Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Input: CLOSE Skip in Skip x Embed x Share Bernie Sanders outlined the future goals of his campaign, including defeating Donald Trump and transforming the Democratic Party, in an official message streamed on his website. 
  
 Bernie Sanders prepares to speak for a video to supporters at Polaris Mediaworks on June 16, 2016 in Burlington, Vt. (Photo: Matt McClain, AP) 
  
 Bernie Sanders may still be a presidential candidate, but on Monday he’s returning to his day job. 
  
 The Vermont senator will cast his first votes since January on gun legislation Monday after his absence from a Democrat-led filibuster Wednesday drew an angry response on social media. The 15-hour filibuster was held to demand action in the wake of the Orlando mass shooting on legislation to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists and expand background checks for gun buyers. 
  
 Sanders participated in a vigil in his hometown of Burlington on Monday night to honor those who died in Orlando and called for a ban on assault weapons in speeches this week. 
  
 “As the recent tragedy in Orlando has made crystal clear, we must ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons, end the gun show loophole and expand instant background checks,” Sanders said Thursday night in a live, online video address to his supporters on the path forward for his campaign. 
  
 Sanders returned to Vermont late Tuesday after a meeting with the presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton following the final primary of the Democratic campaign in D.C. He remained there for the video address Thursday night, but he tweeted from his Senate account his support for Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who led the filibuster. 
  
 We owe a debt of gratitude to @ChrisMurphyCT for demanding action to help prevent gun violence. Congress has been silent for too long. — Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) June 16, 2016 
  
 Sanders, who has represented gun-friendly Vermont in Congress for more than two decades, was hammered for his gun record by Clinton, who said he has sided with the gun lobby on key legislation. He has rejected her criticism and said he supports President Obama’s actions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. 
  
 Some reacted to his absence from the Senate on Twitter with the hashtag, “#WhereIsBernie?” 
  
 Hey @BernieSanders, less tweeting about the election you lost. More filibustering for gun control in the Senate. #DoYourJob#WhereIsBernie — Yvette (@TheSciBabe) June 16, 2016 
  
 Sanders didn't suspend his presidential campaign or endorse Hillary Clinton during the 23-minute address, even though Clinton has secured enough delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination and the primary season has ended. 
  
 His campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, has been saying on news shows since yesterday that Sanders is still a candidate for the Democratic nomination even though he is not courting support from superdelegates, the party leaders and elected officials who can vote for the candidate of their choice at the Democratic National Convention. 
  
 "You'll see at the convention, we'll have a unified party coming out of it," Weaver told Bloomberg Politics on Thursday. He said that after Sanders has "a period of conversation" with Clinton's campaign and his own supporters, "we would like to get to a place where we could very actively support the nominee." 
  
 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/24W02rc ||||| CLOSE Over just the past five years, lawmakers have introduced more than 100 gun control proposals in Congress. None of them has been passed. Now, after the biggest mass shooting in U.S. history a week ago, Democrats are hoping for a breakthrough. USA TODAY 
  
 Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., left, accompanied by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., right, and other Democratic senators, calls for gun control legislation Thursday in the wake of the mass shooting in an Orlando nightclub . (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite, AP) 
  
 WASHINGTON — The last time the Senate held votes on gun legislation was last December, a day after husband-and-wife shooters killed 14 people in San Bernardino. 
  
 All four proposals were defeated. 
  
 Before that, the occasion was the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting that killed 20 children and six teachers, which inspired gun control proposals in 2013. Those failed, too. 
  
 It's become a pattern: Mass shooting incident, followed by gun control proposals and unsuccessful Senate votes. 
  
 Now, after the biggest mass shooting in U.S. history in Orlando a week ago, Democrats are hoping for a breakthrough when the Senate holds four more votes Monday. 
  
 Republicans, too, are showing some movement. With the support of the National Rifle Association, they've proposed an amendment that would allow law enforcement to block a firearm sale for national security reasons in narrow circumstances. 
  
 The proposals scheduled for a vote Monday — all as amendments to a Justice Department spending bill — include: 
  
 Hello! We’ve got complete midterm election coverage right here. Let’s begin! 
  
 ► An amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would allow the attorney general to deny a gun sale to anyone if she has a "reasonable belief" — a lesser standard than "probable cause" — that the buyer was likely to engage in terrorism. The proposal is popularly known as the "no-fly, no-buy" amendment, but wouldn't just apply to people on the "no fly" terrorist watch list. 
  
