>> before i get started on what i really want to talk about today which is the real threat facing our nation, i want to reflect for a few moments on the antics and theater that is going on in the house. mr. president, you and, you and i were both speakers of the house and in your great state of florida and my great state of north carolina and i don't know about you, but the business of the house is more important than the antics that we see going on there and if it were my chamber it would be cleared and people would be arrested if that is what is necessary to get us back to what is at the task at hand. we have a number of things that we need to work on here, economic security, national security, homeland security, and while people would use the pulpit or the house floor, the house chamber to advance their ing - political agenda, to advance their fundraising, go to their political websites and see how many of them had sent out an email over the past couple of days or week exploiting a tragic tragic situation in orlando for their political purposes. i think it is disgusting and i'm disappointed. i i think what we need to do is recognize and i

should say before we get started, recognize that there into the hands of people who are mentally ill. no doubt about it. we. we should have an open discussion about how to fix that. but we just heard reported in germany, some two dozen souls lost their life in a mass shooting in a shooting in theater. germany has some of the most rigid grandmas in europe. it is very difficult to get a gun there, yet either through terrorism or mental health, we see terrorism or mental health, we see another tragic outcome in germany. let's continue to have a debate about how we keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, out of balance come out of people with mental health, but recognize the real threat to this nation's terror and terrorism. make no mistake about it, in orlando on june twelfth, that on june 12, that was an act of terror. the perpetrator is either self wa radicalized or maybe he was radicalized there's some contact through terrorist organizations,

but it is a death call that wants to destroy our way of life. it is actually a death call that particularly focuses on the lgbt community. they are murdering thousands of people in the middle east. many of them simply because they are gay. so we have to recognize and make no mistake that while this attack occurred in orlando, could happen anywhere in the united states. why is that so? the distinguished gentleman from delaware talked about progress we're making with isis. he says we are having fewer foreign fighters, you know why? because isis has figured out how to radicalize people in the nations that they live. we have seen it in sanlo bernardino, we have seen it in orlando, we've seen it at fort hood. how long to have to take before we recognize the fundamental threat to this nation's terror and isis spreading its tentacles into our own homeland.

>> mr. president first i ask unanimous consent that amanda bennett, an internet my office be granted privileges of the floor just for today. >> without objection. >> thank you. got >> mr. president, i first want to begin by reading a note i got this morning at 7:00 o'clock from a member of my staff in maine. i think it speaks to the issues that we are disgusting today in this body and frankly we should we should be discussing in the other body. my regional representative saidn last night i attended the centee annual meeting in sanford, that's a town in southern maine. from the time i walked in the main through dinner, and even walking back to my car, every single person i spoke with, either wanted me to convey their thanks to senator king for his stand" doing something on gun control, to asking that he stand firm and tomorrow, people who own guns and said so, and those who don't.

every single person expressed dismay that congress has not acted on this. even many mentioned the sit in at the house of representatives and were shocked that the issue would not even be given a vote. many wanted to know when the vote would be taken in the senate. people in maine, including people responsible gun owners want more background checks and limitations on those who raise red flags. they want commonsense legislation. i had to send this to you this morning because i was quite surprised at the total focus on this issue, unquote. mr. president, we we will have before us, i hope sometime today and amendment which i consider a national security issue.ees since being in this body i have been privileged of being able to serve on both the armed services

and intelligence committees and have studied and worked on, and listen to hearing after hearing on the terrorism threat to thiss country. and something important has happened with regard to that threat over the last three or four years. we have moved into a new errorus of threats to our country, different different than the terrorism threat that we found ourselves facing after 2011. sho in 2011 that plot was hatched overseas, and involved foreigners who got to our shores one way or another and performed a heinous attack on our countryy now, we are facing attacks from within. people who are already here, all our radicalized online and received what i call a terroriss apb from isis or al qaeda that basically says it go out and do harm to americans.

the differences, the threat isah now here and not abroad. although it may be inspired and in some cases it directed from abroad. i call this terrorism 2.0. it raises an entirely new national security issue for us and that is, how do these terrorists obtain arms? isis in syria or iraq, if we are aware of an arms shipment or a cache of arms somewhere in their territory, we take it out. we said our fighter planes. we send any resources we have to keep them from getting thosest t arms, but if and isis inspired terrorist is in the united states wants to obtain arms, all they have to do is go to a gun store. and by then.

