and the gun epidemic continues. how many times do we come to the senate floor to send our thoughts and prayers to the families but we don't do anything of substance to back those prayers up? not since my colleague got through her assault weapons ban. since then, we have done nothing. and that was in the 1990's. now unfortunately i was just on the floor in december after a mass shooting at a holiday party that killed 14 people and wounded 17 others in san bernardino. i stood right here, and i begged for us to come together and pass sensible laws to prevent another community from the gut-wrenching heartbreak my state was going through. that was just six months ago. we did nothing. i was here on the floor after a

mass shooting in santa barbara in 2014 where i called for us to pass a pause that gives family and friends who fear their loved one is going to use a gun in a dangerous way, give them a way to temporarily stop that loved one from obtaining a gun and do it legally through a court hearing. california passed that law. we did nothing. no action. when is it finally going to happen when we're going to do something? i would urge every single person watching this debate to watch the votes. the only two proposals that do anything are the feinstein proposal and the murphy proposal. one deals with keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists. the other makes sure that people who buy a gun at a gun show or a private transaction get a

background check. should terrorists have guns? every one of us says oh no. do we need to defeat isis? yes. one of the most brutal, vicious terrorist groups, and that's why i support the president's action to take them out. and i was glad to see the iraqis recapture fallujah from isis. but that doesn't stop the lone wolves over here. we need to make sure those lone wolves don't get a gun. should mentally unstable people have guns? no. we need to address that. should weapons of war be allowed on our streets? even the inventor of the assault-style weapon, his family said he never meant it to be used on the streets. it was a weapon of war. those weapons have no business being in civilian hands. today we had some good news out of the supreme court.

they refused to take up a bill, to take up a case that challenged the assault weapons ban in connecticut. that is good news. and it follows the legal opinions that we've seen from the courts that says, yes, there is a right to bear arms, but, yes, you can have commonsense gun laws so that people who can be trusted get a weapon and those that don't do not. responsible people should be able to get a gun and pass a background check. now what happened in the world? look at this chart, mr. president. you see this big, huge line? that's america. these are the rest of all the industrialized nations in terms of gun deaths. we know that tough gun safety laws around the world saves

lives. in germany, germany tightened their laws and shooting deaths dropped in half from 106 in 2002 to 61 in 2012, after they acted. in australia, after they acted gun deaths dropped from 98 in 1996 to 35 in 2014, after they took action. in my home state of california, a 56% drop in gun violence between 1993 and 2010, according to the law center to prevent gun violence because our state took action. and according to johns hopkins, connecticut also saw an estimated 40% drop in gun-related murders in ten years because they passed a 1995 law requiring a license before a gun purchase. no, we can't prevent every single tragedy, but we can respect the second amendment and

still pass commonsense gun safety laws. we should pass senator feinstein's amendment to prevent a suspected terrorist from buying firearms or explosives and we should pass senator murphy's amendment requiring background checks for all purposes. there are 30,000 reasons to pass these amendments. one, for every american who will die by year's end because of gun violence. 30,000 reasons. and there's something i want to conclude with, another number: 100. we are 100 senators. we have the honor and the privilege of being here. we can do something about those 30,000 deaths a year. no, we're not going to cure it all with two measures. it's going to take more time than that.

but people deserve to be safe at work, safe at school, safe at a shopping mall, at a movie theater, at a restaurant, at a health care clinic, and, yes, at a nightclub. so it is up to us to act. 100 of us can look at the fact that we lose 300,000 americans over ten years, and we have done nothing since the 1990's, and today we can change all that. and i do thank so much my colleague, senator feinstein, for her work on this legislation, and senator blumenthal. and i would retain the time for the debate on our side. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: before i speak, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to speak for up to 20 minutes to be followed by senators nelson and murphy for 5

minutes each. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president, would you please tell me when i've used 17 minutes, and then i want to reserve 3 minutes for the senator from pennsylvania to follow me with his 37 minutes. the presiding officer: the chair will do so. mr. grassley: i want to express my unwavering support for those who were killed or wounded in orlando and for their families, friends and loved ones and community members. this terrorist attack represents a great tragedy and an affront to our way of life and very existence as americans. i will do all i can as chairman of the judiciary committee to support and give the f.b.i. the tools the f.b.i. needs to investigate the circumstances of this attack by a radical islamist terrorist.