 ► An Republican alternative by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, which would require that law enforcement be alerted when anyone on the terror watch list attempts to buy a weapon from a licensed dealer. If the buyer has been investigated for terrorism within the past five years, the attorney general could block a sale for up to three days while a court reviews the sale. 
  
 ► An amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would make it more difficult to add mentally ill people to the background check database, giving people suspected of serious mental illness a process to challenge that determination. 
  
 ► An amendment by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., that would close the "gun show loophole" by requiring every gun purchaser to undergo a background check, and to expand the background check database. 
  
 It was Murphy's 15-hour talk-a-thon on the Senate floor last week that pressured Senate Republicans to allow the series of votes. But Murphy conceded Sunday that he's unlikely to succeed — in part because he needs 60 votes to break a threatened Republican filibuster. 
  
 "I admit that the background checks bill is going to be tough to get 60 votes on, but we still have hope that we can get Republicans to support the bill, stopping terrorists from getting weapons," Murphy told ABC's This Week on Sunday. "But in the final analysis, what may be most important is that our filibuster helped galvanize an entire country around this issue." 
  
 CLOSE It's legal for those on the terrorist watch list to buy a gun in the U.S., but over 70 percent of respondents in a Gallup poll think it shouldn't be.Video provided by Newsy Newslook 
  
 More likely to pass is the Cornyn amendment, a Republican-backed measure which has been endorsed explicitly by the National Rifle Association and implicitly by the presumed GOP presidential nominee, Donald Trump. 
  
 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., suggested last week that the Cornyn proposal — which also calls for the detention of terrorists if a judge finds probable cause — is the best response to the Orlando incident. “Of course no one wants terrorists to be able to buy guns. Let’s get real here," he said last week. "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." 
  
 Feinstein argued Sunday that Cornyn's "probable cause" standard is too high. "So that would cut out a lot of people who are probable threats," she said on CBS's Face the Nation. "And it has to be completed within three days, which Justice and others tell us is impossible to complete the process within three days." 
  
 In one sign of how important the vote is to election-year politics, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt, is expected to cast his first Senate votes since January. “As the recent tragedy in Orlando has made crystal clear, we must ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons, end the gun show loophole and expand instant background checks,” he said last week. 
  
 And what if all the proposals fail? The White House says there are no more executive orders under consideration, and that all eyes were on the Senate action. "I truly hope that senators rise to the moment and do the right thing," Obama said in Orlando last week. "I hope that senators who voted no on background checks after Newtown have a change of heart." 
  
 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1W7Lp3Q ||||| A renewed debate over gun laws will take center stage in Washington on Monday, as the Senate prepares to hold rare votes on new firearm restrictions. On the same day, family members of those killed at Sandy Hook in 2012 will return to court in Connecticut, as part of a lawsuit against the maker, distributor and dealer of the AR-15-style assault rifle that was used in the elementary school massacre. 
  
 After the Orlando attack, can the US break its cycle of gun control failure? Read more 
  
 Gun control, a politically toxic issue, reared its head once more after the 12 June attack on an LGBT nightclub in Orlando, Florida, in which 49 people were killed and 53 more injured, making it the deadliest mass shooting in US history. Senate Democrats responded by mounting a near-15-hour filibuster, with the aim of securing votes on expanding background checks and barring suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms. Those votes are set for Monday evening. 
  
 With Republicans offering competing measures on both proposals, a breakthrough remains unlikely. None of the four amendments on offer is expected to clear the 60-vote threshold. A nearly identical vote was held in December, yielding no result. That vote was spurred by the San Bernardino shooting, in which two shooters killed 14 and injured 22 at a holiday party. 
  
 Anticipating failure, some lawmakers are looking beyond the votes and to a potential compromise on how to prevent individuals on the FBI’s terror watch list from buying guns. 
  
 Democrats would not let anyone buy a gun if their name was on the federal list. Republicans argue that thousands are on that list mistakenly, and propose enabling the justice department to delay anyone on the list from completing a purchase for 72 hours, in which time the government will have to prove to a judge that there is probable cause to stop the sale. 
  
 Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, said last week she was working with colleagues to find middle ground. Her proposal, which is still in its drafting stages, would focus on halting gun sales to individuals who appear on a narrower no-fly list or a “selectee” list for special screening. 
  
 “Rather than doing Groundhog Day, I think it’s time for a new approach,” Collins told reporters on Capitol Hill. 
  
 Collins is known for building bridges. On Sunday one of the most conservative members of the Senate, Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, praised her as a cautious lawmaker and said he would be open to reviewing her proposal. 
  