it makes no sense to me that we spend millions of dollars to keep arms away from terrorists in the middle east and do nothing to keep arms away from along with states.ith that is why a time supporting, along with a bipartisan group, nonpartisan group group of other senators, led by susan collins of maine, a common sense piece of legislation that will simplyp add to the list of those items which prohibit people from getting guns if you are on the no-fly list or the selectee list, those people who are required to have additional screening at an airport. this is about as simple and common sense as it gets. >> to vote against this is basically saying it's okay that terrorists people on the no-fly list get a gun. i just cannot understand any argument that would justifyt that. and the provision that senator collins have painstakingly developed with both sides of the aisle has in it due process

protections for someone who may be on one of these lists, either inadvertently inadvertently through mistake or improperly. they have the opportunity to say i should not be on the list, should be able to buy a gun, and they have an opportunity to make that case in a very limited period of time and to have their chance to obtain full due constitutional rights.ghtful so this is a well-balanced,nybos thoughtful proposal. it is not taking anybody's guns, it is not a ban on any kind of weapon. it simply says, no guns for terrorist. it seems to me that is a basic, common sense amendment and i really frankly cannot understand why it has become so difficult to move it forward.

we had a filibuster here last week, as a result of that filibuster we ended up having several votes on this issue earlier this week and i hope and believe that we are going to have at least one more either p today or early next week on the collins amendment. in the house of representatives however there is no vote whatsoever. to the point where members of the house have had to take to the floor and literally take over the floor and say we are not leaving until we get a bow. i guess guess it's the house version of a filibuster. that i think it's important to emphasize that those people in the house are not saying we are going to stay here until we pass legislation, they're saying saying we're saying let's have a vote. t that is our job here. if you ask any sixth-grader what do senators and representatives do, they vote. they vote on things, that is what were supposed to be doing, that's why were here. and for the house cut, the majority cut, the majority in the house to

adjourn for a vacation, for a break for the next ten days without even allowing a vote or any debate on this issue, i just find inexplicable. it just looks ridiculous to the people of this country. my suspicion is that many of these people are going to get home over the next few days and their citizens and constituents are going to say what gives? this thing about terrorists terrace seems to make sense to me. and and why didn't you get something done this? i hope and believe that is what will happen, but to force the members of the house to take this extraordinary step which i understand has only happened one or two other times in history, in order to simply get a vote on an issue that is of absolutely top-of-the-line concern to the people of the united states,

again, it just doesn't, it doesn't make sense. it is one of the reasons we often wonder why congress is held in psoas low esteem, because we're not doing our job. people send out here to do a job and wrestle with difficult issues not to suppress them or push them under the rug or ignore them. but to debate, discuss and try to come up with common sense solutions. indeed, that that is what wend have done in the senate. i've been working on this for the past 48 hours. consultations with other senators trying to get the language right, trying to find ways to accommodate various interesting concerns about the spill and hopefully now we are going to be able to get to the floor to have a vote in the not house. but not even allowing them tol happen. i should've said any other body they're not allowing that to happen. i think this is an issue of real importance to the american people. terms i sense a very significant

change in terms of people's views of this issue. the i understand there was a poll released this morning that 85-90% of the american people will believe that we should try to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, no-fly, no buy. it's a very simple message. interestingly on that poll, the highest percentage of people that agreed with that proposition were republicans. 90% of republicans responded to the cnn poll that terrorists should be kept from getting guns. and that is what this amendment that we are going to be considering is all about. it seems to me that this is a case where congress has anposed opportunity to do what it is that we're supposed to do. not to avoid, not to sweep under the rug, but to act. i cannot predate predispose the

outcome. i believe and hope it will be positive and will take an action on this common sense amendment that senator collins but at least votes and i would hope the other body would do the same thing.av to have adjourned for the researchers recess prematurely because they did not want to discuss or debate this issue i think brings discredit on this entire institution. it is greatly to be regretted. i come from a state that believes in the second amendment. i believe in the second amendment. i have insisted through the process that i think that limits people's ability to get guns if there are no no-fly list or selectee list, they need to have due process in order to be sure that they're properly on that list. if there is good cause not to be able to purchase guns, i believe to purchase guns, i believe that process should be