all americans have every reason to be upset and even furious over the deadliest attack since the awful events of september 11. we should all be addressing the real problem of radical islamic terrorism, but the democratic leadership has taken their eyes off the ball and is trying to turn this tragedy into another debate about guns. well, we will gladly have that debate, but very soon we'll refocus back on terror threats. on wednesday many misleading or incomplete statements occurred, and they must be corrected. for the minority leader, we heard erroneous statements on the law on guns purchasing by those who would commit terror. he cited comments from a jihadist that would-be terrorists can go to gun shows

and buy fully automatic weapons without a background check. well, they can't buy those guns. even "the washington post" fact checker gave the minority leader two pinocchios on that claim. no one can buy a fully automatic weapon without a background check. the gun used in orlando was semiautomatic, not a fully automatic weapon. that a radical islamic terrorists would lie about the law is not a reason to change the law. the minority leader and the senator from connecticut whose amendment is before us also invoked the so-called terror loophole. this is nonsense. no one convicted of terrorism can legally buy a gun. what the other side means when they say terror loophole is someone who might be on any

number of flawed terrorist watch lists. time and again the other side said they support second amendment rights. we have every reason not to believe them. the terrorist watch list amendment that they now propose violates the second amendment right to keep and bear arms and it violates the fifth amendment's due process clause. the amendment violates the second amendment because a fundamental constitutional right cannot be infringed upon without due process of law. the other side has offered the feinstein amendment with the same kind of constitutional flaws that it contained when it was first proposed. to be sure, the bush administration proposed similar wrongheaded ideas, but that was before the supreme court

recognized that the second amendment protects an individual right of gun ownership. gun control supporters are prominent voices against the terrorist watch list amendment. for instance, in an editorial, the los angeles times asked and answered the question this way: should people on the no-fly list be able to buy guns? yes. the editorial pointed out correctly that people on the various no-fly lists and terrorist watch lists are not convicted of any crime. the vast majority of the people on the list are foreigners already prohibited from buying guns. and "the los angeles times" accurately stated that since the second amendment is a fundamental right, the reasonable suspicion standard in the feinstein amendment is too weak. and it also faulted the amendment for only allowing a

challenge to a gun sale after it was denied with no prior judicial involvement. the editorial also noted that the san bernardino shooting should not have been stopped -- would not have been stopped had the amendment been in place at the time. it would not have done so in orlando either, i will note. this past week "the new york times" ran an opinion piece by ucla law professor adam winkler, professor winkler noted that the national rifle association has raised objections to the feinstein amendment, including that the attorney general can place people on the list based only on suspicion. and a prospective purchaser can sue the department in court, but

only after their right is denied. but unlike many other gun control supporters, professor winkler wrote -- quote -- "we should take the n.r.a.'s criticism seriously." he also wrote -- quote -- "if the attorney general believes a suspected terrorist should be added to the list, she should have to go to court first and offer up evidence. continuing to quote, only after concluding that the attorney general has probable cause should the court approve the denial of a suspect's right to own a gun." the aclu also opposes the feinstein amendment on civil liberties grounds. supporters of this amendment would not prohibit a person in this data base from exercising their first amendment rights or

the right to vote or the ability to have an abortion, with the same absence of due process. the f.b.i. takes action now when a persons in a terrorist data base tries to purchase a gun. the senator from connecticut's amendment requires universal background checks. last week the senator from connecticut contended that there is less gun crime and fewer homicides in states that have passed strict gun control laws like his state. but homicide rates are higher in connecticut than in many states that provide greater protection of gun rights, such as my state of iowa. all you need to do is to look at maryland to refute the claim that imposing tougher gun control reduces crime. despite enacting very stringent

gun control, murders in maryland, and particularly in baltimore, have increased dramatically. the other side wants it both ways. heads, i win. tails, you lose. where crime falls and state laws are stringent, they say the state laws work, regardless of laws anywhere else. where crime rises in states with gun control, they argue it is because other states have lenient laws. "the washington post" recently reported a study that found no correlation at all much less causation between homicides and state gun laws, and that same newspaper, fact checker, gave my colleague's claim three pinocchios. similar, we hear that re-enacting the assault weapons ban could stop mass murders.

this policy has been tried and failed. even justice department-funded research found the effects of the ban on crime to be none to minimal. once again, the "washington post" fact check the democrats erroneous claim and gave it three pinocchios. the senator from connecticut has also had statements made about online purchases of guns. as if would-be terrorists could order one from amazon and it would show up at their door without a background check. this is not the law either. a person is not allowed to take possession of guns ordered online, out of state or from a licensed dealer without undergoing a background check. additionally, the senator from

connecticut's amendment would create a new federal felony for not reporting a lost or stolen gun to local police and to the u.s. attorney general. this new crime would apply only to lawful gun owners and not to criminals in america we normally troabt in criminal actions, although that limits the freedom, it does so much less than the law that criminalizes inaction. for ordinary citizens, this is very rare. the senator from connecticut and others invoked the so-called gun show loophole. anyone watching the senate floor would think that people who buy a firearm at a gun show aren't subject to a background check. mr. president, -- i thought the

senator from connecticut was here. if you're an individual and you want to sell your gun to another individual, you may do so, assuming you don't know or have a reasonable cause to believe that such a person is prohibited from owning a gun. just as there is no background check required in your driveway, there is generally no background check required when that private peer-to-peer sale happens to occur at a gun show. and to hear my colleague discuss it, you would assume that these gun shows were lawless, free for alls for felons and terrorists to obtain their newest illegal weapon. i'm going to -- you can have the rest of my time, regardless of what -- how much time it is. a senator: i want to thank the senator from iowa for yielding to me. mr. toomey: let me take a moment, mr. president, really what i want to do is express my deep frustration that we are here with what is about to

