Christopher Murphy

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Senator Durbin, let me read to you the transcript of a video from one of Al Qaeda's most important operatives, an American by the name of Adam Gadahn. He is deceased now, but here is what he said in a video that he sent to potential converts in the United States: In the West, you've got a lot at your disposal. Let's take America for example. America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for? This is an Al Qaeda operative, an Al Qaeda recruiter, specifically instructing their potential followers in the United States to go to gun shows to buy assault weapons in order to carry out lone-wolf attacks. This isn't theoretical. We aren't making this up on the floor of the Senate. This is a clear, strategic decision on behalf of these groups. They are losing territory inside Iraq and Syria. They are more dependent on lone-wolf attacks than ever, and they have figured out that the quickest pathway to massive death and destruction is not to hijack an airplane, is not to construct an explosive device but to buy an assault weapon.

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Senator for his question. Of course they are commonsense measures, and, importantly, they are measures that are supported by the broad cross-section of the American public. What my colleague is proposing is only controversial here in the Senate. It is controversial nowhere else in this country.

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Senator. I think it is really important that we have the diversity of our caucus represented as part of this discussion today. Senator King and Senator Donnelly are both strong supporters of the Second Amendment. I am glad to yield the floor for a question, without losing my right to the floor, to Senator Donnelly.

Mr. MURPHY. I am aware, and I wish that weren't the case. I wish that citizens through referendum didn't have to take up this cause on a State-by-State basis because of utter inaction from this body. I will cite statistics in a moment, maybe, Senator Cantwell, but when States act, it makes a difference. When States act, it results in an appreciable decline in gun homicide rates, but it is much better and much more effective if the Federal Government acts.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend for the question, and I thank him for standing, quite literally, with me every second of these last 13-plus hours. I thank my friend from Connecticut as well, who is about to speak, for doing the same. It is nice to have friends. It is nice to have friends who are committed to the same thing as you are, but it is just nice to have friends. It doesn't have to be like this. There are so many things in this country that we accept as inevitable, true, and unchangeable, and we are right on the precipice of getting to the point in this country where we accept this level of gun violence and gun homicide as just a normal facet of life in this country. I know it because I heard the kids in the North End of Hartford tell me that the sound of ambulances and police sirens is their goodnight lullaby. They are used to falling asleep to the response of the next shooting. I knew it at the beginning of this week, when, as the news was filled with not just another mass shooting but the worst mass shooting in the history of this country, this body signaled that it wasn't going to take up any measures to combat the epidemic of gun violence in the wake of the worst mass shooting in the history of this country. It has felt like we have fallen upon the precipice of accepting this as the new normal in this country. All we are doing tonight is standing here and talking. We are asking for a vote. And I think, as I will speak to in a moment, we have gotten to a place where we are going to get votes on these important amendments, but all we are doing here is talking. Senator Booker was right when he said that what has happened this afternoon and this evening is a platform for sustained and collective action that demands that this not be just a one-time phenomenon, that this passion you heard from dozens of Members of the Senate who came down here organically just because they cared sustains throughout the day, the months, and the years. As I said earlier on this floor, great change movements are defined by their obstacles and failures, and we have already had a bunch of failures when it comes to our fight for gun violence measures. We lost a big vote on the floor of the Senate in 2013. There are State legislatures that have gone in the other direction and made it easier to get weapons. We lost a vote here in December when we tried to expand our background check system to make sure that people who are on the terrorist watch list are captured by it. We have had our share of defeats and losses. As it turns out, we will get to have votes on these amendments, and maybe we will lose those too. But every great change movement in this country is defined by persistence in the face of obstacles and failures, and this change movement isn't defined by what we do here, it is defined by the 90 percent of Americans who believe in the righteousness of what we are proposing. Frankly, we aren't in the business of changing the minds of millions of Americans; we are in the business of changing the minds of a few dozen Members of Congress. It doesn't sound that bad when you put it that way, right? We don't have to convince the broad electorate that something has to change; we just have to convince a few people here. And that can happen--it can--but it won't happen through Senator Booker, Senator Blumenthal, and me coming down here and doing this week after week; it will happen because members of the public decided to make those 10,000 phone calls that somehow plausibly fit themselves into the phone lines to my office today. Those phone calls need to go to every other office in the Senate and House over the course of the coming days, weeks, and months as we lead up to these meaningful votes. This is an issue that voters prioritize when they go to the voting booth. They need to pay attention to whether their Member of Congress is voting with or against them when it comes to commonsense issues like expanding background checks to cover gun shows and Internet sales and making sure terrorists don't get guns. It is a commitment to never lose that sense of empathy which has to be at the root of this. Luis Vielma was 22 years old when he was shot and killed late Sunday night in Orlando in the largest mass shooting in American history. He had been so excited that night because he was hosting a friend of his who was visiting from Miami. He wanted to show him this wonderful nightclub that he had found, this place where the community could come together and celebrate themselves. His father Jose suggested that the two of them come over to his house for some homemade Mexican food, but Luis was so excited to have a great time that night with his visiting friend that he put off his dad and said: I am going down to the club. I am heading downtown. On his way to the club, he texted to his dad: ``I love you.'' Those