there, it iswawa there. this is in no way a violation of the second amendment. it is no way an effort to take anybody's guns away, it is an effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. the supreme court has affirmed appropriat scalia has confirmed directly and unequivocally that this is appropriate under the second amendment. so i commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have developed this commonsense proposal, i hope we can pass it today by an overwhelming vote and maybe that will help in the other body to persuade them to at least consider, discuss, debate, and then vote on this issue. it is of vital concern to the american people. >> thank you mr. president i yield the floor and suggestion of a corm. >> i rise to call up amendment number 4858. >> the amendment is pending. >> thank you mr. president. mr. president, this amendment is

unusual. when we are debating issues like re terrorist watchlist and the appropriate restrictions that are needed, desperately needed s to ensure that people who are suspected or known terrace are not able to purchase firearms. how is it unusual? it is a bipartisann mr. president. surely on an issue of this importance we should be able tok come together and work for common sense solutions. this bipartisan amendment is cosponsored by senators high camp, heinrich, slate, kane, graham, kane, graham, king, kurt, nelson, a mansion, and thk baldwin.

i want to sincerely thank each of the cosponsors for their many contributions to our amendments and for their support in crafting what is a common senset proposal.t our amendment has three basic provisions.individual first, it would block the purchase of firearms by individuals who are on the no-fly list and, or on the selectee list. essentially mr. president, the premise of our amendments is that if you have been designated as too dangerous to fly on an airplane or you have been designated as someone who needse x sensitive secondary screening, extra screening before you are

allowed to board a private plane, you should not be able to buy a gun. second, our amendment would provide an immediate alert tofof the fbi and to local law enforcement if an individual who has been on the government's terrorist watchlist at any time during the past five years purchases a firearm. the orlando shooting provides perhaps the clearest -- reason why this is so important.pp the gunman was on the selectee e list for approximately ten months. but then he was off the list when he purchased the two guns used to kill 50 people and injured scores more. the power amendment were enacted, that fbi would have been notified immediately when

he purchased the first firearm.b in the weeks leading up to the shooting. and then the fbi would've been notified a second time that the former terrorism suspect who had watched videos would seeking to purchase additional firearms in a short period of time. surely that that would've caused the fbi to reopen its investigation of omar mateen. and perhaps mr. president if our proposal had been in effect, perhaps that massacre would have been prevented. third, our amendment provides robust due process for leaders to protect the second amendment rights of law-abiding americans. any american denied a purchase under this amendment would have

the opportunity to have their case heard before a federal district judge. the government would have the burden of proof in order to deny the sale. they would have to present its case within a short but reasonable period of time. t if the government failed to make its case, if this turned out to be some terrible air, it would have to pay attorney fees for the person who is denied the purchase. and of course the purchase of the firearm could ge forward. and the amendments make sure that the applicant can have clear counsel present to make sure that the government cannott take away a fundamental right without a legal advocate to protect their due process rightt

critics of our amendment have mistakenly claimed that this bill would allow americans to be denied the right to keep and bear arms based merely on suspicion or a hunch. that is simply not true. we are not using the terroristsn screening database which has a 1.1 million people on it. that is not what we are using. we are using the carefully defined no-fly and selectee list because those are the most carefully constructed of all of the government's terrorist watchlist. these. these two lists include the names of individuals who pose the greatest threat of committing an act of terrorism against aviation, against the

homeland, against u.s. interests overseas. there are in fact 109,000 individuals on this list of which only 27000 are american.e. mr. president. >> the time for the majority has expired. leade >> the senator from virginia. >> mr. president if i could just rise to complement my colleagues and others for their leadership on this issue, i just want to point out something about the institution what were about to do.t monday night we had competing proposals from both parties to deal with this challenging issue of no guns for terrace. not surprisingly the majority parties would not support the majority party and none of the bills got enough votes to go versio forward.