happen on the senate floor because we're talking past each other. we've got a system, we've got a series of votes designed to all fail. we're going to accomplish nothing. that's what we're making sure of tonight. and it doesn't have to be this way. this is what is so maddening about this. i will give you just one aspect of this, briefly, is the background check legislation we're going to vote on is the version that goes further than the bipartisan compromise that senator manchin and i worked out a couple of years ago. what are the chances that that's going to pass? i would say pretty close to zero, and we know that. if we're going to have a vote on background checks, it ought to be the only bill that i am aware of that's in recent time that has had bipartisan support. it may not pass, i understand that, but at least it would have a chance. but we're not even going to have that vote. let's talk about the other big controversial issue that we're going to vote on, and we already know the outcome of this vote, mr. president, and that's about

terrorists and whether or not terrorists can buy guns and what can we do about this? so let me start with what ought to be a pretty simple goal that we ought to be able to agree on. number one, terrorists shouldn't be able to buy guns legally. that shouldn't be terribly controversial. but it also shouldn't be controversial that if an innocent american is denied his or her right to buy a gun because they are alleged to be a terrorist, they ought to have an opportunity to clear their name, because guess what? governments make mistakes. the federal government makes mistakes all the time. the mere fact that they have a list almost guarantees that somebody's on that list wrongly. that's not a reason to do nothing, but it's a reason that you have to have a meaningful process whereby people could challenge their status of the list. well, the bills we're going to vote on tonight i think have serious flaws.

first, the feinstein amendment. there is no due process at all, nothing to speak of. think about the way this is designed, the way this bill is designed. and by the way, we've already had this vote and it failed overwhelmingly. but under the feinstein approach, the attorney general can put anyone he or she wants on the list. there's no judicial review, there is no kind of review. she can create the criteria, she creates her list, and now all of a sudden anyone on that list is denied the opportunity to buy a gun. now, they will argue, proponents will argue that there is an opportunity for the gun buyer. the problem is that person has to go to court, the burden is on the buyer to prove his innocence, and he doesn't even get to see the evidence. how can you possibly prove the evidence against you is flawed if you're not allowed to see the evidence? so clearly that is not a serious attempt to give someone who is wrongfully placed on the list the chance to clear his name. the cornyn approach. the cornyn approach is better

than what we have now because it creates a new tool. it provides a new tool that the a.g. does not have, the attorney general adopt have, and that is a three-day period during which the attorney general would have an opportunity to make and win a case. now, i think that's a difficult thing for an attorney general to do, and i have suggested that this legislation is flawed because of that. it's better than what we have now, but it's probably not enough in many circumstances. which is why we need to -- we shouldn't be just talking past each other and revoting things we know are going to fail. i have got legislation, senator collins is working on legislation, and what we both have tried to do with different mechanisms is to make sure that a terrorist can't buy a gun illegal but also -- gun legally but also make sure that the people on the list are put there properly, and if there is a mistake, a law-abiding american

citizen has the legal opportunity to litigate that to get his or her name off the list. so my approach is the attorney general has to come up with the list but it has to be vetted by a court, and if someone is not on the list, there is an emergency mechanism available to the attorney general that would block the sale, would block the sale if the attorney general says so, and then provide a reasonable and manageable amount of time during which this could be litigated. in other words, if the buyer says wait a minute, i'm not the john smith you think i am, i shouldn't be denied my second amendment right. under my approach and i believe under senator collins' approach, that innocent american would have a chance to have his or her day in court, which is denied under the feinstein approach. but the palestine is we know the feinstein bill is going to fail, we know the cornyn bill is going to fail. they're both going to fail tonight. there is nobody who disputes that. why aren't we working on something that could actually get done, something that actually would stop terrorists from being able to legally buy

guns and would at the same time give a law-abiding american the opportunity to clear his name if he is wrongfully put on the list? that's what we ought to be doing here. i'm not saying that i have got the only way to get this accomplished. i think senator collins' legislation is going to be unveiled soon, and i know she has been working on this very constructively with a group of folks. but one or the other of these approaches, either the collins approach or mine, needs to get a vote in this body because it's the only kind of approach that really is a serious way to balance these two important priorities and has a chance to earn bipartisan support. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, yes, this senator is from florida. this senator is from orlando. mr. president, this is an ar-15.

it is the civilian version semiautomatic of the military version m-16. this is what the killer in orlando a week ago took in. it's the same caliber, 223, it's collapsible stock, it's the m.c.x. do we think that a person that is on the no-fly list ought to be able to buy one of these lethal killing machines? i have been i have been a hunter all my life. i grew up on a ranch. i own numbers of guns, but my guns are for hunting. these guns are for killing.