 “She’s worked really hard to figure out the differences in various lists and what kind of proof it takes to get on that list,” Sessions told CNN’s State of the Union. “I would be willing to listen to what she said … I agree that, somehow, some way, we should be able to make this work.” 
  
 Sessions is also a top surrogate for Donald Trump, who has at least rhetorically embraced the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said on Sunday he was engaged in talks with the NRA regarding the rights of those who may not belong on the terror list. 
  
 “Maybe you can reverse it,” Trump said on Face the Nation, on CBS. “If they can’t get a gun, we work hard and diligently to get them off the list, if they indeed shouldn’t be on the list.” 
  
 The NRA has endorsed Trump, but on Sunday it distanced itself from him. In his own appearance on CBS, the NRA executive vice-president, Wayne LaPierre, said he favored the 72-hour waiting period. He also decried what he called “misinformation and poorly researched stories” on the monitoring of gun sales for people on the terror list. 
  
 Maintaining the NRA’s general stance against new gun laws, LaPierre said: “What we’re doing with this debate on the Hill right now, it’s like they’re trying to stop a freight train with a piece of Kleenex.” 
  
 ‘I know that we made a difference’ 
  
 How the Orlando shooting unfolded: 'He came in with the intent of evil' Read more 
  
 The last comprehensive debate on guns occurred after the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, when 20 children and six adults died. Despite the backing of 90% of the public, and as parents of the dead children looked on from the gallery, the Senate failed to advance a bill for universal background checks. 
  
 Now, 10 families who lost loved ones at Sandy Hook are suing Remington Arms, the company that makes the Bushmaster XM-15 rifle, as well as the distributor and dealer involved. AR-15-style assault weapons have been used in many mass shootings but in Congress even Democrats lack support for an outright ban. 
  
 The Sandy Hook lawsuit therefore focuses on a controversial federal law passed in 2005 that provided gunmakers and sellers with legal immunity. The companies named in the case will argue in court that they are protected under this law. Upon the completion of oral arguments, a Connecticut superior court judge will determine whether to proceed to trial. 
  
 Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has called for reversing the legal protections afforded to gun manufacturers. She has also called for an assault weapons ban and endorsed her party’s proposals on background checks and the terror watch list. 
  
 Chris Murphy, the Connecticut senator who led the filibuster, said he remained hopeful congressional inaction could yet give way. Murphy said that on the day of the filibuster, his office received 10,000 calls from individuals in every state, in a widespread show of solidarity. 
  
 “I know that we made a difference and that we galvanized support all across this country,” Murphy said. “We’ll see where members come down. 
  
 “We’ll see if Republican members can vote with the NRA, vote against 90% of their constituents … and look the victims of gun violence and the people who care about this issue deeply in the eye and tell them that they’ve done their job.” 
  
 Monday’s votes 
  
 1. Grassley amendment #4751: sponsored by Republicans, this amendment would pour more resources into the existing federal background checks system. Designed to encourage better prosecution of violations of the current system, it would not expand background checks. 
  
 2. Murphy amendment #4750: sponsored by Democrats, this amendment would require background checks on all firearm purchases except for gifts and loans between family members. It would thus close loopholes within the system that currently allow for purchases at gun shows and private sales without a background check. 
  
 3. Cornyn amendment #4749: sponsored by Republicans, this amendment would enable the justice department to delay an individual on the FBI terror watch list from completing a gun purchase for a period of 72 hours. Within that time frame, the attorney general would have to prove to a judge that there was probable cause that the individual should be barred from buying a gun. 
  
 4. Feinstein amendment #4720: sponsored by Democrats, this amendment would prohibit anyone on the terror watch list from buying a gun. ||||| Spurred by the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, the Senate will vote Monday on a quartet of bills to prevent terrorists from buying weapons and overhaul the national background check system for firearms purchases. 
  
 But the chamber’s big gun show on Monday is expected to be just that: political theater. 
  
 Story Continued Below 
  
 All four proposals are reheated versions of legislation the Senate rejected in the past. Despite a flurry of negotiations over the past week, and some movement among centrist Republicans toward a compromise that continued over the weekend, there’s little indication the outcome will be any different this time. 
  
 “The Republicans have to look at themselves in the mirror and they have to look at their constituents in the eye this November,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said on a recent conference call with reporters. “They hear the same messages we do from thousands and thousands of their constituents, just as we do from ours.” 
  
 The Senate will take a series of roll-call votes at 5:30 p.m. Monday. 
  
 Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers are sponsoring different versions of legislation to flag suspected terrorists trying to buy guns and reform the background check system. 
  