now there's a bipartisan version on the floor. where both parties have worked together to do something common sent the call to stop this carnage of gun violence were seen in the wan country. i'm just curious as to why one side wants to fight against the bipartisan proposal by putting the motion on the table. that's why this is. i hope we'll be able to get over the motion and perceived. it's it's important to point out what a bipartisan trend bipartisan potential is on the floor reaching together to try to do s some good for citizens one try side is trying to kill and one --, i >> il.sen >> senator from maryland. support of a by privacy and compromise amendment, which directed by the general lady from maine, senator collins. gun and i say it is a good first step and i say to even more than that, that it is a significant step forward in gun control and violence control. i can assure you from those of us who want to control violence

that this and no one will impinge against second amendment rights. but we do want to curb violence in our country which is at epidemic levels.. i want to complement senatoror collins and i want to complement the people who jumped in to help work with her to fashion a compromise. the general lady is known for her ability to put together a coalition to come up with the best ideas to find common ground. but we are doing something more here than finding common ground. we are we are trying to find higher ground. we are finding against the muck and mire that goes against this institution where we use parliamentary techniques to stifle debates, inhibit a cleart vote, and even today with such serious considerations about to take place, we are creating the parliamentary procedures where nobody knows are you voting yesr or no?

are you voting yes or no on johnson? what we are going to do is a vote on the motion to proceed so we don't go backwards the american people are fed up,w that up, but i and meyer what the general lady from maine did because her amendment, her amendment puts us in the right direction. why should a person be able to buy a gun to kill people when they are on the no-fly list? if if you are on, if you're not allowed to fly because there is fear that you will blow up an airplane, shouldn't there be fear that if you are on the list that you're going to blow up a airplane that you're going to buy a gun and blow people out of wherever they are? oh my gosh. when are we going to man up in this institution? what are what are we actually going to do that? i'm a champion of women's rights, but but like hello,

don't we have the backbone, tove someone to have a straightforward debate? there is amendment before us.i.r that has content, there is different views, and i want to say that i support the general lady for what she is doing. the fbi under her amendment would be notified by a person who is on the terror list anytime in the last five years to try to purchase a firearm. the collins amendment had been law we would have alerted the fbi that the orlando shooterunhe wanted to buy a gun. the second amendment would have been protected. but most of all, those people in the nightclub would've been protected. so. so i'm for protecting the constitutionro but i'm protectig the point of a constitution where we have taken an oath it u is to defend the constitution. it is also to defend the american people against all t enemies foreign and domestic. now the enemy is upon us we will not act, we have to act.

the effort offered by the general lady from maine is compromised without capitulation on principle, it's what the people want, it has intellectual rigor, it meets the constitutional test, and i hope we support it and i hope somewhere that we start giving votes up and down and not hiding behind the fog of parliamentary future. i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> before my comments i would like to yield two minutes to the junior senator from arizona was been so instrumental in advancing this proposal. >> without objection. >> i think the center for yielding. i just want to thank the senator from maine for all the work that she is done for this. for all of those in this bipartisan coalition of come together and said let's actually put something on the floor that can case not that it is designed to beat the other party with. it's actually designed to do

it h something to work. that's what the bipartisan proposal is about. it's been well described what it actually does on how protects the due process provisions that are there. let me simply say, i grew up in rural arizona, that is where my heart still is. i am a gun owner. i always will be.ent with i take my second amendment rights very seriously. this amendment, the bipartisan amendment is consistent with those rights. it also have an impact if somebody is dangerous enoughng that we prohibit them from flying on the plane, they should not be able to purchase a firearm. that is the bottom line. that is what the bipartisan amendments will actually solve. i will it encourage myeve me, ti colleagues to support it. if we don't, we will be back jut here. believe me, this this issue will not go away. it will just be after we have another massacre.y h

we will say, why didn't we do this before? why didn't we give the fbi notice? that somebody had purchased a firearm, why didn't we block the purchase of that firearm fors somebody on that list. so i appreciate the work that is been done on this, i appreciate the hard work that has gone into this bipartisan amendment. i yield support and i think the general lady for yielding. >> mr. president, this is a national security measure. it is a national security measure. it is about protecting our country. the preamble of the united states constitution which establishes the reason that this country was founded, the recent the constitution was passed says that the most solemn obligation we have is to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. that is keeping people safe.