and that's what exactly that weapon did to 49 people just a little over a week ago. and so if we have a list and it is approximately a thousand american citizens or american people that are here legally, both not americans, that category is called american persons, roughly a thousand on the no-fly list, if they can't get on a plane to fly, should they be able to go out and buy one of these? now, there is another 1,700 folks that are on a selectee list, and those are the ones that are close to credible

evidence that they are a terrorist. 1,700. close to credible evidence that they are a terrorist, and do we want them to go and buy this kind of weapon? and then there is another category and that's those that we call the terrorist watch list. and in this country, that's about 5,000 people, american persons, that there is declaratory evidence that they are a terrorist. do we want them to be able to purchase these weapons?

the feinstein bill, that group of 5,000, that's it in america, 5,000. there is many more that are internationals, but 5,000 american persons on that list. i don't think we want them to be able to buy this. now, even if that had been the law, it would not have caught mateen, and thus senator feinstein included the bill that i had filed which would catch mateen because it says if you have been on the terrorist watch list, as he was back in 2013 and 2014, and they didn't have any prosecutable evidence so they closed that case, if you have been on the terrorist watch list

, then when you purchase the gun, the f.b.i. would be notified so that the f.b.i. could make an up-to-date decision that they want to go back and interview that person. and if they had seen omar mateen purchasing these, knowing that he had been on their watch list, they would have gone and talked to him. now, that's what's in front of us. it seems to me it's common sense. we hear words, words out here. all this is is the n.r.a. locking down its votes, putting the fear of god in our republican friends and colleagues on the next republican primary that they're going to be in. i'm so proud of the senator from connecticut and what he did starting that went on for 15

hours and has brought this to a head. the presiding officer: the time of the senator from florida has expired. mr. nelson: i thank the senator, mr. president. thank you for listening to my plea. and i will yield the floor. mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i thank the gentleman and i thank my staff for joining us on the floor wednesday night into the early hours of the let's be clear about what happened. let's be clear about the fact that this body was going to ignore what happened in orlando last weekend, the largest mass shooting in the history of this country. we were going to pretend it didn't happen and if not for the act of myself and senator booker and senator blumenthal and 30 some odd others, we would be moving on to business that had nothing to do with keeping this nation safer. so i don't know how these votes are going to turn out tonight. i know people are skeptical.

we are at least going to get to see where people stand on some pretty simple concepts. the concept that if you are suspected of terrorism, you should not be able to walk out of a gun store in this country with a dangerous assault weapon. a new poll today tells us that 87% of americans support that. and guess what? a greater percentage of republicans than democrats support that. and you know why that number is so high? because this country is under attack. this country is under attack and the new weapon of choice on behalf of terrorists, it's not a plane or explosive device. it's an assault weapon. after september 11, we made a decision, we made a decision to stop terrorists from getting on to planes because they were using them to kill americans. well today terrorist recruiters are specifically instructing would-be terrorists to go into gun shops and gun shows and walk out with assault weapons that as we saw last weekend can kill 50 people in an instant. so why wouldn't we apply the

same careful protection, make sure that people who are suspected of terrorism can't get on a plane but they also can't get an assault weapon. and second, why don't we make sure that that protection exists whether they are walking into a gun store or into a gun show. that same poll that came out today suggested ab even great -- an engreater percentage of americans, 90% support background checks so you have to prove that you are not a criminal, you're not a potential terrorist before you buy a weapon. these two measures are not controversial anywhere else in the american public except for here. and the amendments offered by senator grassley and senator cornyn aren't even half measures. senator grassley's amendment would take people off the background checks list, would take people who were leaving a psychiatric institution and allow them to buy a weapon the next day, senator cornyn's bill

would force the department of justice to go to court to stop a suspected terrorist from getting a weapon. they're just shields. they're just shields for members who don't want to stand up and dot right thing. the reason i came down to the floor, mr. president, didn't leave for 15 hours, is because i know at a deep personal level what oargd is going through. -- oargd is going through. -- orlando is going through. i don't know what the families are going through. that's unique but for all the psychological harm that comes with losing a loved one or neighbor, more harm is piled on when you find out the people you elected to run your country just don't care. it hurts somebody awful when you lose someone but it gets worse when your leaders are silent, are totally silent in the face of your personal horror. long after all of the moms and dads had left the firehouse in sandy hook after learning that their boys and girls were lying dead on the floor of that

school, there was one father who was left who wouldn't leave, who couldn't leave. his name is neil heslin and he came to congress to tell us his story. i will leave you with his words. in speaking about his son jesse, he was a divorced dad with one son, his best friend, his best friend, his son was dead. he said before he died, jesse and i used to talk about maybe coming to washington some day. he wanted to go up to the washington monument. when we talked about it last year, jesse asked if we could come and meet the president because jesse believed in you. he learned about you in school and he believed in you and i want to believe in you, too. i know you can't give me jesse back. believe me, if i thought you could, i would be asking for that. but i want to believe that you will think about what i told you here today. i want to believe that you'll think about it and you'll do something about it, whatever you

can do to make sure no other father has to see what i've seen. my friends, we need to have an answer for neil and the 80 other fathers every single day who join the ranks of those who know his pain. i urge the adoption of the murphy and feinstein amendment. i thank you for your time. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring for a close debate on senate amendment numbered 4751 to the instructions of the motion to commit h.r. 2578, an act making appropriations for the department of commerce and so forth and for other purposes signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment number 4751 offered by

the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, for the senator for iowa, mr. grassley, to the instructions of the motion to commit h.r. 2578 shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will now call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 47. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the votes following the first vote in this series be ten minutes in length. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.

