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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from Connecticut and the senior Senator from Connecticut for their leadership. Before I ask my question, I want to read something I received just about a half hour ago from a constituent:

Dear Senator Schatz, I am following the filibuster online and though I know you don't need more convincing about what we need to do, I thought to reach out to you anyway. Like many Americans I felt so paralyzed since Sunday's shooting in Orlando. On Sunday afternoon I brought my 4-year-old to the [University of Hawaii] campus for a film screening and I found myself, for the very first time, strategizing about where to sit and what I would do if there was an active shooter and how I could best cover my son's body if we couldn't escape. I am not an anxious person by nature but I refuse to accept that powerlessness to gun violence must be our accepted ``new normal.'' I work diligently at my job and as a mom to care for my own kids and the community of students I work with and am intentional in trying to create opportunities for their growth and learning. So it seems completely insane that in 2016 we have nothing more inspiring to offer a nation of families other than hoping that loved ones are not ``in the wrong place at the wrong time.'' That is totally unacceptable to me and I am willing to help with any community or national efforts to bring about necessary change. . . . I have personally sent postcards . . . to every Senator who voted against background checks. Please let your supporters in Hawaii know what we need to do. I will show up. #notonemore

Your constituent, Vanessa Ito.

I really want to thank Senator Murphy for his leadership in this. This is really moral leadership. I was in the Presiding Officer's chair. Both Senator Murphy and I were new to the Senate under very, very different circumstances, in a lot of ways both tragic circumstances. But I was in the chair and Chris Murphy gave his maiden speech. He was my friend. We had sort of just met and become fast friends. The first speech he gave was on this topic, and I understood his personal passion. But what he is doing now is bigger than that. He has displayed physical courage, emotional courage, and political courage that I think we couldn't imagine even at the beginning of the week. And even though all of us are committed to this issue, he shocked our conscience in that caucus room and laid down a marker for all of us to do better and to do more.

I just want to say one thing before I go into a sort of preamble to my question, and that is this: My instinct about this is that our political opponents absolutely rely upon our being despondent. I think they absolutely rely upon the idea that we will give up by the end of the week--that we get our memo that this week is the National Defense Authorization Act, next week is the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations measure, and every week it is a different topic. Donald Trump will say something and distract the national media, and everybody will move on.

But here is why I am so hopeful about what has happened today. It is not just that we have a bunch of Members of the Senate on the floor pretty late at night. It is very difficult to get any of us together for anything other than lunch--for anything--and yet here we are. Senator Murphy did some recruiting through staff and everything else, but this was organic. We saw what was happening, and we wanted to offer our moral support--and not, frankly, to him as a friend and a colleague but to everybody across the country who deserves people who are going to fight on this issue.

The other really exciting thing that is happening is outside of the Senate, and that is more important. The gallery doesn't usually get more and more crowded through the day. People visit, people do their Capitol tour, and they come and check out the gallery--and we are yammering at each other or we are voting and we are shuffling around-- and then they leave. But what is happening in the gallery physically is that people are actually coming to see that something meaningful has happened. Senator Murphy's phone lines are ringing off the hook. Chris Murphy himself is the No. 1 trending topic on Facebook. And it is not about Chris Murphy. It is about the sense that maybe we can actually do something here. Maybe we can actually do something here.

So for all of the people who are watching this online or observing it on Twitter or hearing about it for the first time, I want people to understand that this is the continuation of a movement, but this is an inflection point. This is a point at which we are not going to accept that if 90 percent of the public is demanding that we take action, the Senate and the House won't. That is unacceptable to me.

Since I got to the Senate alone, there have been nearly 1,000 mass shootings. That is not 1,000 people killed. That is 1,000 mass shootings. Over 40,000 Americans have been killed by guns, and there are zero changes to our gun laws. The shooting in Orlando was the worst mass shooting event that our Nation has ever seen in one night--49 people killed and 53 shot and injured. Those numbers are shocking, but here is what I think is even more shocking--and Senator Booker mentioned this both in public and in private: Since then, more than that many people have been killed as a result of gun violence. This happens all of the time.