that is what this amendment is about. sure, it touches on guns but what it is really about is keeping guns out of the hands ob terrorists. it is straight for, it is simple, it is easy to understand, there should be no controversy about this. it has to do process.t it has provision built in that might have prevented the tragedy that occurred in orlando. peop many my colleagues talk about us being at war and being in conflict, we are are in conflict, people want to do us harm. no and why we would want to facilitate them harming themselves within our own country makes no sense. this is about national security, it is the most solemn obligation we have, and this amendment should be, should, should go through this body and the other body in the next few days or we are feeling our responsibility to the american people. i yield the floor. colleagues,

>> mr. president? >> senator from new mexico. >> i want to thank my colleagues, especially susan collins and heidi hi comp, and everyone who has worked so hard to come out of our partisan corners and do something for a change. it is very easy for us to sit back and take comfortable votes. this is not going to be comfortable vote but it should be. it is the most nonpartisan, straightforward, common sense amendment that i've seen in many years around here. time it says the basically if you are so dangerous that we cannot let you on an airplane that maybe you should not be able to buy a good no questions asked. i spent more time with firearms than most of the folks in this e chamber. i have no reservations about this moment. protect the second amendment, includes due process, he will keep terrorists from being able to buy firearms in this country. maybe it is too commonsense for

this body. dako i want to thank everybody who is willing to get to this uncomfortable place to do the right thing. i would yield the rest of my time to the senator from north dakota. >> a thank you. i i think for the first time in a long time on a very contentious issue we have an amazing group of senators who have come together in a very bipartisan way to simply say that there is an opportunity to balance the important right that is presented in the second amendment and to protect the security of the people in our country. the vast majority of gunowners in this country would gladly give up those extra 14 days in order to secure safety and security for the american people. many, when you look at the overall balance in the second amendmentd into many people in my state it

is a critical and important individual rights. that right has been recognized by the supreme court, we need to appreciate that that is a right just as sacred as a fourth a fourth amendment right, fifth amendment right, a first amendment right. what we have done hears achieve a a balance by saying simply, if you are too dangerous to get on an airplane, maybe we ought to take a second look. peo but think about the process that we have established. in a mere 14 days, direct access to a court, direct access and opportunity to secure your right. asking people just to delay for next are 14 days and as it our colleague from south carolina said, he said, once the gun is in your hands there is nothing you can do about it. in the hand of a terrace, there's nothing you can do about it, you can't get it back. but h you can always secure a second amendment right through an appropriate to process mechanism. so today, we have struck that balance, we, we have worked very

hard to try to come up with a proposal that can achieve the bipartisan support. i would ask everyone in this body to take a second look, think about the balance but also talk to the vast majority of gun owners in your state who would say, we agree with this proposal. do we agree with no fly, no buy, let's protect the american people, let's protect, let's protect the second amendment. a let's do a were supposed to do here which is achieve a balance which actually protects the american people but also protects our constitutional liberties. i yield the floor. >> mr. president, how much time to have? >> senator from maryland, one minute.ud >> with a gentle lady from maine

like to have one minute to conclude? >> i yield such time to the gentle lady. >> without objection.nt >> mr. president, this amendment is a common sense approach to helping make america safer. i think it is highly significant that we have just received a letter that is signed by a group of generals and admirals who have been on the front lines in fighting terrorism, people like general petronius who are endorsing the bipartisan amendment that we have put forth. let us not miss this opportunity to make a difference, to get something done. let us listen to the heartbroken families in orlando, in san

bernardino, and other terrorist attacks. this is common sense. it does not infringe upon the second amendment rights of americans. all it does is say that if you are too dangerous to board an airplane, you are are too dangerous to buy a gun. i urge my colleagues who support our amendment. thank you mr. president. >> i am pleased that the sene is a body has come to this conclusion. television in the senate will undoubtedly provide citizens with greater access and exposure to the actions of this body. this access will help all americans to be better informed of the problems and the issues which face this nation. on a day by day basis. >> during the election i had the occasion of meeting a woman who