were the last words Jose ever heard from his son. His family said that he went to the club that night to dance. ``Oh, and he can dance and get down,'' a family friend said. ``Yes, he can.'' He was born in Florida, but he loved the Mexican national football team, adored his family, liked to play tricks on his younger brother, and was a huge Harry Potter fan. He had a job at Universal Studios. He worked on the Harry Potter ride, and that was a big deal to Luis. Upon hearing of his death, J.K. Rowling tweeted out a tribute to him. His job at Universal was a passion for him because he loved Harry Potter, but it was also paying for his education. He was studying to be a physical therapist at Seminole State College. His friend Will Randle said: Luis was by far the best person I knew. He inherently made us all better people by simply existing around us. Part of him will always live on in every good decision that I make. Kelly, a friend of his on Facebook, asked: ``How could this happen to someone so kind?'' How could this happen to anyone? In December of 2015, Jonathan Aranda was shot and killed in the morning hours of December 8 in New Haven, CT. He was 19 years old. He had just graduated from Eli Whitney Technical High School in Hamden, CT. In a statement, the superintendent of schools talked about the devastation in the entire educational community because of the loss of this beautiful young man. His cousin said he was hard-working, and he was well-liked. He worked at Brook & Whittle, a packaging company in Guilford. He was getting out of work. He had stopped at a friend's house to talk about cars, and then, bam, this senseless act of violence happened. His friend said that he was quick to lend a hand when you needed help and he wouldn't ask for anything in return. He worked the third shift and he came home, and then he helped his friends and his family. His younger sister said that he was a humble and loving person, and he never picked fights. A very, very likeable kid, said his cousin. He didn't have a problem with anybody. Luis Vielma was 22 years old when he was killed on Saturday night in the worst mass shooting in the history of this country. This shooting has gotten a lot of publicity, and it has prompted us to come down to this floor and demand change. But nobody in this country knows about Jonathan Aranda. He was killed in December of last year on the streets of New Haven, and his family and friends and his educational family mourn for him, but he didn't make headlines. There are the 80 others that day on December 8 who died didn't make headlines either, but their deaths are just as meaningful, just as impactful, and just as unacceptable as the 50 people who died late on Saturday night, early Sunday morning in Orlando. It doesn't have to be like this. That is why we have come to the floor this evening. I am going to turn the floor over to Senator Blumenthal in a moment. Actually, I will turn it over to Senator Booker for some comments and then to Senator Blumenthal. But let me just finish these remarks by talking about the families of Sandy Hook. Senator Booker was talking about courageous acts of empathy. I think it is a wonderful turn of a phrase. I think about the courageous act of empathy inherent in the decision made by the families of those murdered in Sandy Hook to come to the Congress to argue in 2013 and then again in 2014, 2015, and 2016 for background checks, because if you know the facts of the case in Sandy Hook, background checks on sales at gun shows or with respect to online sales wouldn't have mattered in that case, because that sale was done with a background check. To the families of Sandy Hook, what would matter much more is a ban on military-style assault weapons like the kind that was used to kill every single kid that was shot in Sandy Hook or a ban on high-capacity magazines. Let me tell you this. There are kids who survived that shooting. They survived that shooting because the shooter fumbled when he went to reload and a handful of kids snuck out. But because he was using 30- round magazines, he only had to reload a handful of times. Had he been forced to reload after discharging 10 bullets rather than 30 bullets, there are a lot of families in Newtown who think there would be more kids alive today. That mattered to them. But they came to Washington in a courageous act of empathy to argue on behalf of Jonathan Aranda, who was still alive in the spring of 2013 when we took that vote. They came to this Congress to argue on behalf of those still living on the streets of this country who could benefit by an expanded background check system that would stem the flow of illegal weapons on their streets. Had we been successful, had we been able to pick up a few more votes to persist and beat that filibuster, maybe Jonathan Aranda would be alive today. Had we years ago passed a law that puts people who have had an intersection with the FBI with respect to terrorist connections on the list of those who are prohibited from buying guns, maybe that network would have caught up with Omar Mateen, and he would never have bought the weapon that he used to kill those in Orlando. Those are all maybes, but life isn't always a game of certainties. What we have been asking for here today is to just take a step forward and take a vote on two commonsense measures that can start to show that we have the ability to make progress as a body. There is a laundry list of other things that everyone who has spoken wants to happen. Our families in Sandy Hook have a laundry list of other things that they want to occur. But we want to start with these two commonsense measures. Through the Chair to Senator Booker and Senator Blumenthal, I think we can report some very meaningful progress over the course of these 13 hours. When we began this debate on the floor, when we declared that we were not going to move forward on the CJS bill without a commitment to talk about what happened in Orlando, to talk about how we fix it, and when we began, there was no commitment, no plan to debate these measures. It is our understanding that the Republican leader and the Democratic leader have spoken and that we have been given a commitment on a path forward to get votes on the floor of the Senate on a measure to assure that those on the terrorist watch list do not get guns, the Feinstein amendment, and an amendment introduced by myself and Senator Booker and Senator Schumer to expand background checks to gun shows and to Internet sales. Now, we still have to get from here to there, but we did not have that commitment when we started today, and we have that understanding at the end of the day. There is no guarantee that those amendments will pass. But we will have some time to take the movement that existed before we started and maybe is a little bit stronger now and try to prevail upon Members to take these two measures and turn them into law. So I am deeply grateful to be standing here at now 1:40 in the morning with both of my friends who started here with me now going on 14 hours ago. I gladly yield to my friend Senator Booker for a question and any final comments that he has.

