Christopher Murphy

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend. Let me put it to the body this way, through the Chair. This is also about sending a message to everyone in this country that we are serious about taking on this epidemic of gun violence, whether it is a terrorist attack or it is an attack by someone who is deeply mentally ill, such as the attack in Newtown, or the ordinary, everyday violence that is just epidemic in our cities. I think it is incredibly important for us to send a message that we are serious about this and, frankly, not worry about whether we have addressed every aspect of this debate and solved every problem at once--not allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I say that to my colleague, through the Chair, for two reasons. One is this notion I talked about earlier in which I really do worry that there is a quiet unintentional message of endorsement that is sent when we do nothing or all we do is talk. I believe that when there is not a collective condemnation of policy change from what is supposedly the world's greatest deliberative body, there are very quiet cues picked up by people who are contemplating the unthinkable in their minds. This isn't intentional. I am not accusing anybody of being intentional in their endorsement, but I think when we don't act, there is a quiet signal being sent to those whose minds are becoming unhinged and who are thinking about doing something truly horrific. Since we have been talking about this--since Sandy Hook--we haven't heard anything that would suggest that the highest levels of government condemn it with any real policy change. Second, this is more deeply personal, and I know both of my colleagues on the floor today share this point of view. Almost every one of us has had a conversation with a family member who has lost a son or daughter to gun violence. Too many of us have had that collective conversation with families who have lost a loved one or have spoken to someone who lost a family member or their loved one in a mass atrocity. As for me personally, I need to be able to tell them something. They need to be able to hear something that helps in their healing. The fact is, every day there are 80 sets of families who begin a process of grief surrounding the taking of a life through a firearm, and for many of them, their process of healing is encumbered by the fact that their leaders are not doing anything to stop it. If we could simply be compassionate as a body--forget the broader systemic impact of passing laws that will reduce the levels of violence in this country--that would enable us to help in the healing process of the families in Sandy Hook and Orlando. I know that after my colleagues met with the families in Sandy Hook, they came to the floor to plead for change. We should pass legislation. This is easy, given that it should unite broad members of the American public. I think the Senator's question is right: What are the other things we can do? We can go down the list. The Senator from Connecticut suggested that we make sure that individuals who have a restraining order against them by a spouse or partner aren't able to buy a weapon, and other suggestions have been to ban military-style assault weapons and provide more resources to law enforcement. There are a variety of other things we can do. Here is an easy place to start. Here is an easy place to start, where we know there is no real disagreement among the American public; 80 to 90 percent approval. We know there are Republicans and Democrats at least who can start negotiating this afternoon and this evening. Here is an easy place to start. I don't know, maybe it is a muscle. Maybe it is a muscle. Maybe once you start to exercise that muscle, once you start to get in the habit of coming together to try to find ways to address gun violence, it makes it easier to take the next step. And also, maybe people see that the sky doesn't fall. Maybe people will see that if we do expand background checks, that hundreds won't lose their right to go practice their sport, that people who want to shoot for sport don't all of a sudden lose access to that pastime. So maybe we will also see, as we have seen in Connecticut, that the sky doesn't fall when we pass these commonsense laws, that people still enjoy a fulsome right to own a firearm so long as they can prove that they are not a criminal, that they are not on the terrorist watch list, and that they haven't been adjudicated as mentally ill. I yield to the Senator for an additional question.

Mr. MURPHY. I think that has been the difficulty in finding a compromise. The existing text gives the ability already for anyone who believes they are on the list wrongly to get off that list. That is why I said that we are just as concerned with that, and the underlying amendment that we have proposed and Senator Feinstein has proposed does exactly that. It gives an escape hatch for anyone wrongly on that list.

Mr. MURPHY. It is a wonderful subtext to all of the rhetoric that comes from the gun lobby and the NRA that there is this secret agenda to essentially get the camel's nose under the tent through an expansion of background checks or a restriction on individuals who are on the terrorist watch list as far as buying guns, because the ultimate goal is to eventually parachute into people's homes and take away all of their weapons--gun confiscation. Of course, that is a mythology that has been created by the gun lobby in order to sell more weapons and in order to make people scared of their government so they have to arm themselves. There is no logic to it. As you state in reference to your question, there has never been a proposal before the U.S. Congress to engage in any of the widespread confiscation efforts that have been imagined out of thin air by these advocacy organizations.

Mr. MURPHY. I would ask the Senator to withdraw that request at this time.

Mr. MURPHY. I yield for a question.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal, and I want to thank you for your work on the Judiciary Committee for leading this fight to try to make sure that law enforcement has what it needs to protect this country. Again, I spoke to this broader conversation about how you protect this country from domestic terrorist attacks. I think there are a lot of people who want to drill it down to only one silo of conversation. As I remarked at the beginning, some people want to make this just about the fight in the Middle East. Some people want to make this just about surveillance. Other people want to make this just about gun laws. It is not any of those things. It is about a combination of efforts. So we have to admit that this fight against ISIS and against Al Qaeda in the areas in which they have large amounts of control is an ongoing fight. That is not going to be concluded tomorrow or next week or the month after. We think we are making dramatic progress, but it is going to take us a while. As I remarked at the outset, it also means that there is an inverse proportionality between our success in taking the fight to Al Qaeda and ISIS inside theaters of war and their importance in attacking us here at home in the sense that they are going to need to take the fight to us here if they are having less success in repelling our efforts to push them back inside the Middle East. That is where law enforcement comes in, Senator Blumenthal, and you are exactly right. Let's make it a priority to defeat ISIS. But let's admit that for the time being, they are going to try to launch lone- wolf attacks here. What we know is they generally don't go through the trouble of trying to coordinate these attacks ahead of time. So it makes it much more difficult to stop. They are trying to find someone who is on the fringes of society, who may be mentally ill or prone to radicalization and weaponize them. Sometimes it makes it difficult for law enforcement to find that needle in a haystack. What we know is that in this case, they had found that needle in a haystack. They had found him twice. Perhaps his inclusion permanently on one of these lists wouldn't have done much good because it wouldn't have prevented him from getting a firearm. There wasn't as much due diligence done as should have been. This clearly is an important tool of law enforcement, and we need to give it to them. I hope--and I think Senator Mikulski talked about this in her opening comments--we can talk about giving broader resources to the FBI and to law enforcement to do the job they need do. We ask them to do more and more, but we don't give them the resources that are necessary. If we are going to give them additional responsibilities-- keeping a better monitored, consolidated database, having a process for individuals to grieve their inclusion on it--then we have to make sure they have the resources necessary. To the Senator from New Jersey, I yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for that question. That is why it is so important to link those two pieces together. If you really want to protect this country from terrorist attacks by a firearm--as I stated before, that is the weapon of choice for those who want to do harm to this country for political reasons--then you have to both make sure those individuals are on the list of those prohibited from buying weapons and you have to make sure when you go and buy a weapon you intersect with that list. This has been a long trend line, as both of my friends know. It used to be that almost everybody who bought a gun went into their local gun store to purchase that weapon, and over the course of time, for a variety of reasons, the means by which you bought a firearm has diversified significantly. We now have lots of sales occurring online, as we do with almost every other commercial good, and there is this buildout of gun shows, which are places where both licensed and nonlicensed dealers go to sell their guns in a very organized and controlled fashion. We have story upon story of individuals who have gone to buy guns in those gun stores in mass quantities, knowing that they would not have to go through a background check and then selling them on the black market. So someone who knows they are prohibited from buying a gun decides not to buy a gun in a gun store; instead, they go buy a number of weapons at a gun show, which is unregulated. Those individuals who are not licensed gun dealers are able to sell their weapons without background checks at a gun show, and they can get as many as they want. That is not a secret. I mean, you don't have to scratch the surface of America's gun law or debate this subject very hard to find out that there are easy ways to get guns without getting a background check. You can also go online. You can very easily buy a weapon on ARMSLIST without going through a background check. We cannot adequately protect this country from terrorist attacks by firearm unless you do both, and that is why those two are linked together. As the Senator also knows, let's not shy away from the fact that the reason we are on the floor today is that this slaughter also happens outside the realm of terrorist attacks. In fact, the majority-- 95-plus percent--of Americans who have been killed by guns were not killed in a terrorist attack, but many of them were killed by guns sold outside the background check system. This is a two for one. If there are objections on the Republican side to the provisions of the Manchin-Toomey legislation, I hope that over the course of this afternoon and this evening we can come together on those issues. If you pass some version of that legislation, which is supported by 90 percent of the American public and the vast majority of gun owners, in conjunction with putting terrorists or would-be terrorists or suspected terrorists on that same list, then you have not only protected our country from terrorist attacks, but you have also addressed this epidemic that we all live with on a regular basis, whether it be in Newark, Bridgeport, or, as Senator Durbin talked about, Chicago. The regularity of gun crime that is often associated with weapons that were purchased outside of the background check system is not an inevitability that we have to accept. We can do something about it by coming together today. I think that is what my friend is getting at by linking together two policies that have to be interdependent in order to protect ourselves from a terrorist attack, and it is also about this broader issue of taking on crimes in our city. I yield to the Senator from Connecticut for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. MURPHY. It will not have any practical effect on the law-abiding gun owners in Maine, and that is whom you and I are talking to. The only effect it would have is upon criminals or felons who are attempting to circumvent our laws and get weapons by avoiding background checks. The only effect it would have is if there were individuals in Maine who were the subject of terrorist investigations. They would be prevented from buying weapons, but of course even those individuals--if they thought they were on the list for the wrong reasons--would have a process to grieve that. But for law-abiding citizens in Maine or Connecticut or Pennsylvania or New Jersey, this law has no impact on them.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that Laura Malenas and Kevin Craw, who are both fellows in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Senate's consideration of the NDAA.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak about my amendment No. 4299.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, not a lot of Americans know this, but we are at war in the Middle East. We are part of the Saudi-led coalition that is in the middle of a very dangerous and catastrophic war inside Yemen. The Saudi-led campaign inside Yemen began on March 26, 2015. The Houthis, a group within Yemen, had captured the capital in September of 2014. The Saudi-led campaign, of which the United States is a member, had intended to push the Houthis out of the capital. The war has been absolutely devastating from both a humanitarian perspective and a U.S. national security perspective. Senator Paul and I have submitted an amendment that I will not call up right now--but I may do so later in the proceedings--which would place some very reasonable conditions on the U.S. participation in this coalition, and in particular on the U.S. transfer of munitions to Saudi Arabia in order to continue this campaign. What is the status of this civil war inside Yemen today? Well, first of all, as I mentioned, it has been an absolute humanitarian disaster. The war has left 3,000 civilians dead, and the total number of deaths is 6,200. At this time 80 percent of Yemen's population is wholly dependent on international humanitarian relief because they don't have adequate food, water, or medical care. The capital, Sanaa, has been without electricity or running water for over a year. The capital of this country has had no electricity or running water for over a year. Nearly the entire population of an entire country, Yemen, is now dependent on international humanitarian aid in order to subsist. During this time, the U.N. has documented 101 attacks on Yemeni schools and hospitals, 48 of which were attributed to this coalition- led bombing campaign that the United States is a part of. Hundreds of health facilities have closed due to damage and lack of fuel for generators, supplies, and shortage of medical personnel. There have been multiple reports of cluster bombs--U.S. made cluster bombs being used in or near civilian populations. The United States has enabled this campaign. It would not happen without U.S. participation. There would not be a Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen without the United States. Why? Well, first of all, it is billions of dollars in U.S. weapons and U.S. munitions that are being dropped inside Yemen, including those cluster bombs. It is our intelligence that is providing the basis, the foundation, for all the targeting that is being done. One can argue that targeting has been dramatically insufficient given the number of civilian casualties, but there would be little way for the Saudis to do targeting at all without U.S. intelligence. It is Air Forces Central Command that has flown 709 air-to-air refueling sorties, offloading 26 million pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft. It is American refueling missions that allow for the coalition planes to fly. So the United States is an indispensable part of this coalition; thus, the United States is at war inside Yemen today, and very few people are talking about it. But we should, because in addition to a U.S. and Saudi-led coalition resulting in the death of thousands of civilians inside Yemen, this war is in direct contravention with U.S. national security interests. First, the damage done to U.S. credibility in the region and amongst Muslim populations should be obvious to all of us when it is our bombs that are killing civilians. If you talk to Yemeni Americans, they will tell you that in Yemen this is not a Saudi bombing campaign; this is a U.S.