the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the mcconnell motion to commit h.r. 2578 to the judiciary committee with instructions, being the murphy amendment number 4750, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to commit h.r. 2578 to the committee on the judiciary with instructions to report back forthwith with amendment number 4750 offered by the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, for the senator from connecticut, mr. murphy, shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule, and the clerk will now call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? any senator wish to vote or change their vote? on this vote the yeas are 44. the nays are 56. three-fifths of the senator duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on amendment -- senate amendment numbered 4749 to 4720 to calendar number 120, h.r. 2578, an act making appropriations for the department of commerce and justice, science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016 and for other purposes signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory yowrk has been waived. -- quorum call has been waived. is it the sense of the senate that dewait on amendment 4749 offered by the senator from

kentucky mr. mcconnell for the senator from texas mr. cornyn to amendment numbered 4720 to the amendment numbered 4685 to h.r. 2578 shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule of the clerk will call the role. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 53,

the nays are 4. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the feinstein amendment number 4720 to shelby amendment number 4685 to h.r. 2578 signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quark has been waived. is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment number 4720 offered by the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell for the senator from california, mrs. feinstein to amendment number 4685 to h.r. 2578 shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? do any senators in the chamber wish to change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 53. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader of the senate. mr. mcconnell: i move to table the motion to commit with instructions. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: .

vote:

the presiding officer: all senators voted? any senator wish to change their vote? on this vote the yeas are 56. the nayers 42. the motion to table is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to table amendment 4720 purchase the question is on the motion to table. all those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have t. the ayes do have it. the amendment is tabled. mr. mcconnell: mr. president?

mr. mcconnell: mr. president i call up amendment 4787. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senator from kentucky mr. mcconnell for mr. mccain proposes amendment 4787 to amendment 4685. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk for the amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do

hereby move to bring to a close debate on senate amendment numbered 4787 to amendment numbered 4685 to calendar number 120, h.r. 2578 an act making appropriations for the department of commerce, justice, science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016 signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask conisn't the reading of the names are waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent to waive the monday toar quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to recommit the bill to the appropriations committee for a period of 14 days. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to recommit h.r. 2578 to the appropriations committee for a period of 17 days. -- 14 days. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. a senator: mr. president, last night was a big night for ohio and for the cleveland cavaliers and the nba finals. mr. portman: i tried not to rub it in today. my colleague senator brown and i have been careful not to offend our california colleagues but i did wear my cavaliers tie today. it was a really exciting night for cleveland. i rise to simply commend the cavs for an outstanding performance and really a really gutsy performance throughout the entire series. this teamworked together and they showed that together they can overcome all kinds of obstacles and challenges. tristan thompson, kevin love, j.r. smith, mo williams, matthew deladova, coach tyrone lou and of course the king, lebron james. it was an amazing performance.

there have been a lot of good teams and a lot of great professional sports in cleveland over the past 50 years but this is the first championship won by a cleveland team since 1964. by the way the first ever for the corve leers so this is a big deal in cleveland and -- cavaliers so this is a big deal in cleveland and we're excited about it. it would have been tempting to give up but cleveland fans never do. cleveland is believeland, as it's been called lately. and now it's the comeback city. it was in the an easy series. we had a lot of injuries last year we hampered our ability to be competitive in the finals, and we changed coaches in the middle of the season. we were trailing three games to one. i went to the game a week ago friday when we lost in cleveland and went out west with, you know, a really tough situation, being down 3-1 in an nba feignal means you usually -- final means

you usually lose. no one has ever won being down 3-1. but the cavs aren't just any team. they showed real grit and persistence, termination, perseverance, and that's more than just basketball. that embraces an embodies the spirit of cleveland. and it's a lesson for all of us. lebron james put it we will when he said "in northeast ohio, nothing is given. everything is earned. you work for what you have." the cavs certainly earned it. they worked hard for it and they deserve t it was fitting that the win was sealed by wil lebron james, proud son of achrono, ohio, graduate of st. vincent high school, the finals m.v.p. he led every team in every category. he led everyone. we're told this is the first time anyone has ever done that. by the way in any series.