Mr. MURPHY. I will yield for a question.

Mr. MURPHY. I ask through the Chair if the Senator from Pennsylvania will wait.

Mr. MURPHY. That is exactly right. And I think my colleague very smartly referred back to the initiation of the background check system, where no one was contemplating a terrorist watch list or a no-fly list existing. It is the same thing with Internet sales, it is the same thing with armslist.com, and it is the same thing with gun shows. Back when we passed the background checks law, the vast majority of gun sales were done in bricks-and-mortar stores. What has happened is that sales have migrated into other forms, especially online. So in all of these respects, as the Senator is accurately pointing out, all we are really seeking to do is to have the law and the initial intent of it catch up with the trajectory of time.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York, and through the Chair, I yield for a question from the Senator from Minnesota without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Senator for guiding us toward that compromise because it has to be there. On this issue, we are speaking the same language. Frankly, on background checks, we tend to speak the same language. We both say--Republicans and Democrats--that we don't want criminals to get guns. We both say we don't want terrorists to get guns. Yet we have been unable to meet in the middle. My understanding is that the majority has a concern about the ability of individuals who shouldn't be on these lists to get off the list. So do we. We have no less interest in due process than they do. So we want to bring these issues to a vote on the floor. Our preference is to bring a compromise measure that can pass and get the support of both sides. I know we have had Senator Toomey and some others come to the floor today and suggest there is some work to be done to get a compromise. My hope is we can get there. If we can't, then let's at least take the vote and let the American people see where we stand.

Mr. MURPHY. I think this is a wonderfully simple question which a lot of people are probably asking: What is the problem? Is there a catch? Why isn't there consensus? The simple answer is that there is no catch, and there is no secret agenda. There is no alternative story line. This is about saying that if you are on the terrorist watch list, you shouldn't buy a gun, period, stop. And if you want to buy a gun in a commercial sale, you should prove that you are not a criminal first, period, stop. Those are the only two things that we are asking for a debate and a vote on--no secret agenda, no hidden prefaces. That is it. I thank Senator Donnelly, and I yield to my great friend who has been with us for a majority of the evening here on the floor. He has not yet posed a question. I yield to my friend from Hawaii for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. MURPHY. I will.

Mr. MURPHY. I assume you have gun clubs in Virginia, just as we have them in Connecticut.

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Senator from Washington, and I thank her for the work she did to allow the citizens of Washington to pass that referendum. That was a bright spot, and it was a reminder that when you take this question out of the political morass that is Washington, DC, and you give it to voters, you give it to citizens, they choose the protections that we are asking for votes on here. I would note that Senator King is still on the floor. There are referendums planned in Maine; there are referendums planned in Nevada. This campaign of citizen-based activism, demanding change in gun laws to reflect the overwhelming majority will of the public, is happening. It is inevitable. It is not stopping; it is marching forward. We would do well to listen to that tempest and adopt these measures. I will at this point yield for a question, without losing my right to the floor, to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. MURPHY. It is in there for a reason.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I say through the Chair to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee that of course it would make a difference. What the Manchin-Toomey bill has always contemplated is that sales that were advertised would be covered by background checks. There would be limitations on relative-to-relative transactions, but if you are engaged in any sort of commercial business where you are selling a firearm, whether it is at a gun show, gun store, or out of a trunk, you would have to go through a background check before selling a weapon.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I yield for a question.

Mr. MURPHY. It will have no effect on law-abiding gun owners in Maine or anywhere else. This has nothing to do with those individuals.