-Saudi bombing campaign, so every death inside Yemen is attributed to the United States. We need to accept that as a consequence of our participation in this campaign. Secondly, this coalition has made a very purposeful decision to target the Houthis instead of targeting terrorist groups, such as AQAP, which have used this civil war to expand their base of operations. The coalition has made a very purposeful decision to target the Houthis instead of targeting ISIS, which had virtually no footprint in Yemen before this bombing campaign and now is growing by the day. Here is what the State Department's annual counterterrorism report states about the civil war inside Yemen: AQAP benefitted during 2015 from the conflict in Yemen by significantly expanding its presence in the southern and eastern governorates. . . . The group was able to increase its recruiting and expand its safe haven in Yemen. It also insinuated itself among multiple factions on the ground, which has made it more difficult to counter. I almost want to read that again because what our own counterterrorism report has told us is that the U.S. intervention in Yemen has resulted in the dramatic growth in the strength of AQAP, an element of Al Qaeda, a named enemy of the United States. We don't have a resolution that commits the United States to war against the Houthis. We have never given the administration the power to fight the Houthis. We have given the administration the power to fight Al Qaeda. There is still a pending effective authorization of war against Al Qaeda. Inside Yemen, there are the Houthis and there is Al Qaeda. A Saudi-led campaign, with participation from the United States, is fighting the Houthis--not a named enemy of the United States--while largely ignoring AQAP, which has grown in scale and scope. The State Department further affirms that both AQAP and ISIL have ``carried out hundreds of attacks'' in Yemen last year, including suicide bombings, car bombings, assassinations, et cetera, et cetera. So why are we doing this? Why is the United States relatively quietly facilitating a Saudi-led bombing campaign in Yemen that is in contravention to our national security interests? Well, there are a lot of guesses as to why. One is that as a consequence of the Iran nuclear agreement, we have to make a renewed commitment to the Saudis to push back on Iranian influence in and around the region. There is no doubt that there is a very direct connection between the Houthis and the Iranians. Houthis are not an Iranian proxy, but there is a link, and there are going to be times where I would support U.S. efforts to push back on Iranian influence in the region. But in this instance, there is an indirect connection between the Houthis and the Iranians and all sorts of damage done to U.S. credibility and national security interests by participating in this coalition in the way that we are today. The second argument is that if the United States weren't involved, the targeting would be even worse. There wouldn't be 3,000 civilian deaths; there would be 20,000 civilian deaths if the United States were not helping. Well, that may be true, but that is not an invitation to be involved in a civil war, because U.S. intelligence and targeting could probably always mean that fewer civilians would be killed. The fact is that it is likely that Saudi Arabia wouldn't engage in this conflict or bombing campaign at all if it weren't for U.S. support. I think it is time for this body to do some oversight on a conflict that has been raging for over a year with billions of U.S. dollars at stake, the consequence being the dramatic increase of the power of terrorist organizations that have plots against the United States. Remember, AQAP is the most lethal and most dangerous element of Al Qaeda when it comes to potential threats directly to the U.S. homeland. It is AQAP that sits at the pinnacle of Al Qaeda's potential ability to strike the United States. Yet this Congress has remained almost completely silent as a bombing campaign funded and orchestrated in part by the United States has allowed for AQAP to get stronger. God forbid that AQAP is successful in attacking the United States and that they do it from a base in Yemen that was made possible by U.S. paid for and directed bombs dropped on that country. I think the White House has recently recognized the danger of continuing along this same pace. There are reports that the White House recently placed a hold on a pending arms transfer of U.S.-origin cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia over concerns about their use in Yemen in areas inhabited by civilians. But we have to do our due diligence and our oversight as well. If we are really serious about upholding our article I responsibilities to oversee the foreign policy of this Nation, then we have to add some conditions as well. The amendment that I have helped offer to the NDAA would place two pretty simple conditions on our support for the Saudi-led coalition. Importantly, my amendment doesn't prohibit the United States from continuing to fund this effort. If I had my druthers, I certainly would argue that we at least take a pause, but I understand that the consensus may not be here in this body to temporarily or permanently halt our support for this campaign. All I am suggesting is that we place effectively two conditions on our financial support and logistical support for this campaign inside Yemen: No. 1, that the Saudi-led coalition make a commitment that it is doing everything necessary to reduce civilian casualties and that they are conducting this campaign in concert with international humanitarian law. I can't figure out why anybody would oppose that. Let's just say that if we are going to fund this bombing campaign, those we are funding should make a commitment to try to kill fewer civilians instead of more civilians. Second, those in the coalition should make a commitment to use U.S. support to fight terrorist groups--Al Qaeda and ISIS--instead of just fighting the Houthis. The United States isn't at war with the Houthis. We haven't declared war on that group. We have declared war on Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda is growing in its lethality, influence, and territorial control inside Yemen. Another condition, as contemplated by our amendment, is to simply have the President certify as a condition of continued support for the bombing campaign that the coalition is fighting terrorist groups alongside the Houthis. I think if I had 100 different conversations with Members of the Senate, I can't imagine there would be a lot of objection because of course we want to fight terrorism. Of course that is our priority, not the Houthis. And of course we want to do everything possible to reduce civilian casualties. I am grateful to Senator McCain, Senator Reed, and also Senator Cardin and Senator Corker, who have some jurisdiction here, too, that they are willing to take a look at this amendment. I am not offering it today because we are contemplating ways to structure the language to make it acceptable to the chair and to the ranking member. I will end this with a plea for the Senate to get back in the game when it comes to the oversight of this administration's foreign policy, in particular in places like Yemen. We have been out to lunch when it comes to authorizations of military force for a long time. There is no authorization right now to fight ISIS, but we are doing it. There is a decade-old authorization to fight Al Qaeda that we should renew. If we are going to be involved in spending all of this money and all of this time putting our soldiers and airmen at risk in the Yemen campaign, then we should authorize that, too, and if we don't authorize it, then the administration shouldn't do it. So this is not an authorization I am proposing; it is simply a couple of commonsense conditions. I hope we can find a pathway to get a vote on this amendment, and I hope this body has the courage in the future to step up and call a spade a spade and do our constitutional duty, perform our constitutional responsibility to provide oversight of the foreign policy by this administration. Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, 150 years ago, as the United States and the world advanced out of the industrial revolution, several young businessmen formed the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, HSB, in Hartford, CT. I am proud to represent this company and want to congratulate HSB on its 150th anniversary for its vital contribution to the economy of Connecticut, as well as the rest of the Nation. During the industrial revolution in the mid-to-late 19th century, steam boilers were used to drive industrial machinery, locomotives, and steamboats. Steam-powered engines allowed for the rapid growth and expansion of industry in the United States; these engines enabled the effective transportation of goods across the country. Steam power also permitted factories in Connecticut to produce and market goods more efficiently than ever before. The tremendous benefits provided by steam engines and boilers, however, came with considerable risks. During the 1850s, boiler explosions occurred at an estimated rate of once every 4 days. Believing that better materials, better design, and regular inspections could reduce the number of dangerous boiler explosions, in 1857, several Hartford entrepreneurs started ``the Polytechnic Club,'' as a means to discuss practical changes to boilers that could mitigate the chances of worker injury and death. These discussions helped lead to the formation of HSB. The Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company was officially founded in 1866 on the premise that quality boiler inspections would enhance industrial safety, and that insurance provides a valuable financial incentive to ensure businesses conduct these inspections. From its founding, HSB's primary goals have been to improve safety and prevent losses for industrial businesses. Today HSB continues to set the standard for equipment breakdown insurance, as well as a variety of other insurance products. I am proud to honor this company's long and distinguished role in America's industrial economy. Congratulations to the Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company, and best of luck in the years to come.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, 10 years ago this month, voters in Montenegro went to the polls to determine the future of their country. These voters were faced with a single question: ``Do you want the Republic of Montenegro to be an independent state with full international and legal subjectivity?'' When the dust settled on the evening of May 21, 2006, the referendum passed with 55.5 percent of voters choosing to peacefully dissolve their union with Serbia. Shortly thereafter, the international community recognized the newest country in the world. In a region riddled with bullets and bombs, this moment marked the beginning of a praiseworthy chapter in regional and transatlantic history. As a number of global security challenges occupy the top of our foreign policy agenda--not least the threat posed by ISIS and the most significant refugee crisis since World War II--it is easy to overlook Montenegro's tenth anniversary. But we would be remiss if we did not use this occasion to reflect on the importance of U.S.-Montenegro relations and the role this country of 600,000 can play to advance regional and transatlantic security moving forward. Early on, the country's leaders made a clear decision to align with the United States and pursue membership in Euro-Atlantic institutions. Montenegrin troops sacrificed their lives supporting the U.S.- and NATO-led mission in Afghanistan. Montenegro has demonstrated its commitment to deterring Russian aggression by voluntarily joining the EU sanctions regime against Russia and rebuffing Moscow's offers for military cooperation. And since the beginning, the United States has been there supporting Montenegro's progress, with direct assistance to help the country fight organized crime and corruption, strengthen its civil society and democratic structures, and provide stability in the still-fragile Balkans region. In October 2014, I had the privilege to visit Montenegro as then- chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs. I met with our Ambassador and Montenegrin Government officials and opposition leaders to discuss the challenges of the region and the country's progress. I also sat down with U.S. investors to hear why Montenegro is currently an attractive country for foreign investment. Above all else, I came away from this visit convinced that Montenegro should be granted NATO membership. The opportunity to join the world's foremost military alliance has been a powerful incentive for reform. Montenegro has come a long way, but if the prospect of joining NATO is no longer on the table, we can expect to see an erosion of Montenegro's commitment to democratic governance and arguments that Montenegro is better served by an alliance with Russia. Last week, NATO Foreign Ministers gathered in Brussels to sign Montenegro's Accession Protocol, paving the way to Montenegro's formal membership. Each member country must now ratify the agreement. This important decision will help counter Russian aggression in the region, eliminate a strategic NATO gap along the Mediterranean, and ensure that Montenegro's young democracy continues to develop under the alliance's umbrella. At the same time, no country should receive an invitation until it is prepared to meet the highest standards of NATO membership. Montenegro has taken significant steps to address concerns that have delayed membership in the past. The government has strengthened the rule of law, undertaken intelligence sector and defense reforms, and increased public support for NATO membership in recent years. Notably, the Montenegrin Parliament passed legislation in November 2014 to reform the judicial sector, including the establishment of a special prosecutor's office for organized crime and an anti-corruption agency. This legislation is now being implemented, with the special prosecutor's office carrying out a high-profile arrest of former President of Serbia and Montenegro Svetozar Marovic on corruption charges in December 2015. We need to see continued high profile arrests to prove the rule of law will be fully respected, but this is an important signal. Montenegro's democracy is young, but it is on the right track. There is no doubt Montenegro needs to continue making progress to uphold the rule of law, fight organized crime, tackle corruption, and foster a free and independent media environment. I believe American engagement will be critical helping Montenegro achieve these goals. On the tenth anniversary of Montenegro's historic independence, I will continue to push for a strong transatlantic partnership between our countries.