 But negotiations between party leaders on something that could actually pass with significant bipartisan support fell apart last week. The National Rifle Association backed a bill from GOP leaders that Democrats won’t accept. Democrats mounted a high-profile filibuster to press for more gun regulations — a deeply politicized response, in Republicans’ view. 
  
 The uncertainty that remains is whether centrists in either party can craft a deal and sell it to their leaders — which aides on both sides of the aisle say is a long shot. 
  
 Instead, Monday’s votes will be all about gaining political advantage in the November election and positioning each party for any effort to take up gun restrictions in 2017, when a group of red-state Democrats will be facing reelection the following year. 
  
 But this fall, Democrats plan to accuse vulnerable Republicans of being more interested in doing the NRA’s bidding than making the country safe. Republicans counter that Democrats are the ones exploiting a tragedy, the killing of 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. 
  
 The leader of the filibuster, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), said the effort led by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to draft a compromise bill on preventing potential terrorists from buying guns would not have happened without his nearly 15-hour speech. 
  
 “There is consensus here,” Murphy said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “None of that would’ve been happening if we didn’t stand up and conduct that filibuster. We were just going to go on, like business as usual.” 
  
 But Republicans say Democrats have already gone too far by forcing GOP senators to vote against Democratic measures — and then, in all likelihood, turn the votes into fodder for ads against Republicans. 
  
 “I understand what Chuck Schumer’s motivation is,” said Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), whose efforts to find a middle ground were brusquely shrugged off by the same Democratic senators working to oust him from his Senate seat this fall. 
  
 Behind the scenes, several Republicans are working with centrist Democrats on a compromise that could pass the Senate. Collins backs a bill that would create a narrow list of suspected terrorists who would be barred outright from buying firearms. Her measure would also set up a broader list of suspected terrorists that would be used to notify federal authorities if someone on the bigger list tried to purchase a gun. 
  
 Those negotiations continued over the weekend, and even some conservatives seemed hopeful. 
  
  
  
  
  
 "Susan is so careful about those things and she’s worked really hard to figure out the differences in various lists and what kind of proof it takes to get on that list," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday. "Some way we should be able to make this work.” 
  
 But Republican leaders have already allowed four votes on gun measures for Monday — that alone was a win for Democrats given the limited calendar time and proximity to the election. Republicans are growing tired of responding to the Democratic minority on an issue that could be troublesome for them in blue and purple states. 
  
 Republicans would rather turn the scrutiny away from themselves and on to President Barack Obama, who they argue has failed to effectively respond to the Islamic State, the genesis of the terrorism threat against the United States. 
  
 View Sen. Chuck Schumer on NRA, Trump, and ISIS Sen. Chuck Schumer holds a press conference on proposed changes to gun laws. 
  
 “We’d like to actually talk about the real cause of that attack, and that is a terrorist attack on our own soil, and why the policies both in the Middle East and here at home are inadequate to deal with the threat of homegrown radicalization,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). 
  
 The votes on Monday evening are likely to break on familiar partisan lines. 
  
 The first two will focus broadly on background checks for gun sales. That issue stymied the Democratic-led Senate in 2013, which could not advance legislation just months after 20 children and six adults were killed at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. 
  
 Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has a proposal meant to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System by boosting its funding and trying to make it easier for the system to gain records it doesn’t already have. The measure would also revise legal definitions on who is barred from owning a gun due to mental-health considerations. 
  
 As a counter, Senate Democrats, led by Murphy, are pushing a bill that would require background checks for all firearms sales by private sellers, including at gun shows and over the Internet. It’s similar to legislation written by Toomey with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) that did not pass in 2013. The Democratic plan also has provisions to bolster the records kept by the background checks system. 
  
 By making the bill different than the one supported by Toomey, a senior GOP aide argued the proposal is “intentionally partisan.” Toomey is likely to oppose Murphy's background checks because it is more restrictive than the 2013 universal background checks bill. 
  
 The final pair of votes is likely to get more attention in light of the Orlando shootings and the massacre in San Bernardino, California, which were both primarily carried out by U.S. citizens who had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. 
  
 The Democratic plan, written by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), would allow the Justice Department to block sales of guns to people who are suspected of having terrorist ties. Republicans have said Feinstein’s proposal would intrude on the Second Amendment rights of those who are wrongly included on federal terror watch lists. Meanwhile, the GOP plan drafted by Cornyn would halt a sale only if a judge found probable cause that the person trying to buy the gun is involved in terrorist activities. Democrats say that burden of proof is too high. 
  
