Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Connecticut will yield for a question--first, let me say at the outset I thank him for his leadership. I am happy to join with this willful band who feels as he does; that this is an issue long overdue and that the American people have asked us over and over again: When is Congress going to do something about these mass shootings and the carnage which has taken place?

I would like to ask a specific question, though, about an element here. We have talked about terrorism, those who may be on a terrorism watch list or some version of it, which Senator Feinstein will address in her amendment, but there is a second part to this which is equally, if not more, important, from my perspective. We define mass murder as those that involve more than four victims, but many of us are living and representing communities where there is massive murder taking place over long periods of time. Maybe not so many deaths in one particular incident but over a long period of time. Yesterday, our colleague from New Jersey eloquently explained to us, in our private caucus luncheon, about the carnage in his hometown that has taken place in New Jersey for a long period of time.

My question to the Senator from Connecticut goes to a city which I am honored to represent, the city of Chicago. There were 488 homicides in Chicago in 2015. The vast majority of those were shootings. Chicago's 488 murders were the highest total number of any U.S. city last year. In New York, there were only--only--339 in comparison, and in Los Angeles, 280, cities much larger than Chicago with much smaller numbers of homicides.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has gone to the areas of Chicago where we have the most intense gunfire and killings taking place on a regular basis. Here is what they told me in 2015: Forty percent of the crime guns confiscated after these homicides and killings came from gun shows in Northern Indiana, just across the border from Chicago.

The reason I raise this question is, I believe the second part of this suggested approach--terrorists, the loophole, closing that once and for all, and, secondly, closing the loopholes when it comes to background checks--would include and envision putting an end to what we see happening in Chicago, where in the most dangerous neighborhoods 40 percent of these crime guns are crammed into the trunks of cars at gun shows in Northern Indiana, with no background checks. Then, the people who buy them head for the city, to the streets of Chicago, to sell them, usually to teenagers who then spray their bullets at night in gang warfare and other activity.

My question to the Senator from Connecticut--there are so many other aspects we need to address--straw purchasing is one, assault weapons is another--but what the Senator is trying to focus on is not just the horrible tragedy that occurred in Orlando but to really expand our reach in terms of addressing new legislation when it comes to closing the loopholes in the law--loopholes which allow gun show sales without background checks and sales over the Internet without background checks. I would ask the Senator from Connecticut the rationale behind including that provision.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to thank the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy.

You have been on the floor for a little over 3 hours in the process of raising an important issue about gun violence in America.

I think it is important for us from time to time to remind those who might be just joining this conversation why we are here. You are certainly a leader in this, as are Senator Blumenthal, Senator Booker, and so many others, because we have each in our own ways been touched by gun violence--the terrible tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook in Connecticut, the tragedies we see every weekend and every day in the city of Chicago, in Newark, and all across the United States. I thank the Senator for bringing this to our attention. Certainly, it is Orlando that our attention is focused on these days.

As I understood your earlier statement, you came to the floor because there was no indication from the Republican leadership that we will even have a debate on the issue of guns, terrorists, and keeping America safe.

Senator Murphy came to the floor saying that he would hold the floor in the hopes that we can move this to the point where there is an actual debate in the Senate. That would be historic--a real debate in the Senate about an issue that really means something. In Orlando, we found what really means something with these grieving families of 49 victims and 53 more who were seriously injured.

I want to make sure there is clarity as to what we are trying to seek with this group gathering in terms of the two proposals, the two amendments we are seeking. I ask the Senator to clarify. One relates to whether someone who is suspected of being a terrorist can buy a weapon, such as an assault weapon, which literally killed 49 people in that nightclub in Orlando and could have killed many more--more than 50 were injured. So if we suspect that a person is a terrorist and a threat to the United States, can we slow them down or stop them from purchasing a military-style weapon?

I think the Senator from Connecticut was very prescient in noting that we think of terrorists and bombs, terrorists and airplanes, not with automatic weapons and semiautomatic weapons. These terrorists have the capacity to kill dozens of people, if not more.