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, about a week ago, Josh Cortez was found shot and lying on the pavement in Hartford's South end. Josh was 22 at the time. His girlfriend, who was 23 years old, was found in a parked car nearby with a gunshot wound. She was rushed to Hartford Hospital where she died a half hour later. They were the sixth and seventh homicide victims in Hartford this year. They had been dating for about 2 years, and they had a 2-year-old daughter. He had just celebrated his 22nd birthday. His cousin said: [Josh] was a great kid. He turned his life around for the better. He had a rough start, but he was doing a complete 360 for his baby girl. His cousin said that he was just wrapping up a jail diversionary program at the time of his death and that he was ``committed to the program,'' making every appointment and following every regulation. Two days later, across the country in Iowa, Senquez Jackson was 15 years old when his 13-year-old friend accidentally fired a small .38- caliber semiautomatic pistol. His friend thought the gun was unloaded when he pulled the ammo clip from the handle. He killed his friend, Senquez, who was 15 years old, and now that 13-year-old boy has been charged with involuntary manslaughter. In addition, they layered on charges of obstructing prosecution and carrying a weapon. Senquez is remembered by his friends and family as being a great athlete. He loved basketball. He dreamed of playing in the NBA. He always told his auntie that he was going to be just like LeBron James. One speaker at his funeral said that they had never met another child with more gratitude than Senquez. He had deep gratitude for the things he had been given. He died from an accidental gunshot wound on March 18. Earlier in the year, Romell Jones was standing outside the Alton Acres housing complex with a group of kids his age in Alton, IL. He was 11 years old. They were waiting to get picked up to go to basketball practice. While they were waiting outside, a red car pulled up and someone inside the car fired multiple shots into this group of kids, and Romell was killed. His friends remember him--frankly, like Senquez--as always having a basketball in his hands. The middle school coach, Bobby Everage, who was planning on coaching this incredibly talented kid, said: This young man's life was cut short and he had so much potential. I know he was a good kid and has a lot of friends. When life ends that way, it is so sad. His fifth grade teacher said that Romell was well liked by all of his teachers and all of his classmates. He was always happy, sensitive, and an excellent student. As a fifth grader he mentored younger students at our school. He was only 11 years old when he was killed while waiting to go to basketball practice. At the end of last year--this is a story I pulled out of the dozens that were killed in Connecticut cities--Antoine Heath was 29 years old when he was shot in the chest while sitting in a parked car on the outskirts of Edgewood Park in New Haven. His wife of 4 years and mother of his two children, ages 4 and 3, said that her husband was a family man. ``He was loving and hard working.'' Antoine's nickname was ``Champ,'' in large part because he was such a champion of causes in and around his community. A childhood friend said: He tried to get me to see things clear. He made sure everybody was all right. He just wanted his family to be together. He had big plans for the weekend just following his death. He was going to be baptized. His sister said: He was ready to give his life over to God, and he made the decision on his own. That was something he wanted to surprise the family and do. Those are just four stories--four voices--of victims of gun violence. As the Presiding Officer and many of my colleagues know, I try to come to the floor every week or couple of weeks to tell a handful of stories of the 31,000 a year, 2,600 a month, and 86 people a day who are killed by guns, resulting from a variety of reasons. Most of these are suicides, many of them accidental. They happen in large numbers and small. Last year we had 372 mass shootings, which I categorize as 4 or more people being shot at any one time. Many of these are domestic violence incidents or gang-involved incidents. There are a lot of different stories as to why this happens. I come to the floor to talk for a moment today on a specific aspect of our path forward on addressing gun violence. Tomorrow Senator Cassidy and I will host a summit here in Washington on mental health reform. Senator Cassidy and I, with the help of 16 of our colleagues-- eight Democrats and eight Republicans--have introduced a bipartisan comprehensive mental health reform act that we think, if it passes, will dramatically improve the experiences of individuals who are trying to seek help for their mental illness. Given the fact that we are going to have hundreds of people at this summit tomorrow, that many of us are living with the daily ramifications of unchecked gun violence, and that we are continuing to press for legislation on this floor--as I know the Presiding Officer is--I want to talk about the mistakes I think we make in how we talk about the intersection between mental health and the epidemic of gun violence. I will talk about it for a second through the lens of Sandy Hook. On the same day that Adam Lanza walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School and murdered 26 children and educators, another mentally ill man in Henan, China, walked into a school and attacked 22 students--almost the same number. Now, in Sandy Hook, every single child who Adam Lanza fired a bullet at and hit died. In China, every single student survived. Both assailants were unquestionably deeply mentally ill, but only one incident resulted in a worldwide tragedy. The difference is that Adam Lanza walked into that school with a semiautomatic rifle, and the attacker in China walked into that school with a knife. Our Nation has seen the horror that unfolds when mental illness and gun violence intersect in devastating ways and the cycles of shock, despair, horror, and grief that accompany mass shootings are still a uniquely American routine. We can't fathom what would drive someone to commit such horrifying acts. It is easy for society to blame that shooting in Newtown or in Aurora or wherever the next one may be on the mental illness. If we truly want to stop these mass shootings and do something about the 86 people who are murdered every day, we have to stop ourselves for a second and ask why this epidemic of gun violence doesn't happen in any other industrialized country the way it happens here. We have to ask ourselves: Is it because more Americans suffer from mental illness? No, the statistics don't tell us that. Is it because the mentally ill in America are more violent than the mentally ill in a place like Europe? No, the data doesn't tell us that. Do other countries spend more money on treating mental illness than the United States does? Is it that their systems are more adequate than ours? No, the data doesn't tell us that either. What is the difference between the United States and every other developed nation? Why is our gun homicide rate 20 times higher than the average OECD nation? Why don't other countries that experience the same level of mental illness and spend the same amount of money treating it have a comparable number of shootings--mass and individual shootings? Well, one of the differences is guns. The difference is that in America we are awash in illegal guns--high-power military-style assault firearms that are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. The reality is that whoever shot that couple in Hartford or that father New Haven didn't have to try very hard to find a weapon. It was either in their house or around the corner or at a friend's apartment. There are a lot of people who would like to very easily conflate the conversation about gun violence with the conversation about fixing our mental health system. Let's just think about two States: Wisconsin and Wyoming. These are States that have very similar mental health systems and spend the same amount of money. Yet one State, Wyoming, has a gun homicide rate that is twice that of Wisconsin. There is no data that suggests that mental illness explains the difference between those two States, just like there is no evidence that mental illness explains the difference between two countries. This argument about an inadequate mental health system being the reason for epidemic rates of gun violence has become a very convenient political fate that is perpetrated by people who don't want to get to the question of whether our gun laws have something to do with these epidemic murder rates. There is no doubt that the mental health system in this country is broken. It is dramatically under-resourced. People have to wait for months to get an outpatient appointment. We have closed down 4,000 mental health inpatient beds in this country just in the last 5 years alone. It is ridiculously uncoordinated. We have built up a system in which your body from the neck down is treated in one system, and then you have to drive two towns over if you want to get treatment for your body from the neck up. People with mental illness die 20 years earlier than people without mental illness because those two systems are not coordinated. The stigma around mental illness is still crippling. I know we passed a law that requires insurance companies to say on your statement of benefits that you have coverage for mental illness. Everybody knows that when you actually try to access those benefits, bureaucrats put up bureaucratic hurdles in front of your actually getting reimbursed for mental health care that they never would if you were trying to get reimbursed for a broken leg or heart surgery. Now, fortunately, the Mental Health Reform Act, which this summit will cover tomorrow, really does start to unlock many of these most difficult problems. The Mental Health Reform Act will properly capitalize our mental health system by putting back into it funding for inpatient beds and starting to marry the physical health system with the mental health system. It attacks this stigma by requiring insurance companies to administer benefits in the spirit of parity and not just say that you have a mental health benefit. It invests in prevention and early intervention and treatments so that we are not just hitting the problem at the back end. It gets into tough issues, like how our HIPAA laws unfortunately stand in the way of caregivers actually being part of the treatment plan for their seriously mentally ill young adults. The Mental Health Reform Act is a path forward to fixing our broken mental health system. But pretending that mental health reform is a sufficient response to gun violence is not only wrongheaded, it is also dangerous because the facts are incontrovertible that individuals coping with serious mental illness commit less than 5 percent of all violent acts in this country. Let me say that again. People with mental illness commit less than 5 percent of all violent acts in this country. They are frankly far more likely to be the victims of gun violence than they are to be the perpetrators of it. Obviously, people like Adam Lanza, Jared Lee Loughner, and James Holmes had complicated and devastating behavioral health disorders. There are Adam Lanzas, Jared Loughners, and James Holmeses in every other country in the world, but in these other societies mental illness doesn't lead to mass murder. Something is different in America such that people who are coping with mental illness turn to a weapon. This celebratory culture of firearms and violence, this easy access to weapons of war that enable men and women with a severe mental illness to instantly transform themselves into mass murderers is unique in this country. Even if Congress passed a bill today that magically eliminated all mental illness in the United States, our country would still have more gun violence and shooting deaths than any other country in the developed world. Given that only 5 percent of these crimes are perpetrated by people with severe mental illness, curing mental illness would be a remarkable achievement, but it wouldn't solve this problem. It is even worse than that because draping the scourge of gun deaths around the necks of everyday Americans who are struggling with mental illness just increases the stigma I was talking about that surrounds disorders of the mind. Scapegoating the 44 million Americans with mental illness just reinforces the idea that they should be feared rather than treated. We have a mental health crisis in this Nation, and we have a gun violence crisis as well. These two epidemics overlap--there is no doubt about that--but solving one, the mental health epidemic, doesn't solve the other. And conflating mental illness and gun violence may serve the political ends of those who don't want to have a conversation on this floor about background checks or assault weapons or more resources for the ATF, but it is not going to make America any demonstrably safer. I think this is a very important conversation to have, and I don't want to shy away from these intersections that exist, but I want to get it right. In the end, I want this body to commit itself to solving our mental health crisis and then doing what is additionally necessary to do something about the 31,000 a year, 2,600 a month, and the 86 a day who are killed by guns in this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. He has been a tiger on this issue, and I hope we will answer his call. The epidemic is no better in Connecticut, where most of our cities are on track to see a doubling of overdose deaths this year from last year, and last year was quadruple the number it was 3 or 4 years ago. I say thank you very much to my colleague from West Virginia. Amendment No. 3897 Mr. President, I am on the floor today to talk about an amendment to the pending bill. It is an issue that a lot of us thought was decided by this body decades ago; that is, the prohibition of discrimination in housing based on race, sex, religion, national origin, physical or mental disability, and family status. It is the Fair Housing Act. In many ways, the Fair Housing Act was the culmination of the legislative fight for civil rights in the 1960s. It was the first effective Federal law guarding against discrimination in the sale and the rental of housing in the United States. For nearly 50 years, it has been employed to ensure that every American can choose where to live, free from discrimination and the immoral and unconstitutional consequences of residential segregation. We have come a long way since the 1960s, but we are by no means all the way there. Today, discrimination is still a reality in housing markets across the country. In every single State, there are cases of landlords misrepresenting the availability of housing or outright refusing to sell or rent to certain protected individuals or groups of people. There are others who are given different terms and conditions on a mortgage or on a rental contract, based on their race, their gender, or their physical disability. I hear these stories even in my State of Connecticut, which is a pretty progressive State. For instance, Crystal Carter was a homeless single mother living in Hartford, CT, with her five children, one of whom is developmentally disabled. This is what she said, in her own words: For two years, my family had jumped between homeless shelters and staying with family and friends. I had searched for affordable housing for several hours a day, every day, and submitted dozens of applications. Then, I found out about an open waiting list for rental vouchers in a suburban area. I was excited at the chance to move to a safer area with better schools for my children. But when I called the suburban housing authority that managed the program, I was told I couldn't even have an application because I didn't already live in one of the approved nearby towns. I was also told that it was someplace I wouldn't want to live anyway and that I should be looking in Hartford or Bridgeport instead. Johnnie Dailey is another victim of housing discrimination. Here is Johnnie's story: In 2013, I was searching for a new home for my family, including my young niece and grandson. I found a single- family home that would have been perfect for my family. It was on a quiet street where my niece and grandson could play outside, and the rent was less than my current apartment. My real estate agent called the listing agent for the property and told her that I was very interested in renting the property and that I had a Section 8 voucher. The listing agent responded that the owner of the property, a Boston- based company, would not rent to me because they were not interested in accepting a Section 8 voucher. I was discriminated against and denied the opportunity to rent the property solely because I am someone who uses a Section 8 voucher to pay part of my rent. To this day, when I think about the discrimination I experienced, I feel upset and embarrassed. Crystal's and Johnnie's stories are two of tens of thousands of stories from across the country that underscore the need for the Fair Housing Act. We have made progress, but we aren't done. While the Fair Housing Act rose out of the fight for civil rights for African Americans, we also need to remember today that over half of all reported complaints of housing discrimination are initiated by people with disabilities. There are veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with debilitating injuries that have altered their lives completely. These individuals also include a growing number of elderly Americans