Mr. MURPHY. The First Amendment is as important as the Second Amendment, but it comes with conditions and responsibilities. One of them is that you can't slander your fellow citizens. You can't yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. There have been important limitations since the beginning of the Republic built around the First Amendment which, frankly, are as sacred as any of the individual rights that are encompassed in the Bill of Rights.

Mr. MURPHY. Another qualified right of the Bill of Rights.

Mr. MURPHY. It is correct. It is correct, and that is an important facet of the amendment Senator Feinstein has submitted. But it is also important, as we remarked earlier--perhaps when you were on the floor, Senator King--to understand the scope of this. We are talking about a very small number of sales that actually would be affected. In 2015, thanks to a report Senator Feinstein released, we know that in that year there were only about 215 sales at gun stores to individuals who were on the terrorist watch list. So it is a very small number of sales we are talking about in the first place.

Mr. MURPHY. That is correct. It is only controversial here; it is not controversial out in the American public. By and large, they want this done. So we have created a controversy that doesn't really exist in the living rooms and social halls of this country.

Mr. MURPHY. I haven't memorized portions of the Constitution as well as Senator King has, but he very eloquently stated for us the preamble of the Constitution, which commits us first and foremost to preserve domestic tranquility and to protect the common defense. So at the very beginning of the Constitution is this obligation to take the issue of public safety as a sacred duty upon inheriting the mantle of preserving and defending the Constitution. So, as he has stated, all of those rights in the Bill of Rights come with conditions and responsibilities demanded by the American people, and when we talk about the Second Amendment, it is educated by that very important preamble which commands all of us to do whatever is necessary to protect the safety of our citizens.

Mr. MURPHY. I thank the Senator for the question. Connecticut is still dealing with this tragedy to this day. Newtown is a community that has not recovered. Connecticut wants us to act not just because they don't understand the inaction of this place but they have seen the benefits of stronger gun laws. Connecticut responded in a bipartisan way. Republicans and Democrats came together and passed legislation to ban major assault weapons and extended background checks to more sales, and we have seen an immediate diminution in the number of gun crimes in our State. We have seen an immediate impact on the safety of residents. So people in Connecticut want us to act because they acted like grown- ups in Connecticut. The minority leader of the State senate, who wanted to run for Governor, put his political future in peril by sitting down at the table and negotiating a compromise. He stands by it today because that compromise saved lives. So the people of Connecticut want us to act, Senator Blumenthal, and that is the reason we are here today. Senator Blumenthal, if I could, I would just note for a moment, before I hand it over to Senator Casey, that when one of our colleagues had a moment to hold the floor for an extended period of time, he read a story to his kids who were at home. I actually didn't know this was going to occur, but my oldest little boy just showed up in the gallery, and, A, you are supposed to be in bed, and, B, I am sorry that I missed pizza night, and, C, I hope that you will understand some day why we are doing this, why we have been standing here for 8 hours trying to fight to make our country a safer and better place, and why, sometimes, even if you don't get everything that you want, trying hard, trying and trying and trying to do the right thing is ultimately just as important as getting the outcome in the end. So go to bed. But this is, for those of us who are parents, deeply personal. This is about protecting not just every kid in this country but our kids personally. I yield to Senator Casey for a question without losing control of the floor.

Mr. MURPHY. I say to Senator Booker, there is nobody better than you in making people understand the human consequences of inaction and the potential for human benefit of action, so I am not going to try to compete. Let me give the statistics. Let me tell my colleagues what happens in States that impose rigorous systems of background checks. There are 64 percent fewer guns trafficked out of State, there are 48 percent fewer firearm suicides, there are 48 percent fewer police killed by handguns, there are 46 percent fewer women who are shot to death by intimate partners, and there are 17 percent fewer aggravated assaults with guns. Those numbers could be even better if there was a national commitment to the same concept because, as Senator Durbin has told us, as tough as Illinois' laws are, all it takes is for a criminal to go across the border into Indiana and buy guns at a gun show or buy them online or get them from an unregulated dealer and bring them back into Chicago. And what every police chief will tell you is that the fewer illegal guns on the street, the fewer crimes there are. The harder you make it for an individual at a moment of passion or a moment of frustration or whatever that moment may be to get a gun, the less likely you are to have a homicide. Senator Blumenthal and I went to a meeting of activists on this issue in Hartford, CT, a few weeks after the Newtown shooting, and they were furious. They were furious that the world had woken up to gun violence because of Newtown after it had been a reality to them for so long. That is the genius of what we are proposing. Without taking away any Second Amendment rights, Senator Booker, we are able with this proposal to both extend protections to Americans who might be the victim of a terror attack but also individuals who right now are living with the everyday slaughter that happens in our cities. I am happy to yield to my friend from Connecticut for a question without relinquishing the floor.