 All of the proposals need 60 votes in the GOP-controlled Senate to advance. In December, just one Senate Democrat voted against Feinstein’s plan, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. The moderate senator, who is up for reelection in 2018 and has been a source of deep frustration for gun-control advocates, has not signaled she will change her mind. 
  
  
  
  
  
 Just one Republican voted with the rest of the Democrats in December: Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, who has perhaps the toughest reelection race among incumbent GOP senators this fall. He issued a news release Friday touting himself as a co-author of the Feinstein plan. 
  
 The NRA is keeping the pressure on Republicans to hold the line. In an interview on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday, the group's vice president and chief executive, Wayne LaPierre, called the Democratic push for new gun restrictions an intentional distraction. 
  
 Trying to fight terrorism with gun control legislation is like “trying to stop a freight train with a piece of Kleenex,” LaPierre said. “And this president, by diverting the attention to the gun control movement, that’s not going to solve the problem.” ||||| Sen. Susan Collins Sees Her Gun Control Proposal As A Bipartisan Compromise 
  
 Congress has failed to pass gun control laws for years. But following the massacre in Orlando, there are now competing proposals. NPR's Rachel Martin talks to Sen. Susan Collins about her proposal. 
  
 RACHEL MARTIN, HOST: 
  
 After the mass shooting in Orlando, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy took to the Senate floor and held it for 15 hours, demanding the Republican majority allow votes on gun control legislation. This is how his filibuster ended. 
  
 (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING) 
  
 CHRIS MURPHY: What can you do to make sure that Orlando or Sandy Hook never, ever happens again? With deep gratitude to all those who have endured this very, very late night, I yield the floor. 
  
 MARTIN: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has agreed to hold votes on four gun-control measures tomorrow, two from Democrats, two from Republicans. None are expected to pass, which is why Republican Senator Susan Collins is trying to draft a bill she sees as a compromise. Senator Collins joins me now on the line. Thank you so much for being with us this morning. 
  
 SUSAN COLLINS: Good morning. I'm delighted to join you, Rachel. 
  
 MARTIN: After the San Bernardino shooting last year, the Senate voted down two gun-control proposals. What do you think you can do, Senator, to break the stalemate now? 
  
 COLLINS: What troubles me about the votes that we're going to have tomorrow is that they are repeats of the votes that we had after the San Bernardino shootings. And the result is going to be the same; neither is going to pass. I want to get something done, so I've been working with a group of Republicans and talking to many Democrats to put together a new proposal. And the premise of the new proposal is very simple. 
  
 It says that if you are too dangerous to board an airplane or if you are so dangerous that you're selected all the time for extra screening before you can board an airplane, you're too dangerous to buy a gun. 
  
 It takes the federal government's No Fly List and what is called the Selectee list, which requires extra screening, and says that those are the individuals against whom we have credible evidence and reason to be concerned, and we're not going to allow them to purchase firearms. 
  
 MARTIN: So how would that work in practice? Because the people who end up on those lists have not committed crimes, so you would essentially be denying someone his or her Second Amendment rights based only on suspicions. 
  
 COLLINS: Well, it's way more than just suspicion. The reason that I have problems with the alternative proposals is they take a huge list that is called the Terrorist Screening Database that has over a million people on it, that is fragmentary, unvetted, uncorroborated, and use that as the basis for denying people their constitutional rights. Now, the vast majority of people on that broader list are foreigners, but there are tens of thousands of Americans on those lists. 
  
 And I think that it is not right to deny a constitutional right based on simple, derogatory information that's been reported but not investigated. By contrast, to get on the No Fly List or the Selectee list, there has to be credible evidence that the individual is either involved in a terrorist plot, has terrorist associates or is providing material support to terrorists. 
  
 MARTIN: Just briefly, have you personally been able to change anyone's mind? How likely is it that your proposal will pass? 
  
 COLLINS: I am optimistic that I can put together a coalition. I have several co-sponsors now, and we're going to - I'm going to keep working on it. But I have had so many calls from both Democrats and Republicans who want to get something done and... 
  
 MARTIN: ...We'll have to leave it there, Senator. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk with us this morning. 
  
 COLLINS: Thank you. 
  
 MARTIN: Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine. 
  
 Copyright © 2016 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information. 
  
 NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record. ||||| Over just the past five years, lawmakers have introduced more than 100 gun control proposals in Congress, since Gabrielle Giffords and 18 other people were shot in Tucson, Arizona in January 2011. 
  
 Not one of them has been passed into law, and very few of the proposals even made it to the House or Senate floor. 
  