who are living with disabilities. As a Nation, we know we are stronger and better when we assure access and opportunity for all Americans, including the 57 million Americans who are living with disabilities today. Unfortunately, civil rights laws are under attack today. It is not a position that is endorsed wholesale by the Republican Party, but there is a coordinated effort on the right to use every tool possible to strip civil rights protections from African Americans, Hispanics, the disabled, and the poor. We saw this in the successful campaign to get the Supreme Court to invalidate portions of the Voting Rights Act. Now on the floor of the Senate, we are talking about an amendment that would gut the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act. This amendment, which is offered by my friend Senator Lee, would effectively stop the Department of Housing and Urban Development from being able to enforce the Fair Housing Act. The law would stay on the books, but the Department couldn't enforce some of the most important elements. One of the elements, passed in the 1960s, is an affirmative requirement that States and cities take steps to remedy discrimination that exists in their community. The Fair Housing Act, which is a bedrock of our civil rights laws, has held for decades that it isn't enough to band discrimination based on race, disability, or gender. Local jurisdictions have to do something to make discrimination less likely for renters and home buyers. This isn't new; this has been on the books since the 1960s. But a few years ago, GAO discovered in a report that most localities weren't doing this; they were ignoring that aspect of the law. Appropriately, HUD clarified the obligations under this section of the Fair Housing Act so that cities and towns know exactly what they need to do to assess the scope of discrimination in their area and to better understand their obligations under the act to fix the problems. Senator Lee's amendment would strip from HUD the ability to enforce this part of the law, and that is a shame. We can close our eyes, box our ears, and pretend discrimination doesn't exist, but if that is what my Republican friends want to do, it is a grievous mistake. We aren't in a postracial world. We don't live in a society where the disabled always get a fair shake. Discrimination exists, and the Federal Government, since the beginning of this Republic, has taken seriously its moral and constitutional responsibility to ensure that everyone living under the protection of this government gets an equal chance at success--no matter their race, their gender, their ability, or their disability. I am dismayed that 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Fair Housing Act, the fundamental civil rights that have been granted to every American still need to be continually shielded from attempts to dismantle them. Any limitation or reversal on HUD's ability to enforce the Fair Housing Act would for us, as a Senate, be to ignore the moral compass that has guided our Nation's commitment to civil rights over decades and decades of progress. I am encouraged that Chairwoman Collins and Ranking Member Reed both intend to oppose the Lee amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, before I give my intended remarks and while the Senator from Alaska is still on the floor, let me just share with him--although I probably would not have used some of the pejorative terms, let me agree with him that this distinction that has been made between combat troops and noncombat troops in the Middle East is ridiculous. We need a more fulsome discussion on the floor of the Senate as to the scope of our deployment there. We just heard evidence last week that we have U.S. troops on the ground in Yemen in addition to Iraq and Syria. Frankly, the appropriate forum to have that discussion is a debate on an authorization of the use of military force to fight our enemies in the region. So, while I might not share the way in which the sentiments were expressed, I think that this conversation about brave men and women-- American soldiers--putting their lives on the line as we speak in the Middle East is as important as it gets. The fact that we are not having a broader discussion about this is deeply problematic. So I thank the Senator for raising the issue. I hope it is something on which we can come together as we provide legal cover and perhaps restrictions on the use of force in the region. So I thank the Senator for bringing up this important subject. Gun Violence Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the 21,000 people a year, 2,600 a month, 86 a day--these are rough numbers--who are killed by guns all across the country. A lot of the kids who grow up in neighborhoods like the North End of Hartford or the East End of Bridgeport--it feels like a war zone because they fear for their life every day as they are walking to school. The levels of PTSD--when virtually every one of these kids knows someone very close to them who has been shot, it rivals the diagnoses that come back from war zones abroad. Today, in my campaign to try to bring the voices of victims to the floor of the Senate, I want to talk about one aspect of this epidemic that is all across the country; that is, the epidemic of young children being killed accidentally by guns. The numbers are really hard to believe, that in this country, in any one given year, there are somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 children and teens who die from guns in the United States. That does not even count all of the kids who suffer nonfatal gun injuries; in 2010, the official number was about 18,000. There is a lot of reporting that suggests that the numbers we know are dramatically lower than what the actual numbers are, that there are a lot of injuries that happen in the home because of guns that are not reported as part of the official statistics. Here are just a handful of headlines from recent papers, including this New York Times headline: ``One Week in April, Four Toddlers Shot and Killed Themselves.'' On average, last year, in 2015, people were getting shot by toddlers on a weekly basis. I think it is time that we start talking about this epidemic of young kids--as young as 1 or 2 years old--getting their hands on weapons and either killing themselves or killing their parents or their brothers or their sisters and that we start talking about the fact that this is not happening anywhere else in the world. Here are the rates of gun deaths per 100,000--this is children and teens. We are going to take high-income countries. I mean, it is not close. Canada, our neighbor, is the next highest with 0.75 per 100,000, but 3.24 children and teens die from gun homicides, gun deaths-- accidental, intentional--every year. Other countries barely register. There is nothing unique about the nature of American children that explains this away. The only thing that can explain this is the large number of unsafe weapons that are available to children. So I want to talk for a little bit today about what is happening out there. Here is the broader number. On average, every day 46 people are shot or killed by accident with a gun. In 2015 there were at least 278 unintentional shootings at the hands of young children and teenagers. So these are young kids and teenagers unintentionally firing a weapon. We know there are at least 278. The New York Times found that unintentional shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate because of idiosyncrasies in terms of how such deaths from accidental shootings are classified. We know there are about 1.7 million children and youth under the age of 18 who are living in homes with loaded and unlocked firearms. Some 1.7 million kids are in homes with loaded and unlocked firearms. A Harvard survey showed that children who live in gun-owing households, by a rate of 70 percent--these are kids under the age of 10--70 percent of kids under the age of 10 who live in households that have a gun knew where their parents stored the guns, even when they were hidden, and 36 percent of those kids under 10 years old reported that they themselves had handled the weapons. One out of three kids under 10 had found the weapon and had handled the gun. One analysis found that 70 percent of unintentional child deaths from firearms could have been prevented if that firearm had simply been stored, locked, or unloaded. So this is a part of the story of gun violence in this country that does not often get talked about, but given this one horrific week we had in April, maybe we can have a conversation about what we can do to try to reduce the number of accidental shootings that happen at the hands of little kids. My goal in these speeches is to tell you who these victims are, so, as hard as it is, let me tell you a little bit about some of the children who passed away in this week during April. Holston Cole was a 3-year-old from Dallas, GA, who shot himself with his father's loaded gun on April 26. The gun, according to his father, was located in a backpack. Holston removed it from the backpack and then accidentally fired the weapon. Autopsy results confirmed that the shot was both accidental and self-inflicted. After the gun fired, Holston's father called 911. I wouldn't recommend that you listen to the recording. You will hear the father wailing: ``No, no! Stay with me, Holston. Can you hear me? Daddy loves you. Holston. Holston, please. Please.'' This was a kid who was full of energy from morning until night, as his relatives described. His pastor, who officiated Holston's funeral, remembered Holston as a boy who loved superheroes and sometimes wrestled cardboard boxes. He loved to play in small, inflatable bouncy castles whenever he could. Sha'Quille Kornegay was 2 years old when, on April 21, in Kansas City, MO, she died after accidentally shooting herself in the head with her father's gun. She had been taking a nap with her father when she found the gun under a pillow on the bed, where her father generally kept it. Her father woke up from the nap to Sha'Quille by his bed bleeding and crying, the gun at her feet. Sha'Quille's mother was devastated by her daughter's loss and noted that the daughter's first word was ``daddy.'' She was buried in a pink coffin, her favorite doll by her side and a tiara strategically placed to hide the self-inflicted gunshot wound to her forehead. Finally, and I promise I will stop, Kiyan Shelton, 2 years old, same week, Indianapolis, IN, shot and killed himself with a handgun that he found in his mother's purse. She had briefly stepped away when the toddler climbed on to the kitchen counter and reached for his mother's purse, where her cell phone was ringing, and he found the weapon. He fired the weapon, and he was wounded in his shoulder. In critical condition, he was quickly taken to a nearby hospital, but he died shortly thereafter. A neighbor who lived across the street remembered that Kiyan had just learned how to ride a bicycle. He was out on his little bike with training wheels. Everybody knew his mother used to keep watch of the stray dogs in the neighborhood, trying to keep her son safe. He was 2 years old. He died because he was reaching for a ringing cell phone in his mom's bag and shot himself. There is a way to solve this. I know we are not supposed to have props on the floor, but this is a cell phone. It opens and closes based on my fingerprint. There is technology ready and available to make sure that a weapon can only be fired by the owner of that weapon. Yet there is a pretty open conspiracy in the gun industry today to prevent that technology from becoming available to consumers. Smith & Wesson tried. They tried to develop a smart weapon, but they were boycotted. They were boycotted by the rest of the gun industry. When retailers have tried to sell smart guns in their stores, they have faced boycotts regularly and in some cases even threats of physical violence. It doesn't make sense to most people. Why on Earth would the gun industry not want--or the gun lobby not want safe guns to be an option, to be available? From what I understand, it is rooted in a law that was passed a decade ago by New Jersey that says if smart-gun technology is developed, it will be mandatory. First, that is one State's law, so there is no national conspiracy to mandate that every single gun be a smart gun. But let's play this out. Let's say that technology was developed so that you could ensure that no gun could be fired if it wasn't fired by you or another authorized user of the gun. I think it would be logical for us to have a conversation as to whether that should be mandatory. Maybe we won't develop technology that is fail- safe enough. Maybe it will always make sense to have that as an option. But when we figured out how to make cars safer, we required that technology to be built in as a part of the car. I don't think we are to the point where we could discuss making that technology mandatory on guns, but I wouldn't suggest that it should be something we should rule out. To the extent that a retailer or a gunmaker wants to invest in understanding how to make a gun more fail- safe, how to build in this kind of technology--whether it be your fingerprint or other biometrics, other guns connected to a wristband that you may wear--they should be able to sell those. They should be able to make them without facing reprisals from the rest of the gun lobby and the gun industry. Shouldn't we try to do something to prevent these deaths, one every week last year? That is just people who were shot by toddlers, in addition to the dozens more children who accidentally injured or killed themselves with a weapon. I struggle to try to figure out the ways in which we can come together on this issue. I certainly understand there are difficult compromises on issues like the prohibition of certain weapons. But smart-gun technology is something on which we should be able to come together. The President has taken steps on his own. He has started a process by which Federal agencies would help to stimulate research in smart-gun technology, maybe with the goal of a pilot program being developed at a law enforcement agency to try to buy some of these weapons. The President has taken steps on his own, but we could do something together, and we should because it is only a problem here. It is not a problem anywhere else. To me, that has to tell us that we are doing it wrong and that there is something more we can do so that this reality-- that U.S. children and teens are 17 times more likely to die from a gun than children in the 25 other high-income countries combined--isn't a reality for much longer. If there is anything we could do to stop there from being another Kiyan, another Sha'Quille, and another Holston, we should do it. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I thank very much my colleague Senator Blumenthal. I want to associate myself with all the remarks of my colleague from Connecticut. Let me congratulate the riders from Team 26 for making it through such inclement weather, making it through such a challenging ride to bring these messages to the Halls of Congress and to the White House. It strikes me that there are similarities between this ride and the challenges ahead of us. Every tough ride is a long stretch of both peaks and valleys. The challenge is knowing there is another hill coming before you and not giving up, knowing that at the end of that long ride, there is reward. When we talk about the scope of our fight to change the laws of this country to try to put a dent in this epidemic of gun violence, we have to view our journey the same way. There are going to be peaks and there are going to be valleys. There will be moments of triumph where we change the laws for the better, where we see progress, as we have in Connecticut, where a new State law has resulted in a 40-percent diminution in the number of gun homicides. Then there are the valleys-- moments like we had here in early 2013, where despite 90 percent of Americans supporting the idea that you should prove you are not a criminal before you buy a gun, we weren't able to pass that law because of a filibuster here. Every great change is defined not only by failures but by peaks and valleys, as was their ride. I join Senator Blumenthal in thanking them for focusing on this particular issue of guns on campuses. It is up to every individual as to whether they choose to buy a firearm, but they should make that decision imbued by the facts. And the facts are pretty clear that if you have a firearm in your home, it is much more likely to be used to kill you or to kill a family member than it is to kill an intruder, to kill someone trying to do harm to you. Nancy Lanza had guns in the home for a variety of reasons, but one of the reasons, apparently, was that as a single parent, she wanted firearms for protection. Of course, her guns were used to kill her and then 20 small first graders and their teachers. Similarly, on campuses, the data tells us that in areas that have more guns, you are more likely to have higher rates of gun homicides. This fiction that if you just arm all the good guys, they will kill all the bad guys is not actually how it plays out in real life. So I thank them for bringing these petitions here to shed focus on this movement to make sure we don't have students walking around campuses with concealed weapons. That doesn't make for a safer campus environment. Lastly because I know others want to speak, I want to talk about two things that struck me from our meeting at the White House at the end of the day yesterday. The first was when all the riders on Team 26 got to tell their stories about why they decided to join this ride. Many of them, frankly, were doing it for deep love and affection for Monte Frank, but they all shared a common cause with him. Around that table were individuals who had suffered gun violence in their immediate family. One woman's son committed suicide shortly after the murders in Sandy Hook. Another husband and wife lost close friends in a mass shooting. But many of the individuals who were there were simply there because they had children who were in school, and they knew that there but by the grace of God, it could be their child. I have a first grader I drop off every morning at school, and I know there is nothing different about my child's school than Sandy Hook Elementary School. And I think about Nicole Hockley almost every morning when I drop off my 7-year-old. She said she never imagined that it would be her, and she doesn't know why more parents don't step up and try to do something about this before it is their child. The second thing I was struck by was their experience along the road. They noted that in over 4 years, they haven't run into anybody who has disagreed with their mission or who has given them a hard time about their advocacy. And that is really not surprising given the fact there is broad consensus among the American public as to what we should do. There really is no disagreement in any of our States--regardless of geography, race, or political ideology--on whether we should make sure that criminals don't buy guns, make sure that people who have a serious mental illness can't get their hands on firearms. This appears to be controversial and politically toxic, the way we talk about it, but the way it is talked about on the Main Streets that Team 26 rode down, it is not controversial at all. It is a settled issue: Criminals shouldn't buy guns. And there is no justification, in most Americans' minds, for a Federal law that today, on average, allows for four of six guns to be sold without a criminal background check. They want the law changed. We shouldn't pretend this issue is politically controversial. It might be amidst lobbying circles in Washington, but it is not in the communities Team 26 rode through, and they can tell you that because they were cheered everywhere they went. It is no small feat to organize this ride. It makes a difference in the communities in which they do events, the communities through which they ride, and it will ultimately make a difference here. Every great movement for change is a long journey made worthwhile at the end when, after you have ridden up lots of hills and down into valleys, you end up at the finish line. I thank Team 26 for their work. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, I come to the floor every week or so to share the stories of those victims who have been lost to the epidemic of gun violence that is plaguing this Nation. The news covers the episodes of mass shootings, such as those that happened in my State in Sandy Hook, but, of course, on average there are 80 people who are killed in episodes of gun violence every day. Approximately 50 or so of those are suicides, the remaining 30 are in ones and twos and threes and fours and fives all across the country. I think the data alone is overwhelming, and I am not sure why the numbers alone have not caused us to act. There are a variety of ways that we could step up and act. We could do something about illegal guns on the street, we could fix our broken mental health care system, and we could give law enforcement more power so they could track illegal guns and criminals. But we don't do any of that. We remain silent and complicit even with this rash of murder. The data hasn't moved this Congress, and so my hope is that the stories of those who have been lost and the families they have left behind might move this place to action. So today I will focus on those victims of gun homicides who were at the hands of their domestic partner. Of those 30 or so people who are killed by guns that are not suicides, an alarming percentage of them every single day are killed by someone they know--a husband or a spouse or a boyfriend. It is usually someone who is very close to them. They often leave notes. Oftentimes they have notified the police that they were in danger, but somehow that loved one still managed to find a way to get their hands on a firearm and to commit the heinous act of murder. On February 27 of this year in Woodbridge, VA, which is only a short drive away from where we sit today, Crystal Hamilton was killed. Crystal's friends described her as kind, humble, and energetic--a wonderful person. She actually spent her time working with wounded soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. One of her friends said: She was so beautiful. She dressed to the nines and loved her high heels. She didn't need any makeup. She had an 11-year-old son who is now left without a mother. She was supposed to be going out one Saturday night for a girls' night with a group of her friends, but after arguing all day with her husband, she finally called 911. She was really upset and feeling gravely in danger, and it is believed that at some point between when she called 911 and when the police arrived, her husband fatally shot her. A neighbor said that she saw the 11-year-old running away and looking back at the house as he ran down the street. She said: He ran so fast I can't even imagine how scared he must have been. It broke my heart. About a month later, on March 29--just about 2 weeks ago--Ruby Stiglmeier was shot and killed in what was believed to have been a murder-suicide by her boyfriend. Ruby was a dental hygienist in a small firm in Orchard Park, NY. She worked there for 20 years. Her coworkers said that her patients absolutely loved Ruby. Ruby was friendly, outgoing, athletic, and loved life. Her coworkers said that Ruby had been a rock for her family after the recent deaths of both of her parents. Her boyfriend shot her three times before turning the gun on himself. They had been dating on and off for about 2 years. Just last week, Christina Fisher, 34 years old, was killed in Leesburg, VA. She was the proud mother of three young children, a teenage daughter and two young boys. She was shot multiple times and killed inside her home on Saturday evening, April 2, by her ex- boyfriend during a domestic dispute. Her 15-year-old daughter was home at the time of the altercation and promptly called 911, but by the time she got to the hospital, it was too late. Her friends remembered Christina much in the same way as the previous victims. They said: [Christina] was so sweet, so caring . . . she was a great mom. She did everything she could for her kids. Christina leaves behind her teenage daughter and two young boys. This is just a sample of three people in the last 3 months who have been killed in episodes of gun homicides by their boyfriend, domestic partner, or husband. We should just know that there is something happening in the United States that isn't happening anywhere else in the world. As a woman, you are about 10 times more likely to die in an episode of domestic violence by your husband or boyfriend than you are in any other OECD country. It is hard not to read the difference as anything other than a difference in gun laws--a difference in the number of guns that are available to people who would decide to murder their spouse. Why? Because there is no evidence that men are less violent in any of these other countries. There is no evidence that these countries spend any more money on mental health. In fact, the United States, on average, likely spends more. But there is nothing different about the United States other than the number of guns that we have and the relatively loose gun laws that create this tragic outlier status. The data on a State-by-State basis backs up the idea that there is something about our gun laws that tells us the story of women being in danger and being killed by their spouse. What we know is that in States that do require a background check for every handgun that is sold, there are 38 percent fewer women who are shot to death by an intimate partner. We can't get around that fact. In States that are universal in their application of background checks, there are 38 percent fewer women shot by their intimate partner. You can't argue about that. There are States that are universal in their applicability of background checks and there are States that are not. The data on women murdered by their husbands with guns is publicly available. It is not a 5, 10, 20, or 25 percent difference. It is a 38-percent difference. Women's lives could be saved if we required people to go through background checks. Why is that? Well, because there have been 250,000 gun sales that have been blocked to domestic abusers since the National Instant Criminal Background Check System was started. These are people who were convicted of domestic abuse crimes and known to be domestic abusers, walked into a gun store, tried to buy a gun, and were stopped from doing so because of the Federal law. Now, that is just the number of people who walked into the store and had the audacity to try to buy a gun even though they knew they had been convicted of domestic abuse. Again, that number is 250,000. Obviously there are 10 times that number who never walked into the gun dealership because they knew they weren't going to be able to buy the weapon. So guess where they went. They went online or to gun shows. In 2012 alone it is estimated that 6.6 million guns were exchanged in private transfers without a criminal background check. In just 1 year alone, over 6 million guns were transferred without the purchaser having to prove that they weren't a domestic abuser or that they hadn't committed murder in the past with a weapon. It is easy to buy guns at gun shows or online, and so that is why 90 percent of Americans believe that we should have universal background checks--because it works and because increasingly people who want to buy guns and use them for malevolent purposes are able to do so outside of the criminal background check system. The numbers are not small, and 38 percent fewer women die in States that do universal background checks. The States that have decided to fill the loophole that we, as a Congress, have created have 38 percent fewer women die from gunshot wounds. We have blood on our hands because if we just got together and closed that loophole, the data tells us there would be fewer deaths. Let me close by suggesting a couple of other ways that we could try to address this epidemic of domestic abuse and gun homicide perpetuated by intimate partners. Let me first do so by telling the story of Lori Jackson, who was 32 years old when she died in 2014 in Oxford, CT. Lori and her husband Scott had a long and difficult history together. All of her friends knew about the difficulty that the two of them were having. It finally caused Lori to go and submit an application for a temporary restraining order. Scott had become that violent. In the application she wrote: Scott yelled in my face . . . and got very angry. I felt threatened and told him I didn't feel safe and was going to leave with the twins. She had 18-month-old twins. She said: He then told me I wasn't going anywhere and grabbed my right thumb and twisted my wrist. That happened while the two children were in her arms. She said: He acts out violently and I am afraid for my kids and myself. Judge Robert Malone ordered Scott to stay away from his wife and the two 18-month-old twins. But because there is a loophole in the law that allows you to buy and own guns while you have a temporary restraining order--not when you have a permanent restraining order--one day before that temporary restraining order was going to become permanent, Scott shot Lori Jackson Gellatly four times in the head and torso with a .38- caliber handgun. So today her two little twins have no mother, their father is in jail, and the twins will grow up only hearing stories about her. Why? Because we can't pass a bill that says when you have a temporary restraining order against you, you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. During that moment of terror for the domestic spouse, the police should be able to go in and see if you have weapons that you might use in that immediate moment of anger. We could come together on that. We could come together on simply saying that while you have a temporary restraining order, you can't buy guns. You are on the list of prohibited purchasers during a restraining order period of time. If we had done that prior to 2014, Lori Jackson might be alive today. Let's take the case of Jennifer Magnano. She was killed in Terryville, CT, in 2007. She was in the process of trying to end her marriage to her husband Scott, who was a controlling and abusive husband. Scott and Jennifer had two children, and Jennifer had an older daughter who had been sexually abused by Scott for about 3 years. On April 14, 2007, while he was taking a shower, she finally escaped. After the end of their time together, Scott became so angry that he came back to their house and murdered her. She was always posting inspirational sayings on to Web sites. She was a really positive person, but that couldn't stop her husband from murdering her. Now, Scott had a protective order that was permanent. So he was actually prohibited from purchasing a weapon, but he walked into a gun store and asked to see two handguns. He was handed weapons and the ammunition for each of them, and despite being the only customer in the store, he was left alone. He saw an opportunity, and so he walked out of the store with the handguns and the ammunition and went straight to kill his wife. Now, the store didn't report the stolen weapons for 3 days. By that time, it was too late. Had they monitored the weapons so they couldn't have been taken out of the store or reported the stolen weapons, it is possible Jennifer might be still alive today. Well, the administrator of Jennifer's estate filed a lawsuit against the retailer bringing claims regarding their inability to secure the weapons and their complete inability to notify local law enforcement that somebody, who they themselves said looked like a suspicious customer, stole weapons from the store. The judge dismissed that lawsuit, saying a statute Congress passed giving gunmakers and dealers virtual immunity for their actions ``goes directly to the heart of the jurisdiction here.'' Congress was clear these cases must be dismissed. Congress has granted gunmakers and gun dealers almost complete immunity from lawsuits that would hold them liable for irresponsibly selling weapons or irresponsibly making unsafe weapons. The fact is, the gun industry is held to a standard that no other product maker is held to. They are granted an immunity that is carved out from the broader products liability law. In fact, the maker of a toy gun is held to a higher standard of liability than a maker of a real gun. This Congress passed that statute simply because the gun industry asked for it and because they knew they were liable for making guns that were intentionally unsafe because they knew there were dealers that were conducting their activities in an irresponsible manner. So for the Magnano family, they don't even get to bring their case to court. They don't even get to litigate this claim simply because Congress has given a level of immunity to the gun industry that they give to no other industry. If we were to repeal that law, it would be another way to address this epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country and specifically women who have the great misfortune of being the subject of domestic abuse. I am going to continue to come down to the floor and tell these stories. I hope there are ways we can come together. I understand we might not be able to pass a background checks amendment between now and the end of the year, but we could close that domestic violence loophole. We could put more resources into the mental health system. We could give more resources to law enforcement. There has to be an answer to the thousands of women who are being killed all across this country by domestic abusers and 80 individuals a day who are being killed by guns all across the United States of America. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield back. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I thank Senator Cardin and Senator Corker for how diligently they have worked over the course of the last several months, as both of them have stated on the floor, to make this sale much more palatable and to address many of the concerns that both the chairman and the ranking member had about the nature of the sale and this long history of conflict with the Pakistanis when it comes to our mutual concern of confronting terrorism. The reason I come to the floor is because this body historically has had a history of deep engagement on questions of major arms sales, especially in regions as dangerous and as complicated as the Middle East. As it stands today, virtually the only two Members who are deeply and meaningfully engaged in the question of attaching conditions to these very important arms sales are the ranking member and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. I trust their ability to hold the administration's feet to the fire--whether it be the Pakistanis', the Saudis', the Emirates' feet to the fire as they request weapons from the United States, but this body writ large has to get back into the game of providing meaningful oversight on a radical and significant increase in the amount of arms sales the United States is providing to the rest of the world. From 2011 to 2015, our arms exports have increased by 27 percent. When you compare these two periods, it is striking to note that during that period of time our arms sales to the Middle East have increased by 61 percent. This Senate has, at its best moments, raised important questions about these sales. I bring you back to the 1980s, when the Senate raised important questions and concerns about the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia. On this side of the aisle, it was Senator Biden and Senator Kerry opposing those sales. Those motions of disapproval were ultimately unsuccessful, but through that process of deep congressional introspection, new conditions were placed on the sale of that technology to the Saudis that ended up a much better and safer deal for American national security interests and for the security of our partners in the region. With respect to the specific sale of F-16 to Pakistan, my colleagues have already pointed out--and I think Senator Paul will do a better job than I of pointing out--the ways in which our aims of fighting terrorism have been contradictory with the actions of the Pakistanis, whether it be their unwillingness to confront the Haqqani network, whether it be their oftentimes open coordination with elements of the Taliban that the United States is fighting inside Afghanistan. The Pakistanis have been an unreliable partner over the course of the last 10 years in the fight against extremism, but what I worry more about is that these F-16s will provide cover, will provide a substitute for truly meaningful action inside Pakistan to take on the roots of extremism. Frankly, it is too late in many respects to beat these extremist groups if they are so big, so powerful, so deadly that you have to bomb them from the air. Today there are 20,000 madrassa, religious schools. Many, if not most, are funded by the Saudis, the Gulf States, and the Iranians and are often preaching an intolerant version of Islam that when perverted, forms the basis of the extremist groups the United States is fighting in the Middle East and throughout the world. The Pakistanis have done little to nothing to try to reduce the influence of those madrassas, of those religious schools, and of the foreign funding that often breeds this intolerant version of religious teaching. In a sense, we let them off the hook by selling them new weapons systems that will, in effect, constantly force the Pakistanis to chase their own tail. I think it is important to understand that the Pakistanis are not making the real meaningful contributions to rooting out extremism, and just handing out weapon systems on the back end doesn't do the job. I would point this body to the path forward. This is an incredibly important conversation that we are having with respect to the F-16s, but we have other pending military sales that will directly involve the United States in regional civil wars and conflicts, unbeknownst often to the American people. One of them is a major military sales agreement with the Saudis that would eventually resupply them for their bombing campaign in Yemen, a campaign that has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, that has stopped emergency relief from reaching those who have been the victims of this humanitarian disaster, and frankly that has created space for the expansion of ISIS and Al Qaeda, groups that want to do damage and attack the United States, inside the newly ungovernable territory of Yemen. Yet we are going to be confronted with another military sale to Saudi Arabia that would double down the U.S. commitment on one side of a civil war that if you look at the reality, doesn't seem to be advancing our national security interests. It doesn't seem to be helping us win the fight against ISIS and Al Qaeda. I hope that after the break we will have the opportunity to discuss that military sale as well because it is time for Congress to get back into the game when it comes to our constitutional responsibility to oversee the foreign policy led by the executive branch. It is time for Congress to start having a meaningful impact when it comes to these massive arms sales that often undermine U.S. national security and come without the necessary conditions to change the reality of the decisions made in places such as Pakistan. I am going to support Senator Paul's resolution today, although I hope in the future we will approach these resolutions of disapproval with a slightly greater degree of subtlety in this respect. This is an outright disapproval. If we vote in favor of it, this sale will not go forward. There is another way. Congress could pass a motion of disapproval with conditions. We could disapprove of a sale to Pakistan pending, for instance, their commitment to join the fight against the Haqqani network; contingent upon, for instance, their movement to implement a law to shut down the worst and most intolerant of the madrasas. I would suggest that should be our path forward when it comes to the sale to the Saudis. Simple conditions could be applied to that resolution--making sure the munitions we are selling to the Saudis aren't used to target civilians inside Yemen; committing the Saudis to open up pathways of humanitarian relief and assistance; a promise that none of the funding from the United States to the partners in the coalition to fight the Houthis will be used to directly aid extremist groups. That is probably the better path forward for this body to take. This is a very blunt instrument, a resolution of disapproval. I think it is important for some of us to be on record supporting it to show that Congress is getting back in the game when it comes to overseeing this fairly substantial increase in arms sales to our named partners in the Middle East, but I think there is a better way forward. I hope that Senator Paul and others, as we start to go about doing due diligence on future sales, will take a look at maybe a more meaningful contribution this body can take rather than expressing our outright unconditional disapproval. How can we make sure, if these arms sales go forward, that they go forward with conditions attached that are in the best interest of the United States and our partner nations? Again, I thank Senators Corker and Cardin for their important work in the Foreign Relations Committee, of which I am a member, and I thank Senator Paul for having the courage to bring this resolution to the floor.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to speak on the same subject, but before I do, I want to very briefly discuss two other subjects. Remembering Dylan Hockley First, Mr. President, I noticed online today that today would be Dylan Hockley's 10th birthday. Dylan Hockley was one of the 20 first graders who were gunned down in a flurry of bullets at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. Dylan's mother Nicole has become a crusader for this body to do something, anything in the wake of that tragedy to lessen the possibility that it might visit another community. Dylan was an amazing little kid, struggling with a fairly severe learning disability but loving every day that he went to school under the care of a great special education professional who died that day as well with Dylan in that classroom. Dylan would have been 10 years old today. In the 3 years since his death, we have done nothing, absolutely nothing to honor his memory. Mental Health Legislation and the TREAT Act Second, Mr. President, I want to note that we are moving forward in the HELP Committee on a very important markup next week on a mental health bill Senator Cassidy and I have been working on for over a year, and we hope that will eventually find its way to the floor of the Senate and in some measure be a very partial answer but an answer nonetheless to this epidemic of gun violence. We hope we will be able to have that debate this year. I also note that we have a bill in the HELP Committee that I think is a very important complement to the discussion we are having now on the opioid crisis all across the country. As my colleagues know, there is a limit on the number of patients to whom providers can prescribe Buprenorphine, which is really the most effective, least addictive of the heroin substitutes. As a physician, you can only prescribe this drug to 100 clients. If you are a physician assistant or a nurse practitioner, you are not allowed to prescribe. In Connecticut, that is the biggest obstacle we have--we don't have enough physicians who can prescribe this very effective drug. The TREAT Act, which is a bipartisan bill, removes that cap for physicians and allows nurses with higher levels of training and PAs to prescribe that drug as well. I hope the HELP Committee will take up this bill as part of our markup next week. If it were up to me, we would include it as part of our mental health initiative and move it to the floor en bloc. The CARA bill is very important this week, but let's be honest: There is no money in it, so there are a bunch of new programs but no new resources for us in Connecticut to try to take on this fight. If we were to pass the TREAT Act next week in the HELP Committee and move it to the floor, that would be real, tangible relief for communities in Connecticut. It would mean that more addicts coming out of detox would have access to true elements of recovery--in particular, this very effective drug. I am hopeful that the HELP Committee will move on this bill next week and that we can bring it to the floor perhaps as part of this broader mental health package. In one fell swoop, we could have a partial answer to the epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country and a passage of the TREAT Act or a version of it that by itself might actually be more substantive than anything in the piece of legislation that is before us today. Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy Mr. President, I do want to spend a few moments talking about this crisis that is gripping the U.S. Senate with respect to a vacancy that looks to remain for the next year on the Supreme Court. I have only been in the Senate for 3 years. This is my first term. I can't claim to hold any special status as a guardian of this institution, which has stood the test of time for over 200 years, but I am a student of history, and I did choose to run to be a Member of this body because of the enormous respect I have for it and its unique role in the unique system of U.S. Federal governance. That is why I do believe we are at a moment of crisis right now in which the Republican majority is blocking President Obama's constitutional responsibility to name a Supreme Court nominee, a ninth Justice. I think this is a watershed moment for the U.S. Senate. I say that with a connection to a State that has had a particularly important role in the creation of this body. Right outside this Chamber, there is a relatively new painting above the door leading into the Reception Room of Oliver Ellsworth and Roger Sherman, who were delegates to the Constitutional Convention. They were the authors of what is referred to today as the Connecticut Compromise. Roger Sherman was the primary author of it; it is sometimes called Sherman's Compromise. This was the compromise that established the U.S. Senate, established the premise that this body would be made up of two Members from each State and that because of its 6-year term would be much more immune to the political tempest of the moment that often grips the Chamber down the road, that we would have a unique ability to rise above the partisan fray and make decisions that are in the best long-term interests of this country. Frankly, those have been the best traditions of this body going back to the fifties and sixties when this Senate led the fight to expand civil rights laws or just 2 years ago when we were able to come together and pass an immigration reform bill, with the Presiding Officer's leadership, that I think will set the platform for resolving that issue in a commonsense way down the road. But the crisis that is gripping this place today, I fear, has no end because of the new rule that is being established. I just heard Senator Cornyn talk about the illegitimacy of a lameduck President making a nomination to the Supreme Court. Once something like that is established, it will be difficult to unravel. If you accept that argument, then this Senate will never again act on the nomination of a President in his second term. I suppose a second- term President will be perceived by his lameduck status to be illegitimate for the purposes of nominating Justices to the Supreme Court, and by that argument, likely illegitimate for the purposes of nominating anyone to the Court because he is a lameduck, and thus the people need to have their say in the next election. That is a radical transformation of the U.S. Constitution, and it sets up perpetual crises in which there could be long stretches of time equaling 4 years where we will have eight, seven or six Justices. Just simply accepting the assistant leader at his word, we would be establishing a new precedent in which the Supreme Court would have less than nine individuals for enormous stretches of time. But I think this is about something more. This is about an unwillingness to allow this President, a Democratic President, to replace a Justice on the Supreme Court while Republicans are in charge. They say it is because it is the last year of his term--or perhaps the last 4 years of his term. But if this is simply about a Democratic President replacing a Justice on the Supreme Court who tended to be more conservative, then that precedent has no end either. I think Republicans are naive to believe that Democrats wouldn't avail themselves of the same precedent at some point in the future and hold up nominees being offered by Republican Presidents. That is certainly not our hope nor is it the stated intention of anyone on this side of the aisle. But once you cross that Rubicon, I think it would be very hard to come back. All of a sudden we will have entered an era in which no Senate will want to take up the nomination of a President of the opposite party. Senator Cornyn talked about how there is very little precedent for this. Well, there is very little precedent because there are very few instances over the course of the last 100 years in which there has been a vacancy created in an election year. It is not because there is a history of past Senates blocking the