So the first question is, What can we do to stop those suspected of terrorism from buying assault weapons and threatening us? The second question is, If we cannot stop them through the ordinary process of going to a gun store, how are we going to stop them if they decide to buy a gun on the Internet or to buy a gun at a gun show where there is no background check?

I understand the Senator from Connecticut has suggested we need to close the loopholes so that the roughly 40 percent of firearms sold without a background check in the United States is reduced dramatically and so that we know who is buying a gun and we can guns out of the hands of those who misuse them.

So if the Senator would state with clarity what our goal and objective is in this now 3\1/2\-hour debate. I credit him with leading it, but I ask him to state with clarity--a question from me--what is our purpose, what is our goal and the reason we have taken the floor?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for a question without yielding the floor, I know the answer to this, but I want to ask this question for the record. We have had votes on both of those measures. After San Bernadino, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California came forward and asked the Senate to vote on the simple proposition that if someone's name appears on a terrorist watch list, they would not able to buy firearms, and her effort failed. Similarly, a bipartisan measure by Senators Manchin and Toomey to close the loopholes so that there will be background checks failed as well.

I would ask the Senator from Connecticut--and I know his response-- why would we revisit two issues that have already been voted on in the Senate?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for one more question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. The CJS bill, incidentally, is a bill that includes the Department of Justice appropriations. We are raising this issue on a bill which has real relevance to the question of our national security and law enforcement in keeping America safe.

I would ask the Senator from Connecticut--we think of the tragedy that occurred in your State with those 20 beautiful children who were killed in their classroom at Sandy Hook. We think of what happened in San Bernardino and what has happened across America and now most recently in Orlando. But the point I tried to make earlier was that those are mass murders--more than four people killed in each instance-- but for many of us, the urban violence that every day, every weekend is claiming even more lives should also be our concern.

I mentioned to the Senator earlier that when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives took a look at the crime guns that were confiscated in the worst, deadliest sections of Chicago, 40 percent of them came from gun shows in northern Indiana, where people did not submit themselves to a background check; they just went in and bought guns in volume to come and sell them to gangbangers and thugs on the streets of Chicago.

Our intention is to focus clearly on mass murder but even more so on gun violence in America to protect innocent people who are losing their lives to those who would abuse the use of firearms and those who would turn to these assault weapons, which have no purpose for the legitimate hunter or sportsman. I have said that if you need an AK-47 or AR-15 to hunt a deer, you ought to stick to fishing because that is not the weapon of choice of real sportsmen in my State or those whom I know.

I ask the Senator, when it comes to this general issue of gun violence, even though we speak of terrorists as part of this, how will closing the loopholes have value to the overall issue of gun violence?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I wish to direct a question to the Senator from Connecticut.

First, I would like to acknowledge that the Senator from Connecticut took the floor about 10 hours ago and has stood here with his colleagues, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Booker, and many others who have joined him during the course of the day. Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut was also here.

I would like to ask a few questions and then ask the Senator to react to a news story that just came out. I think it is important for us from time to time to remind those who are just starting to follow this debate why we are here and particularly why the Senator has been on the floor for 10 hours straight. This is unusual in the Senate. It is technically known as a filibuster, when one Member takes the floor and doesn't yield the floor. It is done for a variety of reasons. It has been done throughout the history of this Chamber. But I hope we can make it clear from the outset why we are doing it today, why the Senator is leading it, why we are joining him today, and why this is an important message that we are trying to send across America from one coast to the other, including the islands of Hawaii.

We are dealing with this because what happened in Orlando has really focused America on gun violence and the terrible tragedy that occurred there, with 49 deaths and over 50 who are seriously injured as a result of this gunman who turned his guns loose on these poor people who gathered at this nightclub.