extraordinarily. lebron executive order or assisted on half of all the cavs points in the finals. he became the third player in nba history to achieve a triple double. over the course of the series he scored on average 29 points, 11 rebounds and 8.9 assists her game. his mission, to bring this championship to cleveland, is now complete. he came home to ohio for the same reasons so many ohioans come back or stay in ohio. that's where he wanted to raise his family. i commend him for that. and also the fact that he really wanted to bring this championship back home. when he announced his return to cleveland, he said, "before anyone ever cared where i would play basketball, i was just a kid from northeast ohio." of course, i want to congratulate golden state on an historic season. and i want to offer my condolences to my friends and colleagues, senator feinstein and boxer. senator feinstein and i made a

friendly wager on this. tomorrow, since the cavs have won, she'll be giving me a case of california wine. and i am glad that that i get p the case of great lakes beer that i had bought for her. congratulations to the general manager, griffin, for putting together in team. we appreciate him. of course, for his helping to be sure that lebron james came back. congratulations above all to believeland, to cleveland, and to an incredible championship run here. mr. president, i'm all in for the cavs, and i yield back. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 502, american eagle day, submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 502, designating june 20, 2016, as american eagle day, and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate

completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, june 21. following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed stierd -- expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, that following leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business in the 12:30 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 12 minutes each. further that following morning business, the senate resume consideration of h.r. 2578. further, that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings. finally, that the filing deadline under rule 22 be at 2:30 p.m. on tuesday. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. portman: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

mac 85% of americans want to close the terrorist loophole, republicans and independents. but the nra says no. so republicans do nothing. the junior senator from new hampshire has said that she is going to vote yes on everything. she should make up her mind and not be a hypocrite. and the junior senator from new hampshire had said she was voting yes on everything, that is not logical, but that is what she is doing. republicans need to stop siding with the extremists and so they

can pass these commonsense proposals to make america safe there. there's been a lot of talk about what they're going to do next, it is my understanding that mcconnell is going to move to a mcconnell amendment which is not, which is not, i am told have to do with the work that is being done with collins and some others that are trying to come up with something bipartisan. the point is this, i am told the mri and ra does not even support that. so i hope the republicans would understand that they should have a few republican votes and i hope senator collins can drama 20 volts or so to make it doable so it is not just a gesture of futility. we're going to hear from senator feinstein next who is the person who is working on this and she became mayor. as we sought the murder of the

mayor of san francisco. we will hear from nelson, murphy, and then richard blumenthal, booker, and then i will take a few questions. >> thank you leader. well, here we go again. another mass shooting, this time the largest in history, 49 dead, 53 injured. another chance for congress to take meaningful action. another missed opportunity. today, we could not even agree to prevent known and suspected terrorists from buying guns. the power of the gun lobby over certain members of the senate seems boundless. the alternatives some are suggesting is to limit the no guns for terrorist legislation to cover just the no-fly zone. that, that, i believe is a serious mistake. we use very narrow lists, if we do that we are left with a bill that has no teeth and misses

many individuals who shouldn't be able to purchase guns. after just a few minutes a brief review, my my staff came up with multiple examples of individuals charged with crimes related to terrorism, who also flew on planes. it is impossible to tell how many people with ties to terrorism would not be covered by the collins amendment. if we focused only on the no-fly and selectee list, we ignore nearly 900,000 foreign nationals on the terrorist watchlist who can legally purchase guns. for example, 20,000,000 on million on the visa waiver program alone can come from a european country with no visa into this country and be able to buy guns. also we ignored 2300 u.s. persons, determined by the fbi

to be known or suspected terrorists. the legislation legislation that was defeated today included second amendment protections and the ability to appeal a denied gun administratively and in a court of law. if protected the ability of law-enforcement to investigate potential crimes of terrorism. most importantly, it would keep deadly firearms out of the hands of known and suspected terrorists. i am hopeful hopeful we will be able to revisit this bill at some point in the future and cooler heads will prevail. i find it really inexcusable that any individual atoll, a felon, a domestic abuser, someone mentally ill, someone mentally ill, can buy a weapon online or at a gun show with no scrutiny at all. the murphy amendment was such a good amendment, it sealed all of those loopholes and background checks. so, i am hoping that one day the

climate will change. my own view, my personal view is that we are going into an election season and mr. and mrsd up. you have to say, i am going to vote only for people who will do something to close the terror gap, to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally incompetent, were criminals, and would use them illegally. maybe, just maybe this election can produce something. >> well, thank you diane for your leadership. i am mortified by today's votes but but i am not surprised by it. we learnt in the months after sandy hook that the nra has a

viselike grip on this place. even when 90% of the american public once changed. a new poll out today, 90% of americans believe in expanded background checks, 87% of americans think that terrorists should not be able to buy guns. 87% of americans, 90% of republicans in that poll think that terrorists are not be able to buy guns. i do not think democracy allows for this congress to be so out of step with the american public for very long. i am mortified by today's vote. but, my spine is strengthened by the fact that we had 40 democrats on the floor demanding change. that over the course this week we've had millions of americans join our crusade to end this epidemic of gun violence. as republicans scrambled, as we