replacement of a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs in an election year. It is because the very scenario we are faced with today has not happened. In fact, over the course of the last 100 years, the only time in which the Senate has not acted on a vacancy created in an election year was, A, very late in an election year and, B, with respect to the elevation to the position of Chief Justice. The reality is that in the last 100 years the Senate has taken action on every pending Supreme Court nominee to fill a vacancy, regardless of whether the nomination was made in a Presidential election year. Over the course of our Nation's history, there have been 17 Justices confirmed in a Presidential election year. Not since the Civil War has it ever taken more than a year to confirm a nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy. The average, of course--we heard it over and over--has been 67 days from nomination to the final Senate vote. But what Senate Republicans are proposing is that this President-- with over 300 days left in his term--will not even get the courtesy of a vote in the Judiciary Committee, never mind a vote on the Senate floor. They contend that this nominee will be rejected sight unseen, which is why we think all America is saying to Senate Republicans: Just do your job. Go through the hearing process, meet with the nominee, and bring that nominee to a vote on the Senate floor. There were lots of Democratic Senators who opposed Clarence Thomas when he was nominated, but that didn't stop them from allowing a vote on the Senate floor. You can oppose this nominee once you take a look at their credentials and assess their suitability for the Court, but do your job and show the respect for the institution of the Presidency such that his choice will at least get a fair hearing in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate. I hope that for my sons' sake the effect of our actions over the next year doesn't effectively rewrite the Constitution and that pages don't need to be added to their textbooks in order to place caveats on the obligations of the President and the responsibilities of this body. I hope we don't all of a sudden create a new rule in which you only get a vacancy filled if the Senate and the Presidency happen to be of the same party or you only get a vacancy filled, as Senator Cornyn would suggest, when you have a nomination in the first 4 years of your potential 8-year tenure. Lastly, what I worry about most greatly is the effect of this decision giving credence to the belief among some that this President is illegitimate. I don't think that is held by Members of this body, but I do know there are many in this country who don't recognize the legitimacy of this President, and the way in which we treat this office often gives purchase to those arguments. There is a standard of review that we have created for diplomatic agreements that we never held previous Presidents to. There is a furor over the Executive actions taken by this President even though previous Presidents have taken similar Executive actions--such as with the issue of immigration--and have taken far more Executive actions than this President has. I worry that, by disrespecting the institution and not even allowing for meetings to be held between this nominee and Members of the Republican majority, we feed this belief that this particular President doesn't share the legitimacy of previous Presidents. For all of those reasons, I hope we can just make a commitment to do our jobs and begin the process of considering the Supreme Court nominee once the President makes this nomination. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, last Thursday I was on the floor honoring the victims of the mass shooting in Kalamazoo, MI, another shooting spree that left six people dead and two others injured, and on that very same day another shooting spree broke out in Kansas that forever changed another town--another community in this country like the change that has overcome Sandy Hook, CT, since that fateful day in December of 2012. This was a shooting spree in Kansas that spanned several miles in nearly 30 minutes. Three people were killed. It could have been a lot more. Fourteen were wounded. The shooting spree took place in two locations as well as the Kansas workplace. The gunman had multiple felony convictions which prohibited him from buying a firearm, but he used his former girlfriend as a straw purchaser to buy yet another military-style semiautomatic weapon that he used in the shootings. It sounds a lot like many of the other shootings I talked about on the floor. As has been the case, I try to come down to the floor, seemingly every week, to tell the stories of who these victims are because the numbers don't seem to be moving my colleagues--31,000 a year, 2,600 a month, and 86 a day are being killed by guns in this country. My hope is that by learning who these people are and learning the ripples of tragedy that unfold after a family member is killed by guns, that maybe that psychology and connection to the emotion of these shootings will move my colleagues to do something--anything at this point--to address this epidemic. Brian Sadowsky was 44 years old when he was killed in the shooting. He was one of three people who were killed at their workplace, Excel Industries, in Hesston, KS. Brian was remembered by his coworkers as a very outgoing guy who was always telling jokes, always fun to be around, and had a biting sense of humor. He rabidly rooted for the Pittsburgh Steelers. He wore Pittsburgh Steelers paraphernalia and gear to work almost every day. He would drop whatever he was doing in order to help his friends who were in need. A friend of Brian's remembered him as being ``a little rough around the edges'' at times, but he was the kind soul who was ``always there to help. He was a big teddy bear once you got to know him.'' His friends said he was a recovering addict who was clean and sober for many years and was instrumental in helping a lot of others overcome addiction. Renee Benjamin was 30 years old when she was killed. Her friend remembered her by saying that ``she's smart, she's beautiful. She was dedicated to Excel. She loved that job. She loved the people. I remember the way she loved people.'' ``If you ever saw someone smile from the inside out, she was an inside out person,'' one of her friends remembered. Another friend said: She is a person who always gave her all into whatever she did and whoever she loved. She was so smart, but shy about it. She was so funny, so beautiful, inside and out. She was my best friend. We shared everything. We shared a life. . . . All she wanted was to love and be loved. Josh Higbee was just a year older. He was 31. People who knew Josh said he was a loving, hard-working man. He loved to fish and spend time with his fiance and his 4-year-old son. His older brother said that Josh was `` `Mr. Fix-It.' He loved tractors and toy cars, anything automotive. He was a car guy. He liked to work with his hands.'' His sister-in-law said that Josh was ``taught to be a very loving, kind man. He has a son that he adores, takes care of. . . . Josh would give you the shirt off his back and worked long, hard hours to take care of his family.'' We pay a lot of attention to these victims of mass shootings because they tend to make the news. We see them on TV, but every single day there are 86 people who are being killed by guns. A lot of them are suicides, but many of them are homicides. It is happening all across this country, and not all of them make the national news. Andre Lamont O'Neal, Jr., died earlier this year in Louisville, KY. Andre was 8 years old and his babysitter was grilling and also had a gun in his pocket. He had slippery fingers, and when he attempted to remove the gun from his pocket, it accidentally fired. It struck Andre's arm and chest. His babysitter panicked and apparently put Andre in a car and took him to a nearby hospital, but it was too late. Andre's father, as you can imagine, was overwhelmed. He was ``a good little boy,'' he told reporters. A few weeks later, Nicholas Hawkins, 19 years old and from Winfield, AL, told his mother that someone was trying to kill him. That was the last time anybody heard from Nicholas. Four days later his body was found shot to death. He left high school because of bullying and was only 2 weeks away from completing his GED. He intended to go into cosmetology or a related field. He loved to dance, sing, write music, and play guitar. He was good with hair and makeup and described as very funny, quirky, and had a bubbly personality. His friends said he often stole the show. Every day 86 people die in this country. You don't hear about all of them because this has just kind of become the wallpaper of American news. Shootings have become routine. This doesn't happen anywhere else in the world, and I just want to finish by talking a little bit about this unfortunate, tragic American exceptionalism. America has 4.4 percent of the world's population, but we have 42 percent of the civilian-owned guns in the world. We have 4 percent of the population, but nearly half of all of the guns are in this country. It used to be that about half of Americans own guns. Today only about one-third of Americans own guns, but a small number of Americans own a lot of weapons. There are more high-powered guns, like the one that was used in Kansas, than ever before. Why does this matter? Well, it is because the United States also has more gun deaths than any other nation in the developed world, and it is not even close. This chart shows the figures of homicides by firearm per 1 million people. Australia, New Zealand, and Germany have less than two. Switzerland gets all the way up to 7.7. In the United States it is 29.7. There is no other country in the world that comes close to the United States when it comes to the number of homicides in this country. This isn't aggregate numbers. This is per 1 million people. The reason I show you these two charts is that when you put it together, it tells a pretty interesting and simple story. Here is the chart correlating guns per 100,000 people and gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. Here is the line of correlation. It is a pretty simple story. With a handful of outliers such as Argentina and Cyprus, the story is that the more guns you have in a country, the more gun homicides are going to occur. Here is the United States on the line, but it is an outlier in terms of the number of guns and the number of deaths--simply an extrapolation of a story that all of our other first world competitors could tell by themselves. This rebuts this ridiculous mythology by the gun industry, which tells us that if you have more guns, you are going to be safer. The solution in Sandy Hook was just that the Sandy Hook Elementary School didn't have enough firearms. If all the teachers had had weapons, that shooter would have been killed, and the best way to stop a shooter from attacking you is to arm yourself. That is not what the evidence tells us. The evidence tells us: The more guns there are in a community, the more people get killed. I will show at another time this same chart on a State-by-State basis, and it will tell you the exact same story. A State that has more firearms has more gun homicides. You are more likely to be the victim of gun violence if you have a gun in your house than if you don't have a gun in your house. Now, the Second Amendment is an incredibly important, vital, integral piece of the fabric of the U.S. Constitution, and I honor people's decisions to buy a weapon in order to protect themselves. Some people live in violent places. Some people live in very isolated places, and they have made that choice, and that is theirs to make. Of course, there are millions of Americans who own weapons in order to hunt, in order to shoot for sport, a pastime they enjoy and have the right to. But they should purchase those weapons with the understanding that there is no data that tells them they are safer with a weapon in their arm, no data that suggests that the more guns you have in a particular place, the less likely there are to be homicides and gun deaths. It is exactly the opposite. Every single day there are 86 people who are killed in this country from guns, 2,600 a month, 31,000 a year--another mass shooting in Kansas, another one in Kalamazoo. My entire point is just to say that at some point we have to recognize that our silence has become complicity in these murders. If we are not willing to forge political consensus in this session on legislation that changes gun laws, then at least let's make a commitment to fix our mental health system to make sure law enforcement has the resources they need, to make sure we make straw purchasing illegal so the method by which the shooter in Kansas got the gun has consequences at the Federal level, potentially, as well as at the State level. Let us do something to honor the thousands of voices of victims that mount by the day. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I think we are all very touched and moved by Senator Fischer's remarks and the thoughts of the entire body go out to Sergeant Hansen's family and those he left behind. I am on the floor today with no better news. We all woke up just days ago to the news of another mass shooting, this time in Kalamazoo. Saturday, another community was changed forever by gun violence. We live it every day in Connecticut, still mourning 20 dead first-graders and 6 teachers who protected them. In this case, the alleged killer used a semiautomatic handgun to kill six people and injure at least two others across three incidents between about 6 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. That Saturday night the shooter first shot a woman several times, leaving her seriously wounded. Then, next to a car dealership, he gunned down a father and son. Later, he approached two cars that were parked outside a neighboring Cracker Barrel restaurant. He opened fire there and killed four. I have been coming down to the floor now for almost 3 years telling the stories of victims of gun violence. I am going to talk about six today. Unfortunately, the statistics tell us there are 86 every single day killed by guns--2,600 a month and 31,000 a year. The vast minority of them are due to mass shootings. Most of the individuals on this list are killed by virtue of suicides or by individual acts of violence-- domestic violence, for instance--the violence that happens in cities of America like Hartford, New Haven, New York, and Los Angeles. What is astounding to many of us is that despite these numbers--and I have made this case before--which are unlike those of any other industrialized country, we do absolutely nothing about it. We do nothing about it. We don't pass stronger gun laws. We don't strengthen our mental health system. We don't give more law enforcement resources. All we do is just catalog the numbers of dead every single day and every single month. The statistics apparently are not moving this place. Hopefully--my hope is the voices of these victims can give you a sense of who these people are. Just the trail of tragedy that is left behind--researchers will tell you there are often over a dozen people who experience serious levels of trauma in the wake of one person being killed by guns. Maybe these stories will change people's minds. Stories such as that of Mary Jo Nye, who was 60 years old when she was killed. She was enjoying a night out on the town with her former college roommate, her sister-in-law, Mary Lou Nye, and her friends, Barbara Hawthorne and Judy Brown, when all of their lives were taken by this seemingly random shooting. Mary Jo was a retired teacher from Calhoun Community High School, where she dedicated her time and talents to students who were at risk of dropping out. That is not an easy job, but she put her mind to it and put her heart to it. One colleague commented that ``she was an English teacher, but she was a lot more than that to the students who don't come from great home lives.'' A friend said she was ``always reaching out to others and helping families.'' This friend also said: It just doesn't make sense. Mary Jo saw helping others as her calling in both her professional and her personal life. It's a tragedy. Mary Lou Nye met her sister-in-law, Mary Jo, when they were in college where they were actually roommates. Mary Lou fell in love with one of her roommate's older brothers, eventually getting married, making the roommates not only friends but also family. Mary