I would like to ask the Senator from Connecticut, at the risk of repeating himself--which is part of what we do here, making sure that those who are following the debate--if he would tell us the two issues that he believes bring us together in this common effort late this evening on the floor of the Senate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Connecticut, without asking him to yield the floor, if he will yield for a question.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Our colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, has filed an amendment. I believe she is making slight changes to it, but the amendment addresses the first issue. It enables the Attorney General of the United States to deny a request to transfer a firearm to a known or suspected terrorist. The Senator from Connecticut said repeatedly, and I would like to repeat it myself, this is something the vast majority of Americans say: You mean a terrorist can buy a gun in America and you can't stop him? So, overwhelmingly, Democratic, Republican, Independent, gun owners, non-gun owners believe this is common sense. The Senator from California in this amendment says:

Hereafter the Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm if the Attorney General determines, based on the totality of circumstances, that the transferee--

Purchaser of the firearm-- represents a threat to public safety based on a reasonable suspicion that the transferee is engaged, or has been engaged, in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources therefor.

So in the first sentence of about a six- or seven-sentence amendment, the Senator from California, in a few words, says exactly what the Senator from Connecticut has said. We want to give to the Attorney General the power to stop a suspected terrorist from buying a firearm in this country.

Today we had a briefing, and I know the Senator couldn't attend because he was here on the floor with this important responsibility. The briefing came from the leader of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Jim Comey, and Jeh Johnson, the head of the Department of Homeland Security. They talked about what happened in Orlando. Some of the things they told us cannot be repeated outside of that closed- door briefing and some of it will come out as the investigation unfolds, but here is something they told us that can be shared.

This man who went into the Pulse nightclub at 2 o'clock in the morning in Orlando had two firearms with him. Before that tragic evening ended, he had shot hundreds of rounds into that crowded nightclub--this one man, hundreds of rounds. What I asked him was to please put this in perspective for me. Since 9/11, we have focused on what happened that terrible day when 3,000 innocent Americans died because terrorists took over airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and might have crashed them into this building had the brave passengers and crew not stopped them over Pennsylvania.

What we do every single day is to spend hundreds of millions of dollars for safety on airplanes and airports because we don't want to run the risk that a passenger will get on board a plane and endanger the lives of passengers, up to 200 passengers or more, with a bomb or some other means. We go to elaborate lengths. Think about it. How many times have you taken off your shoes, opened your bags, put things on the conveyor belt? We have done that now for 15 years so we don't have to relive the tragedy of 9/11.

Think about this for a second. If that same terrorist decides not to use an airplane but to use a semiautomatic weapon, the kind of weapon used by this man in Orlando, that person can endanger the lives of hundreds of people and killed 49 in that tragic situation.

So my question to the Senator from Connecticut is this. As we are focusing on the use of these military-style weapons, are we not reflecting the new reality of the terrorist threat to America--not just airplanes and the other means they have used but now what appears to be a more common weapon of choice, commonly purchased at gun stores by even suspected terrorists. Is that not what you were focusing on and we are focusing on as the first thing that needs to be changed in the law?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a further question without yielding the floor?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Despite the worst mass shooting in the history of the United States of America that occurred in Orlando, FL, despite the national reaction and international reaction to this tragedy, there was nothing scheduled this week in the U.S. Senate on the issue of firearms and terrorism, nothing--not until the Senator from Connecticut took the floor 10 hours 20 minutes ago and said: I am not going to sit down until there is an agreement that we are going to debate this issue on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It was not even on the schedule of things for us to discuss this week until this Senator from Connecticut and his friends and colleagues decided to make an issue of it.

I ask the Senator if he is aware of the fact that the American Medical Association put out a press release in Chicago. I think it is historic and I would like to read a story about it if my colleagues will bear with me for a minute. This is from the American Medical Association.

The worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history has prompted the American Medical Association to call gun violence a `public health crisis' and urge that Congress fund research into the problem.

The AMA, which lobbies on behalf of doctors, said on Tuesday it will press Congress to overturn 20-year-old legislation that blocks the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting research on gun violence.