speak to try to find some way out of this mess, as they they try to find some way to show that they understand that 90% of americans do not want terrorists to get guns, we are closer than ever before to breaking the nra's grip on this place. let's be honest, terrorist today are using assault weapons rather than ied's or airplanes to attack americans. after september eleventh, we decided that we are not going to allow terrorists to get a hold of airplanes. in order to kill civilians. today they have moved on to assault weapons. they specifically recruit lone wolf attackers wolf attackers to go to gun shows to buy assault weapons, we should take the same path. we are not given up. the american people are not to giving up. we will watch how these negotiations play out over the next few days, but i will tell you this, there simply

evidence of the fact that republicans know they are on the wrong side of the electorate. democracy does not allow for this place to be this far out of step with 90% of americans for very long. with that, let me introduce my partner and all of this work, representing sandy hook and on the floor this week, senator week, senator blumenthal. >> thank you. first, let me think senator murphy for his leadership and of course sent senator booker, part of the team that went to the floor and all of our colleagues last week who joined us in a rare moment of history that brought us here today, for the republicans to say that they have alternative proposals, there would be no debate, let, let alone any amendments or proposals but for our forcing them to address this issue.

my reaction to this vote today is exactly what i heard from the gallery three years ago when this body failed to adopt commonsense, sensible measures. shame on you. that's what was shouted from the gallery. that day. shame on you, that is what the american people are shouting at the senate of the united states today. diane expressed the hope that cooler heads may prevail. i i think what we need is more courageous heads. those heads will come when i republican colleagues not only look at themselves in the mirror, but have to look at their constituents in the eye between now and november and afterward. the political political dynamic of this nation has changed. it is a sea change. the american people have turned a chapter

because the terrorists have turned a chapter. this fight is no longer about the 30,000 individual people who are lost every year to gun violence, it is now about making america safe against our enemies like isis, who would inspire and support extremist violence here. we need to take the fight to isis, but also hard in our defense at home. that means common sensible measures like keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists with really effective measures. i urge our republican colic not just to talk tough, but to act tough. the proposal was described as a

wolf in sheep's clothing. i think it was really a sheep in wolf's clothing. it lacked. it lacked the toughness and the wolflike toughness that we need in such a measure. so, the republicans are now indeed scrambling. they cannot figure out how to stay on the good side of the nra and still be credible with the american people and i can say with absolute certainty that i am determined to seek commonsense solution that reflects a common ground, but they need to be effective and stop the kind of terrorist extremism and every date gun violence on our streets that take 30,000 people every year. we are not giving up, we are are not going away, we will not relent in this effort. i liked introduce now a great

partner from the state of new jersey, actually now that he has arrived, a great great partner and friend from the state of florida, bill nelson. >> what am i going to tell 49 grieving families? what am i going to tell the families of those that are still in the hospital fighting for their lives? what am i going to tell the trauma surgeon whose blood stained shoes have been shown in a picture on so many news programs? and who said he did not know in the midst of the screens and the cries if they were black, white, gay, or straight, as they brought in over 40 all at one

time into that trauma operating room. what am i going to tell the community of orlando that is trying to come together in the healing? sadly, what i am going to have to tell them is that the nra one again. so it is clear we are at war with terrorism. it is clear there are people who are plotting against us every single day. it is clear there are folks seeking to inspire and radicalize, both here here and abroad to attack this country. given what we have seen from san bernardino to orlando, a vote was just taken to make us safer

and you saw senator after senator leave us with these gaping vulnerabilities. we are country, you live in a nation right now or someone on a visa waiver, let's say people like those who carried out the attacks in belgium, it's a visa waiver country, can get on a plane and instead of doing their attack in belgium they can come to the united states, foreign nationals, walk into a gun show, by a truck load full of weapons, and carry out the same attacks we saw overseas, right here in america. we here in america. we live in a nation right now, thanks to the boat that we just saw, were some folks who are under fbi investigation, who are on the terrorist watchlist, who are on the no-fly list, they, they can't get on a plane, but they can carry out unspeakable violence by going to a gun show, going on the internet, buying weapons i'm weapons and going

into a school, a church, a mosque, a playground, and carry out unspeakable violence. we now still live in a nation, things to the boat that was just taken, that someone can be a criminal, could have made terrorists a threat, could have stopped the ex-girlfriend, been arrested for that, and can still go to a gun show, still go on the internet, get a weapon and kill them. our job is to protect this nation. protect our citizens.