Lou dedicated her time as a manager of the Michigan Secretary of State branch in South Haven prior to its closing. She shared her love of children for the last 6 to 7 years working at a daycare center. A local pastor said she always had a smile on her face and was loved by the kids she worked with. ``It was never about her,'' he said, ``always about making sure things were right for the children.'' Her son said his mom ``loved reading books and doted on her grandson,'' his 5-year- old, Geoffrey. She, herself, was the youngest of five children. Her grandson Geoffrey will not be able to spend that time with his grandmother any longer. Sixty-eight-year-old Barbara Hawthorne was in the backseat of Mary Jo Nye's car when she was killed. Her family said: Our `Auntie Barb' was easy to laugh. A generous, giving person who loved her many friends and family. She was a true ``hippie'' who marched for civil rights in the Deep South, recycled everything that came through the house, and believed in marching to your own drummer. She loved the theater and live music and shared tickets to performances whenever possible. Dorothy Brown, known as Judy among her friends and neighbors, was also with Mary Jo, Mary Lou, and Barbara. Neighbors remember Judy's generous and friendly spirit. She readily shared her homegrown herbs and always took time to share a friendly wave with her neighbors. One neighbor who did odd jobs for her occasionally, helping out around the house, always got a gift card from her at the end of the year. She was described by one neighbor as ``a sweet, sweet old lady. You couldn't ask for a better neighbor.'' Tyler Smith was 17 years old and he was with his father shopping for a car when the shooter drove by and opened fire, killing both the father and the son. Tyler had a very bright future ahead of him. He was enrolled in the marketing entrepreneurship program at the local tech center in addition to high school. He was, according to friends and family, studying marketing so he could help open a family business with his father, sister, and his cousin. The superintendent, who knew Tyler well--it means something about a kid if the superintendent knew this particular student well. That tells you he was marked for something big. He said he ``was such a great kid. He always had a smile on his face, always happy and very well liked.'' His father, known as Rich, was killed alongside him while they were shopping for a car. A family friend remembers Rich, saying, ``When Rich was in your presence he automatically put you in a good mood--he had this contagious laugh and he always smiled.'' A friend said: Rich was always there to lighten it up and laugh it off. . . . He was such a wonderful man. Those are 6 people of the average of 86 killed every day, just in that one episode in Kalamazoo. What is so sad is that when the shootings in Kalamazoo began that Saturday evening, a dozen other people had already been killed in multiple victim incidents since the weekend started. Set aside all of those one-of instances of gun violence. Set aside all of the suicides. Just last weekend, before Kalamazoo happened, a dozen other people had been shot across this country in multiple victim incidents. There is no other country in the world that has that level of epidemic mass gun violence. I will speak at another time about why that is, but what is unexceptional about the United States is that the American public wants to do something about it. They don't accept the status quo, just as other countries probably wouldn't accept it either. Ninety-two percent of Americans are in favor of universal background checks, and we can't even get a debate on this on the floor of the Senate, nor in the House of Representatives. Democracy normally doesn't allow for 90 percent of Americans to support something that their legislative body will not even consider. Eighty-five percent of NRA Members are in favor of universal background checks. All that means is, all you have to prove is that you are not a criminal. You have to prove you haven't been deemed mentally incompetent before you can buy a gun. Support for the laws that we want to debate on the floor of the Senate is absolutely bipartisan. Here is a chart showing background checks for gun shows and private sales. Those are not universal background checks. They are just for those two particular forums. For that specific proposal, Democrats support it by 88 percent, Republicans by nearly 80 percent; laws to prevent the mentally ill from buying guns, 81 percent Democrats and 79 percent of Republicans--no difference. There is a little bit more of a difference when you come to a Federal database to track gun sales. You still have 55 percent of Republicans supporting that. That is probably the most controversial reform which, to me, for the life of me, I can't figure out why it is controversial. A ban on assault-style weapons, you have 70 percent of Democrats but a majority of Republicans as well, which tells you that the overall American population, despite their partisan registration, supports a ban on assault weapons, which of course wasn't that radical long ago, when it was passed in the law of this country. I will not go into this in detail, but, again, you look at specific provisions, and the overwhelming majority of the American public supports them--bans on semiautomatic weapons, bans on assault weapons, bans on high-capacity ammunition clips, bans on online sales of ammunition. Again, over and over again, you see an overwhelming majority of Americans supporting these laws. It is simply time for us to respond to the voices of 31,000 victims every single year and do something about it. I will continue to come down to the floor and share these stories, share some of these charts, share some of the data, in the hope that it will inspire this body to break out of its ice of indifference--as somebody coined the phrase before me--and do something. I understand we are not likely to get a vote on background checks between now and the end of the year, but there is a big bipartisan mental health bill we can debate on the floor before we wrap up for the year. This Senator would submit to you that is not the answer for the epidemic of gun violence, but it would help. If you create more inpatient beds and more outpatient capacity, a lot of the very disturbed individuals who take these demons that exist inside them and turn them into an act of massive violence--that mental health reform bill could help them. It would just be the beginning of the work we have to do, but it would be a very important beginning. At some point the U.S. Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world, an organization that claims to represent the will of the people, will have to start paying attention to the voices of these victims and the overwhelming majority of the American public who want us to honor them. I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURPHY

Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, over the course of the last year and a half, I have come down to the floor fairly regularly to tell some simple stories about victims of gun violence all across the country. The idea is that if the overwhelming data of those killed through gun violence--31,000 a year; 2,600 a month; 86 a day--if these mind-numbing numbers don't move this body to action, then maybe the voices of the victims, the stories of the victims of gun violence may eventually thaw the ice of this Congress and cause us to act in some way, shape or form to reduce this scourge of gun violence--whether it be tightening the Nation's gun laws, which are the loosest in the world, whether it be to pass mental health legislation that will address those who are wrestling with demons manifested eventually in gun homicides or whether it be giving more resources to gun enforcement to simply enforce the laws on the books. We have done nothing. We have done nothing since the murders of Sandy Hook, CT, to address this epidemic of gun violence. It is about time that we do. On New Year's Eve, I spent most of that day tweeting out the 370-plus instances of mass shootings over the course of 2015. Think about that for a second. There were more mass shootings in 2015 then there were days in the year. Just to be honest, I will tell you what I believe to be a mass shooting. I am talking about a shooting in which there were more than four people shot. If there were more than four people shot in your neighborhood, that would probably be something you would be talking about, that would probably rise to the level of being something serious enough to change behavior or to call for a change in policy. There were 370 instances in 2015 where more than 4 people were shot at one given time--more than one per day. So I tweeted out to every single one of them on the day before the year turned to 2016 just to give people a sense all in one place of how big this problem of mass shootings is. Of course, that is only the tip of the iceberg. If on the average day there are 4, 5, 6 or 7 people being shot in episodes of mass violence, there are another 80 that are killed through other episodes of gun violence. Many of those are suicides, but many of those are just the day-to-day gun violence incidents that happen across this country, most of which happen in our cities. So I want to share a few of those stories here with you today. A lot of attention gets paid to those who die in episodes of mass violence. This is a binder that is basically full of the stories of the individuals who were killed in mass shootings over the past couple of years. This doesn't even begin to account for the individuals who are killed every day on the streets of Chicago and New Haven and Los Angeles and New Orleans, people such as Jonathan Aranda, who was 19 years old when he was killed just before Christmas of 2015. He was killed in the morning hours of December 8. He had just graduated from Eli Whitney Technical High School, which is located in Hamden, CT. His cousin said: He was getting out of work, stopped at a friend's house to talk about cars and this senseless act of violence happened. He was quick to lend a hand when you needed help without asking for anything in return. He worked a third shift job to come home, rest and help at home. His younger sister, Genisis, said that her brother was ``a humble and loving person, he was a person who never picked fights. He was quick to lend a hand when you needed help without asking for anything in return.'' Jonathan's cousin Edgar said he was a ``very, very likeable kid. . . . He didn't have a problem with anybody.'' The community has been devastated by this loss. He was liked by everybody. He cared deeply for his family. Jonathan was 19 years old when he was killed after stopping at a friend's house--after getting off of work--to talk about cars. Treesa Wiley was killed just a few days ago in Rockford, IL. She was fatally shot while she was visiting a friend in her home. An unknown person forced entry into the home and shot Wiley and her friend. She lived paycheck to paycheck, but she was still immensely generous with her friends and family, showering them with love, attention, and gifts. Her uncle said of Treesa: She didn't have children herself, but every child that she met was her child. That's why she enjoyed that work so much. She enjoyed giving back to the community because it had given her so much.'' Her friends described her as ``bubbly,'' ``angelic,'' and ``lovable.'' Her favorite color was purple. Her favorite team was the Green Bay Packers. She loved red lipstick. She had overcome a learning disability to get a 2-year degree. She was killed while she was studying to get her bachelor's degree. A friend said: She was the most loving and honest friend you could hope for. . . . I can't think of one person who didn't like Treesa. Raven White was 16 years old when about a month ago she was killed in Birmingham, AL. She was fatally shot in her car in the early morning hours of January 8. It looks as if it was a robbery. She was a junior in high school, and she was 6 months pregnant. Her mother said Raven was very outgoing. I know she loved school. Even after getting pregnant, she made good grades and didn't miss a day of school. She was planning to go back to the volleyball team that she played on after giving birth. She had just gotten off work at Walmart hours before the shooting. ``All I want is to hold my grandbaby once, but I can't,'' said Raven's mother, Tangee Dixon. Miguel Arguelles was 22 when he was killed in Bridgeport, CT. He was shot in the neck and the shoulder during a shooting at the Charles F. Greene Homes housing complex. Police say he wasn't a target, but he was hit by stray bullets. He was 22 years old. At the hospital, Miguel's mother pounded his chest, urging him to come back to life, saying: ``Mommy's here. C'mon, baby, c'mon, baby. Mommy's here.'' A veteran officer said the nurses were crying, the priest was crying, and even the police were crying while watching this. It was one of the saddest things I've seen. You feel so helpless. His mother said he lit up the room when he walked in. You saw his teeth every time he smiled--he brought a smile to your face. . . . I just want to hug him. I just want to tell him I love him. ``He was my protector,'' said his sister. ``He loved to make people laugh.'' Jabari Saunders was 30 when he was killed in December of 2015 in Wilmington. He was shot on the very same street on which he used to walk his children to school every morning. He was a devoted father of four. His life revolved around his kids. The neighbors said the only time they would see him is with his kids. He was always smiling. It is sad. You can't even let your kids walk to school--walk to afterschool stuff now. When a neighbor's son was shot, irony of all ironies, the victim's mother recalls that Jabari visited her home every single day the week after the shooting. He just came to pay respect. . . . I know the love he showed me when my son was killed. Another neighbor said: I can't say anything bad about him. He was just a nice guy. That is 5 stories out of 2,600 a month. There is no antidote to this epidemic. There is no one law that we can pass that makes it all better, that makes this all go away. But that can't be the excuse. The excuse cannot be that because there is no panacea legislatively, we shouldn't even try. The excuse can't be that because it is impossible to erase gun violence, we shouldn't take some commonsense steps to make it all better. The excuse also can't be that laws don't make a difference, because they do. I will leave you with this because my point really is to tell the stories of these victims, not to expound on the data, but the data is pretty irrefutable. Here are all the States where background checks are required in order to buy a gun through a private gun sale. That is a purchase at a gun store or a purchase at a gun show. Here are all the States with no additional background check laws besides the Federal floor. The data is pretty irrefutable. On average, there is 1 additional death per 100,000 in the States with no additional background check laws than there are in the States that have additional background check laws. It is a 30-some-odd percent increase for the States that don't take extra steps to make sure criminals don't get guns. So when people say that we shouldn't pass a background check law that 90 percent of the American public support because it won't make a difference, the data doesn't tell us that. The data actually tells us that if we take steps to make sure criminals don't get guns, fewer criminals will get guns and fewer people will be killed, because I will assure you that one of these five people whom I just listed was killed with a gun that was purchased legally. It might have been purchased in a gun show, put in the back of a van, and sold on the streets of Wilmington, Bridgeport, or New Haven. Laws won't save all 31,000 of these lives, but they certainly will save a handful. And for the individuals, the nurses, the clergy, and the police officers who witnessed Miguel Arguelles's mother pressing on his heart trying to get him to come back to life--simply one less death would make a debate on the Senate floor worth it. I hope that we take some steps this year, perhaps, to pass a mental health reform bill. I hope we get to where 9 out of 10 of our constituents are and pass legislation that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. If we don't do it because of the statistics, maybe we will do it because we will start to hear the real voices of these victims. I yield the floor.