A 29-year-old gunman slaughtered 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, FL, before dawn on Sunday.

The AMA adopted the policy at its annual meeting in Chicago. It called U.S. gun violence a crisis that requires a comprehensive response and solution. ``With approximately 30,000 men, women and children dying each year at the barrel of a gun in elementary schools, movie theaters, workplaces, houses of worship and on live television, the United States faces a public health crisis of gun violence,'' Dr. Steven Stack, AMA president, said in a statement.

``Even as America faces a crisis unrivaled in any other developed country, the Congress prohibits the CDC from conducting the very research that would help us understand the problems associated with gun violence and determine how to reduce the high rate of firearm-related deaths and injuries.''

Congress placed restrictions on CDC funding of gun research into the federal budget in 1996 at the urging of gun rights supporters who claimed the agency was biased toward gun control.

AMA has several long-standing gun safety policies including support of legislation that calls for a waiting period before the purchase of any form of firearm in the United States. It also supports background checks for all handgun buyers. (Reporting by Susan Kelly in Chicago; Editing by Caroline Humer and Matthew Lewis)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to complete the question to the Senator, and then I will be happy to yield.

The point that we are getting to is this is the beginning of an important national debate brought on by the tragedy in Orlando. It is a debate which would not have occurred this week had the Senator from Connecticut and his colleagues not taken the floor with this filibuster on the Senate floor. I thank the Senator for his leadership on this. I ask the Senator if we can reach a point where we have a statement by the Republican leadership of the Senate that they will give us the votes on these two key issues that we raised over and over again; is that the purpose and intent of your filibuster?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to propose a question to the Senator from Connecticut, but before I do, first I would like to thank the Senator who is presiding at this early morning hour. I thank him and his fellow Senators who made this possible.

A special thanks to staff. They have been thanked before, but they should be thanked again for their diligence and patience during this conversation and debate on the floor of the Senate.

And a special thanks to the pages who stayed late, late tonight and will have stories to tell about that night when the Senate went into the morning and we were there. So you will be able to tell those stories when you get back home to your families and friends, but it is a historic debate and it is an important debate and it is one that will affect your lives and the lives of the many people you treasure on this Earth.

We come to this floor at this early morning hour--a quarter to 1 here in Washington, DC, as the Senator from Connecticut noted, more than 13 hours after he first took the floor--to discuss the critically important issue about the safety and security of America.

When I think about what we are facing here, as has been said by the Senator from Maine, we are dealing with a new strategy by terrorists. I can remember the day of 9/11, 2001, in the room just a few feet away, when a little after 9 in the morning we quickly turned on the television to see that planes were crashing into the World Trade Center in New York. By the time the second plane went in, we knew it wasn't an accident. Then there was a crash at the Pentagon, black smoke billowing over the mall, and we were quickly advised to evacuate the Capitol of the United States. We did. We raced for the exits and went outside, we stood on the lawn and didn't know which way to turn, feeling that the next plane was headed for the Capitol dome. That was the threat we faced and the reality of that threat right here in this building, that some terrorists--unimaginable--would use an airplane to attack us. That was the weapon.

Well, it was a bitter lesson, and 3,000 innocent Americans died. We changed America. Osama bin Laden changed America. The way we went to the airport, when we arrived, how we arrived, what we carry, what we wore became part of our defense of America, and for 15 years it has become a routine. Our children and grandchildren have grown up with it. They couldn't imagine a day when you didn't go through intense security at an airport. But before 9/11, it virtually never happened, and when it did it wasn't very reliable.

What we are talking about is a new strategy, a new tactic by terrorists. That is why this debate is about more than just this horrible tragedy at Orlando. It is about a pattern that is emerging of those who are radicalized and marginalized and turn to guns that they can buy legally in the United States to threaten us. How serious are these guns? In an earlier meeting, I made a mistake of calling it an automatic weapon. The weapon that was found to have been taken in by this man in Orlando is a semiautomatic weapon. The difference, of course, is with an automatic weapon, you hold the trigger and it bursts all the cartridges in the magazine, as many as you have. With a semiautomatic, you literally have to pull the trigger each time. But let me give an idea of what that meant.