 On Monday evening, the Senate is slated to vote on four more. Democrats have proposed two: one that would ban suspected terrorists from being able to purchase a gun and another that would expand background checks. 
  
 Those two proposals, plus two less restrictive measures offered by Republicans, are all expected to fail. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, scheduled the four votes after Democrats pressured Republicans to take action on guns in the wake of the June 12 Orlando shooting that left 49 people dead and 53 wounded. 
  
 Preview: Smart Guns 
  
 President Obama, in what has nearly become a ritual, railed against inaction by Congress after the shooting. 
  
 "Time and again, we've observed moments of silence for victims of terror and gun violence," he said in his weekly address Saturday, reiterating his call for gun reform. "Too often, those moments have been followed by months of silence, by inaction, which is simply inexcusable." 
  
 Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said on "CBS This Morning" last week that "meaningful gun control has to be a part of homeland security." 
  
 After every mass shooting, Democrats on Capitol Hill have tried to revive the gun control issue by introducing new legislation. Two weeks after the Tucson shooting five years ago, then-Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, introduced a trio of gun control bills. One would have closed the so-called gun show loophole by requiring sellers at gun shows to perform the same background checks that licensed gun dealers must conduct. Another would have banned the manufacture and sale of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The third proposal would have stopped a person on the terrorist watch list from obtaining explosives or guns. None of them gained traction. 
  
 Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-New York, who retired from Congress in 2015, spent 18 years on Capitol Hill fighting to renew the assault weapons ban, close the gun show loophole or ban high-capacity magazines. Her husband was killed and her son was severely injured when a gunman shot passengers on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train in 1993. McCarthy repeatedly introduced these proposals in every Congress, but none of them passed muster. 
  
 The National Rifle Association's (NRA) stranglehold over Congress is largely responsible for the inaction. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the NRA spent more than $3 million on federal lobbying efforts in 2013 and 2014. 
  
 In the 2016 elections, the powerful gun group has some $14 million to spend in the 2016 elections, and NRA Executive Director Chris Cox vowed to target members perceived to be interfering in the rights of Americans to bear arms. 
  
 "The politicians who want to divert attention away from the underlying problems that suggest that we're somehow to blame will pay a price for it," Cox said on ABC News' "This Week." 
  
 "I think the reason why many Republicans refuse to support any gun control law is fear of losing on Election Day," Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA , told CBS News, adding that Republicans likely "are fearful of a primary challenge if they oppose the NRA." 
  
 Four months after 26 people died, including 20 schoolchildren, in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, a bipartisan proposal that would have required background checks on all commercial gun sales failed in the Senate. 
  
 The compromise reached by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia and Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, was probably the closest Congress has come to imposing limits on gun sales in the last decade. Their amendment failed in a 54-46 vote, falling short of the 60 votes needed to advance. Even if it had ultimately passed, though, then-Speaker John Boehner never said whether he would bring it up for a vote in the House. That same day, the Senate also rejected a proposal to reinstate the assault weapons ban by a wide margin -- in a 40-60 vote. The decade-long measure expired in 2004 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994. 
  
 Reinstating the assault weapons ban now would be "a mistake," said Winkler, who argued that such firearms are rarely used in criminal activity and a ban would accomplish "the least in terms of reducing violence." There's also very little research that evaluated the effectiveness of the original ban. 
  
 The NRA's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, told CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday that the president's calls over the last week for tougher gun laws were meant to "divert your attention" away from the administration's "failure in this terrorist area." 
  
 LaPierre argued that laws didn't stop the terrorists who carried out the San Bernardino shooting last December, the Boston bombings in 2013 or in Paris and that instead of restricting gun ownership any further, Congress should pass a measure that would expand the right to carry concealed weapons in the U.S. 
  
 "I think we need national carry reciprocity. I think every school needs a protection plan with either a police officer or certified armed security," LaPierre said. 
  
 Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, whose no-fly, no-buy bill is one of the measures up for a vote on Monday, said on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday that her bill could have stopped the Orlando shooter from purchasing a gun because it would allow the attorney general to deny a gun sale to a potential terrorist if they've ever been under investigation. The FBI interviewed the Orlando shooter three times between 2013 and 2014. 
  
 Feinstein suggested she feels strongly about bringing the assault weapons ban back. 
  
 "I deeply believe that these weapons of war don't belong on the streets," Feinstein said on CBS. 
  
 A CBS News poll released a few days after the Orlando attack found that a majority, 57 percent of Americans, think gun laws should be stricter. The survey also found that 57 percent support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, up from 44 percent in December, and a whopping 89 percent of Americans favor universal background checks. 
  