but what happened today is so troubling and disturbing, and frustrating that when there are gaping holes, when literally our enemy is telling people to exploit these holes, to kill, to kill us, we have left these loopholes open. so today i am angry, i am frustrated, but i, like my fellow senators standing with me now, will not let this defeat, undermine our infinite determination to close these gaping loopholes. we may have lost today, but we will not give up. my appeal is to the american people. because because as it was said already, we have the overwhelming majority of votes with us, it is time we begin to demonstrate the truth that the power of the people is greater than the people in power. they cannot block, sensible, common sense, legislation that will protect us from having this kind of grievous, bloodshed again, again, and again. if we do nothing more people in

our country will likely die. so for all those folks who say time and time again that we are at war with terror, what we have been doing by not closing this new poll is to aid and abet these people who seek to get weapons to kill us. so i will not stop fighting. i will stand with my colleagues here and we will continue this effort. it is our hope that folks will start lifting their voice, that we will not wait until the next mass shooting that seems to happen every two months. there is enough blood, there is enough death, enough killing going on, we have all the evidence we need that we need to do more. doing nothing is unacceptable.

so the fight continues. >> i want to extend my personal appreciation to senator durbin, senator schumer who are here. and patty, where is patty? and of course the statements made by senators who addressed you. we are going to take a few questions. i'm happy to do that. >> you have two democrats were voting against the measures like you're talking about, how do you get everybody else on board? >> it's kind of interesting that you directed toward democrats. there's 46 of us, and us, and more than 90% boat with us every time. so, i think you should not focus on one or two that voted against what we feel is good legislation, think you should keep your focus on the republicans. we are doing our job. democrats are doing our job.

so don't focus on a couple. >> [inaudible question] >> please, there are 46 of us. the whole point is this. i mentioned earlier, republicans are just about as funny as anybody can be. all they care about is taking care of the nra. you you get somebody in a difficult situation like this senator from new hampshire, the junior senator from new hampshire, she is doing everything but yoga on the sun senate floor to justify what she is doing. you you cannot explain what she is doing. and the people of new hampshire recognize that. >> can you talk about what you think the consummate ministry to do? do you think it's a serious effort to legislate in. [inaudible] >> i think susan collins is a

good legislator. no it's interesting, don't know any of my colleagues who have seen this, maybe some have, but i have not. i've not not. i've not seen it. it has been kind of secret. so i would hope that we can see that soon. however everybody, i'm told that i left the floor couple minutes ago, mcconnell is filing another piece of legislation on something different. nothing to do with collins, something else. and keep in mind what we have to do around here. let's get the big picture, let's look at the forest. he's filed a closure and something tonight, to denver potentially from the terrible votes that they took today and we are going to be able to get to that on wednesday, the corner measure may get -- that's 30 hours after that. so now we are into thursday we have not even done the bill that we are on. and, don't forget about zika, more than 1000 women are certainly concerned about that we have births of children in

the united states with small brains, skulls that are not right. and we are doing nothing on that. we have waited forever to do something about puerto rico, where's that? the paid default on everything come the first of the month. where something on opiates? people are dying every every day with opiates. were waiting on a conference to go forward with that. where's the responsibility of the so-called majority here? >> i just wanted to to answer as well, susan collins of the serious legislator, she is always voted with us, it is nothing new that susan collins is trying to make a compromise and it's a good thing. but the a good thing. but the key question is not whether susan collins will step forward and tried to offer compromise, but if the rate publicans will finally join her so we can get something done. that is the key question. not whether susan collins is whether to compromise, she

always has. but will for the first time, with the world changing, and terrorism will 20 republicans finally step up to the plate and pass the more modest of measures that will stop terrorists from getting guns? >> three times here today with mentioned the fact that everybody likes susan and we know that if something is going to pass we need republican votes, she is out there alone, all of the time. one more question. >> wyatt [inaudible question] >> that's a good one but we offered senator mcconnell that he could do that today. he he refused to do it. we told him he could do that. we would set aside one of ours that we had today and he said

no. were not doing something else. so that that is the answer to that one. thanks everybody. >> senate democrats from within the hour after their two amendments fell short of the 60 votes needed, the two republican amendments also falling short, gun related moments failing to evoke closure or debate, all four memos going down here and see spend two. will a proper phone lines here to hear from you and your thoughts on how you would change gun laws with the senate without this afternoon and early this safe mean, stalemated on the issue of gun legislation. here's how to be part of our conversation. (202)748-8920 that's for democrats. if you're republican 20274 if you're republican

2027488921(202)748-8922 for independence. were seen tweet this afternoon as the senate floor and couple of them here, the nra blood money on's politicians, not surprise though, so their souls when we did not revolt after 20 children died by a semi auto. from stephen, another view. anti-constitution democrats flameout again, who rod. kathy says the nra owns the republican party. kathy says the nra owns the republican party and a tweet from michael, the terror watch list is illegal and overrun with no gun control and no oversight and no recourse. two of of the amendments, the feinstein and was both dealt with that terror watch list for let's get to calls and go first to kathy who is in las vegas on our democrat line. >> caller: i am just appalled. shame on the republicans. the nra owns them and that is so

wrong. they cannot get anything else done, nothing, not even not even the secret virus, but more importantly they can't get something to prohibit people from being gunned down innocently, have nothing to do with congress or any of that, all they want to do is protect their jobs and get paid almost $200,000 per year and how many days do they work? actually is probably 17 days maybe a month. address the time thereof what a job. . . . .