In the early morning hours at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, a brief video was uploaded to Snapchat by one of the victims, Amanda Alvear. It was the last video she ever shot because she died. What the early moments of the massacre sounded like came through on the Snapchat video: a frantic drumbeat of shots, 17 or more shots in 9 seconds, one shot per trigger pull in a continual barrage. Today the FBI told us there were hundreds--hundreds of shots fired.

So when we talk about a potential terrorist with a gun, it is a terrorist with the capacity to kill hundreds of people. That is the new tactic. And that is why this conversation is not just about the Second Amendment in theory; it is about keeping America safe in fact from the new wave of terrorism.

When the Senator from Connecticut took the floor, it was for two reasons. We said them and we should say them again--to make sure that if someone is suspected of being a terrorist, they cannot legally purchase a weapon in America, and particularly not this kind of weapon that could create such carnage and kill so many innocent people. Secondly, that this terrorist, once realizing he is stopped by the legal process, can't go through the extraordinary process of going to a gun show. I have been by these gun shows in the armories and gymnasiums across Illinois. They all come piling in to show their weapons and sell their weapons, and people buy them in bulk. And rarely--in some States, in Indiana for example, for many sellers there is no background check. Do you want to buy more than one, a Glock pistol? How much money do you have? Do you want to fill up the trunk of your car and take them in to the city of Chicago? Be my guest. This is exactly what happens. Of course, now the Internet is another source.

Are we so certain of the security of America that we are not going to protect our families and our friends and the people we love from the next attack, from the next would-be terrorist? I don't know if this man in Orlando was truly associated with a terrorist organization. The investigation is underway. Some of the things he said were nonsensical when it came to identifying himself with these terrorist groups. I don't want to dismiss that possibility. Let the FBI investigate that in its full range to find out whether he was associated. But then who is the next one? And will the next one have access to some weapon that can kill so many innocent people at once? That is what this conversation is all about. It isn't about some age-old debate on the floor of the Senate. It is about the new world we live in. The Senator from Maine made it clear. The Senator from Connecticut read directly from terrorists who were instructing those who would kill Americans how to get it done most efficiently. That is what we are trying to stop. That is what this is all about. It will be great if at the end of this we not only get these amendments called, but maybe even a bipartisan agreement on stopping terrorists from buying guns in America to threaten innocent people in Orlando, in Connecticut, in Illinois, in Maine, in New Jersey.

I would close by first thanking Senator Murphy and Senator Booker, who has been a stalwart supporter and friend throughout this debate. I believe he has tried to stand by Senator Murphy literally throughout. I say to Senator Booker, thank you for bringing to our attention at our caucus lunch yesterday the fact that this is about more than mass murder. It is about the murders of Americans that go on every day, every hour. In the cities that we love, innocent people die because of it. It is all part of the same conversation and the same debate. I thank the Senator for bringing that message home. It touched me because of what we are enduring in my State of Illinois and the city of Chicago.

I say to Senator Murphy, it has been a long day. Here we are, a new day. I hope it is a new day for our country--a new day when we start looking seriously at putting an end to this gun violence and this carnage and doing a smart, sensible, commonsense thing to make sure that those who would be terrorists don't have access to the most lethal killer weapons available in gun stores and gun shows across America.

My close is a simple question. At the end of this battle there are more to be fought, not just on this issue but on the issue of military- style weapons being sold to civilian populations. But let's save that for another day. I would just ask the Senator in closing what he is feeling as he watched his colleagues give up their time during the course of yesterday and the early hours of this morning in terms of the intensity of feeling and the stories that he heard that I hope have inspired him as they have me.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source