 But in order to have any shot at enacting gun control laws, Democrats have to win back the House, the Senate and win the presidency, Winkler said. Since the 2013 Newtown massacre, states have made significant changes on guns and "about half of Americans live in states that have made their laws more restrictive," he said. 
  
 Full Interview: NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, June 19 
  
 While the inaction at the federal level remains in the spotlight, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut is confident gun control advocates will eventually prevail. 
  
 "We'll win," Murphy told CBS News by phone on Friday, "But it may take some time and it may take some failures along the way." 
  
 The gun control debate has changed since Newtown, says Murphy, pointing out that previously, many Democrats didn't want to touch the issue because it was too politically toxic. Now, Murphy said it has become a "litmus test" for Democrats. 
  
 "Republicans, eventually, are going to face the wrath of the electorate," he said. "I think voters are going to start elevating the issue of guns on their priority list and start kicking out of office senators who vote to hand terrorists guns, who vote against requiring that criminals go through a background check. Voters, I think, are going to have to make this decision at the polls." ||||| Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings. 
  
 / Updated By Luke Russert and Alex Moe 
  
 A week after the worst mass shooting in the nation’s history and a nearly 15-hour filibuster waged on the Senate floor by Democrats demanding action, the Senate is set to vote Monday evening on four gun control proposals. 
  
 It is unlikely any of the proposals will hit the 60-vote procedural threshold to move forward. However, the votes are forcing senators to once again take a stand in the wake of a mass shooting and debate the controversial issue in a high profile way. 
  
 Related: Senate to Vote Monday on Four Gun Control Measures 
  
 Here’s what you need to know: 
  
 Dueling Background Check Amendments 
  
 There are two competing amendments dealing with improving background checks for gun sales — a Democratic proposal from Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut and a Republican proposal from Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa. 
  
 The Grassley amendment seeks to improve the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) by providing more money and resources to the program. It also gives incentives to share mental health records. 
  
 The measure calls for commissioning a study on the causes of mass shootings by the Director of the National Institutes of Justice and National Academy of Sciences. 
  
 The Murphy amendment expands the background check system, mandating that sales at gun shows and over the Internet are subjected to them closing the so called “gun show loophole.” The amendment would also require federal agencies to certify that they have submitted to NICS all records identifying individuals prohibited from buying a gun and would impose penalties on states that do not make data electronically available to the background check system. 
  
 Will There Be Movement on Background Checks 
  
 It is unlikely anything moves as both sides are pretty far apart on this issue. 
  
 When Democrats controlled the Senate following the Newtown, Connecticut shooting in 2012, a bipartisan bill put forward the following year by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia and Rep. Pat Toomey R-Pennsylvania was voted down as families of the victims watched in the Senate Gallery. 
  
 Related: SCOTUS Will Not Hear Challenge to Assaults Weapon Ban 
  
 Another version of this bill was also voted down in late December of 2015 after the San Bernardino terrorist attack. 
  
 One of the reasons for the divide is the National Rifle Association, which has actively opposed closing the gun show loophole, saying that it would put undue burden on unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows. Those formally licensed must perform background checks. However, private sellers can be unlicensed and sell a gun without a background check. 
  
 Republicans and the NRA say closing this loophole would hurt these sellers and those who just want to sell a single gun. 
  
 Another potentially larger issue, according to many experts, is related to guns sales over the Internet. The NRA claims cracking down on those types of sales is a violation of the First and Second Amendments. The gun lobby group says most Internet sales are done by licensed dealers and by banning such sales these dealers would not be able to advertise — a violation of the First amendment free speech rights — and buyers couldn’t shop around for the best deal on arms — a violation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. 
  
 Related: How the NRA Exerts Influence Beyond Political Contributions 
  
 Republicans listen to the NRA’s argument as the organization generously donates to campaigns each year and thus this issue has gone nowhere. 
  
 While Grassley’s bill would steer more money towards the federal background check system and include provisions dealing with mental health, Democrats say that is not enough. 
  
 Two Terrorist Watch List Amendments 
  
 There are also two amendments aimed at keeping guns away from suspected terrorists pitted against each other — a Democratic proposal from Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-California, and a Republican proposal from Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas. 
  
 The Cornyn amendment allows the Attorney General to delay a purchase of a gun for up to 72-hours for a suspected terrorist or an individual investigated for terrorism in the last five years and also seek a court order to prevent the sale. Republican aides believe the amendment keeps in place more protections for gun owners. 
  
 Related: 'No Fly, No Buy' Has Political Momentum, But May Have Little Impact 
  
 The Feinstein amendment prevents any individual on a terrorist watch list from buying a gun. The Attorney General would have the ability to block an individual from buying a weapon if there was “reasonable belief” the individual could use the weapon for terrorism — even if the person is not on the watch list. Following suggestions by the Justice Department, the amendment allows gun sales to go through when blocking a sale could compromise a major terrorism investigation. 
  
 Vulnerable GOP Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois — the only Republican senator to vote in support of barring those on the terror watch list from buying guns in December 2015 — has also signed on as a co-sponsor to Feinstein’s amendment. 
  
 Will There Be Movement on Stopping a Suspected Terrorist From Buying a Gun? 
  
 This is where some agreement could occur. 
  
 There is bipartisan agreement that the current system is flawed. While Democrats want to see any individual on the terrorist watch list prohibited from buying a gun, Republicans say that though the spirit of the Democrats’ bill is correct, they believe there are many individuals mistakenly put on the list who are not actually terrorists. 
  
 The GOP says there needs to be some due process so that those who are flagged by mistake can appeal. Cornyn’s proposal allows for a three-day federal review period where the Justice Department can stop a sale if it proves its case to a judge. This is similar to a FISA court, a quick meeting by judicial review often used for intelligence purposes. Democrats say that the burden of proof is too difficult for the government and terrorists could wait out the three-day period. 
  
 Is There Room for a Potential Compromise? 
  
 There may be room for agreement in extending the review period for those once on the watch list who were removed from the list. The Cornyn amendment now includes a provision for an individual who has been investigated for terrorism in the last five years. That provision would have flagged the Orlando killer. Toomey had an idea for extending the review period to 50 days. 
  
 Several senators —including Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, — are working behind the scenes to forge a compromise with colleagues across the aisle. Work by the Republican senator on a bipartisan compromise proposal continues with a proposal potentially unveiled as early as Monday. Aides are working to strike a balance between the Feinsten and Cornyn language. 
  
 Related: Poll: One in Four Americans Rank Terrorism as Top Issue 
  
 Of all the ideas floating around about how to address gun control, this area is where Congress could come together if they really wanted to and several senators are working behind the scenes to forge a compromise with colleagues across the aisle. 
  
 Other Outstanding Political Issues 
  
 Democrats may not want to compromise because they see their stance as principled and politically a winner. They would rather paint the GOP as being completely in the tank for the gun lobby in November so they don’t want to give away that leverage ahead of the election. 
  
 Brandon Wexler shows a customer a weapon that she was picking up at the end of the three-day waiting period at K&W Gunworks store on Jan. 5, 2016 in Delray Beach, Florida. Joe Raedle / Getty Images file 
  
 This is increased by the uncertainty of what the House would do. The NRA has extreme power in the Republican-led House and many members will never cross the association. 
  
 If the NRA objected to some sort of compromise that barely passed the Senate, this legislation could die in the House and the Democrats will have given away their leverage for nothing. 
  
 The first procedural votes in the Senate on these four amendments is slated for 5:30pm on Monday. |||||
Output:

Show your work and conclude with the exact phrasing "Therefore, the final answer is [answer]." where [answer] is just the final number or expression that solves the problem.
user
The fruits of Sen. Chris Murphy's almost 15-hour filibuster labor will be tasted beginning at 5:30pm Monday, as the Senate votes on four gun-control bills, with each needing 60 votes to advance. A primer on the proposals, introduced in the wake of the Orlando massacre: NBC News details the four proposals being considered: two (one GOP, one Dem) deal with background checks, and two (same split) relate to the sale of guns to those who have been investigated for terrorism or are on a terror watchlist. It predicts the first bills will be DOA but the second set could result in compromise. Here's why. Politico is less optimistic, saying Americans shouldn't expect much more than "political theater" Monday night. Still, it explains why the fact the votes are even happening is a "win for Democrats." Part of that political theater? USA Today reports Bernie Sanders will cast his first Senate vote since January. USA Today reminds us when the Senate last voted on gun control: In December, immediately after the San Bernardino shooting—and that's "become a pattern." Not just timing but failure is an aspect of that pattern, with CBS News noting that not one of more than 100 gun control proposals considered by Congress since the January 2011 Tucson shooting of Gabby Giffords have become law. Sen. Susan Collins to the rescue? Maybe. She's working on a compromise bill that's not yet ready for primetime and discusses it with NPR. The New York Times asks "four key questions" related to the votes. The Guardian points out that it's also a big day for Sandy Hook victims' families, who are in court Monday. More on their lawsuit here.