Now, the Orlando situation was uniquely shocking because of the public dimension, because of the homophobia, because of the awful, graphic, shocking violence in one place at one time for one purpose--to strike terror in people's hearts and to strike terror in the hearts of people who are gay. So that was uniquely shocking. But in terms of the number of people killed, this was actually pretty similar to any other day in the United States.

So my first question for Senator Murphy is--you haven't taken a break, you haven't had a meal, you haven't been able to interact with your son or your wife except in the gallery and at your podium. I guess my question for you is this: Do you feel momentum now? Do you feel momentum now?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I would like to ask a question specifically about the terrorist gun loophole. It seems obviously straightforward to everyone that we would want to prevent terrorists from getting guns, and yet we can't get the other side of the aisle to even show up, let alone to vote to close this loophole. As we know, last year 53 Senate Republicans voted against closing the terrorist gun loophole that allows known or suspected terrorists to get guns. They had several excuses. But I kind of want to go through the main complaint, and that is that there was not enough due process for these individuals. That is just plain false. There are several layers of due process, starting with the procedures that are available to anyone who does not pass a background check when trying to buy a gun. Anyone denied a firearm transfer has the right to find out the reason for the denial, submit correcting information to the Attorney General, and even bring a civil action against the government.

The bill that Senator Feinstein has introduced--of which I think every Member of the Democratic conference is a cosponsor--provides additional due process. A person denied a firearm transfer because he or she was determined to be a known or suspected terrorist can challenge the determination in court. According to the FBI:

A range of quality control measures are used to ensure that the Terrorist Screening Database contains accurate and timely information. This includes regular reviews, periodic audits, and post-encounter reviews conducted by the Terrorist Screening Center and the agencies that nominated the record to ensure the information continues to satisfy the applicable criteria for inclusion.

Just yesterday, the majority leader stated the obvious--that nobody wants terrorists to have firearms. But what is really being proposed? The bill being proposed by Senator Cornyn--a very skilled and good legislator--is just not viable. The Republicans who would vote for this bill over Senator Feinstein's proposed legislation would keep the loophole wide open, because this bill is unworkable. It will require law enforcement officials to prove to a court that a gun buyer has already committed an act of terrorism instead of stopping likely terrorists ahead of time. Or the government would have to prove to a court that there is probable cause that a gun buyer will commit an act of terrorism.

So in order to stop somebody from buying a gun, you have to show that this person is going to commit an act of terrorism. Now, I am not the lawyer--and I am looking around and seeing a number of lawyers on the floor. But my instinct is if you have probable cause that someone is about to commit an act of terrorism, you don't allow a database to be pinged and say: I'm sorry, sir; we can't give you your gun today. You would arrest that person. You would detain that person.

So my question for Senator Murphy is first about this proposal from Senator Cornyn, and whether you think it would be workable. And then, if you wouldn't mind fleshing out--even if we are able to solve this so-called terror gap issue, if you would talk about straw purchases and the gun show loophole and how we have to be complete in our strategy-- that even if we solve this problem legislatively, there are gaping holes in our security when it comes to this issue. I would like you to talk us through how all of these issues work together. Because one thing I know about Senator Murphy is that he is deadly serious about actually solving this problem. You don't want to run on this problem. You don't want to tweet on this problem. You want to actually fix it because you feel it in your gut.

(Mrs. CAPITO assumed the Chair.)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHATZ. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I believe firmly-- and I really appreciated the conversations between him and Senator Kaine about the Second Amendment. I am a Second Amendment Democrat. A lot of us are. I believe firmly that as Senator Schumer said, you can't pick the amendments you like and pick the amendments you don't like. I believe that we can protect the Second Amendment while protecting communities from gun violence.

As stated by the late Justice Scalia, ``Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.''

To Senator Murphy, I would like to ask him, how does he view the Second Amendment fitting into this conversation? Speaking of bogeyman, I think that there is this sense that if you are for reasonable restrictions on purchasing a gun, that you are against guns. It seems to me, at least in the State of Hawaii, that people who are the most concerned with gun safety, the people who impart gun safety to their children, the people who do this right are gun owners, are hunters, are people who even have a gun for protection.

So the question I have for the Senator is, What is the right balance, both under the law and from the perspective of keeping our people safe?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHATZ. Thank you. I believe the Senator from Wisconsin has a question for the Senator.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source