended be read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: i know of no further debate on the measure,

mr. president. the presiding officer: is there any further debate? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill as amended is passed. mr. cornyn: i ask consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, by way of explanation, that final piece of legislation represents the passage of the justice for all reauthorization act. this is legislation the judiciary committee has considered, as the presiding officer knows, and which senator pat leahy, the ranking member, and i have been working on for some time. it would improve victims' rights by increasing access to restitution. it would reauthorize programs and support crime victims in court and it would increase resources for forensic labs to reduce the rape kit backlog.

that last measure is something that has been a concern of mine for a number of years. congress has appropriated a significant amount of money under the debbie smith act to test forensic evidence and rape kits to identify the offenders in those sexual assault cases. unfortunately over time more and more of that money had been used for administrative and nontesting purposes. and if reports are to be believed, as many as 400,000 untested rape kits either sat in evidence lockers or in labs untested. thus, denying those victims who those kits represent, resolution of their issues, closing the circle on their grief but also making sure that we've done everything we can in keeping our commitment to pursue the offender who's committed those sexual assaults. since my day as attorney general

of texas protecting the rights of crime victims has been close to my heart. but i know we always worry about is there enough money to be able to adequately fund law enforcement. we have also previously, particularly on the issue of trafficking, made sure that we create a crime victims' fund where the procurers, or the people who purchase sexual services from trafficking victims, that those crimes and penalties go into a fund which will be used to help the victims heal. but in particular, the -- getting rid of this rape kit backlog working with one of my personal heroes like debbie smith, who works very hard to make sure that we don't forget these victims and just as she courageously talks about her own terrible experience, it's really important that we get more of these rape kits inventoried so we know exactly what the scope of the problem is and that we

get more of them tested. some cities like houston, texas, haven't waited around for the federal government. under former mayor parker of houston, houston has cleared its rape kit backlog by testing all of them, and it's incredible what sort of evidence they've been able to produce creating hits on the d.n.a. testing, matchup and being able to solve previously unsolved crimes. and of course d.n.a. being as powerful as it is, can also make sure that people who are falsely accused of a crime are exonerated. i appreciate the work of the senior senator from vermont, senator leahy, who joined me in introducing the bill. and i appreciate his commitment to seeing it through. i also want to, as always, thank chairman grassley, chairman of the senate kwraoubgt, for his leadership in helping shepherd through this bipartisan bill. so, mr. president, now this is

ready to go to president obama and be signed into law. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: