[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 109 (Thursday, June 22, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2197-S2205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
  UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, 
TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES RELATING TO ``FACTORING CRITERIA FOR 
             FIREARMS WITH ATTACHED `STABILIZING BRACES' ''

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 44, which the 
clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 44) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives relating to ``Factoring 
     Criteria for Firearms with Attached `Stabilizing Braces' ''.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.


                        Artificial Intelligence

  Mr. SCHUMER. Very soon, Mr. President, AI will reshape life on Earth 
in very dramatic ways. It will transform how we fight disease, tackle 
hunger, manage our lives, enrich our minds, and ensure peace. But we 
cannot ignore AI's dangers: workforce disruptions in a very serious 
way, misinformation and new weapons, threats against our elections, and 
there is the danger that we may prove incapable of managing this 
technology at all. Congress cannot behave like ostriches in the sand 
when it comes to AI.
  Yesterday, I laid out my SAFE Innovation framework for AI. I call it 
that because innovation must be our North Star. AI could be our most 
spectacular innovation yet, could lead to generations of prosperity, so 
Congress must promote its growth here in the United States. But if 
people don't think innovation can be done safely, without danger, that 
will stifle AI's development and even prevent us from moving forward.
  So my SAFE Innovation framework balances both prioritizing security, 
accountability, protecting our foundations, and explainability as 
safeguards, guardrails we need to make AI work safely for us.
  Yesterday, I also announced that later this year, I will invite the 
top AI experts to come to Congress and convene a series of first-ever 
AI Insight Forums for a new and unique approach to developing AI 
legislation. These Insight Forums are the first of their kind. They 
have to be the first of their kind because AI moves so quickly, will 
change our world so decisively. It is so much deeper in its complexity 
than almost anything else we have dealt with and lacks the legislative 
history in

[[Page S2198]]

Congress that other issues like the military or education or healthcare 
have.
  Our jobs as legislators will be to listen to the experts and learn as 
much as we can so we can translate these ideas into legislative action. 
We must work quickly but not precipitously, because this issue is so 
complex. We will have no artificial deadlines. We will come up with 
proposals in a matter not of days or weeks and not of years, but 
months.
  These forums can't and won't replace the activity already happening 
in Congress on AI. Our committees must continue serving as the key 
drivers for legislation we produce in Congress, but the AI forums will 
give us lots more information and knowledge from which we can draw 
legislation.

  I thank all Senators from both sides who are already working on this 
issue. We are keeping it bipartisan, as it must be.
  We must exercise humility as we proceed. ``Humility'' is a key word 
here because this is so overwhelming. Success is not guaranteed. AI is 
unlike anything we have dealt with before, and it may be exceedingly 
difficult for legislation to tackle every single issue. But if we can 
find some solutions and create some consensus, we must press ahead. As 
Theodore Roosevelt said, ``We are in the arena.'' And there is no 
substitute for government being involved because without government, 
there will be no guardrails. Some companies may put them in, but they 
even won't put them in if other companies don't and gain an advantage. 
So government must be involved here. It is the only force powerful 
enough to impose guidelines on what could otherwise be an unfettered 
AI.


                 Welcoming Prime Minister Narendra Modi

  Now, Mr. President, on the Modi visit, later this afternoon, I will 
join congressional leaders in welcoming Prime Minister Narendra Modi of 
India to the U.S. Capitol, where he will speak before a joint meeting 
of Congress.
  I will tell Prime Minister Modi the same thing I told him earlier 
this spring when I led the largest Senate codel ever to India: Our two 
nations will need each other if we are to beat back the forces of 
autocracy.
  When I visited India, I got to see the vibrancy and future potential 
of that society. It is astounding. And India will grow in power and 
strength over the next century.
  If we want to hold firm against the Chinese Government and the 
Chinese Communist Party, then the world's two largest democracies must 
work in unison to ensure peace. It means expanding trade and expanding 
opportunities for workers to come to the United States. It means 
safeguarding our common defense, which I know will be one of the big 
announcements during the visit.
  But I also told Prime Minister Modi during our meeting that we cannot 
lose sight of the values that define us as democracies in the first 
place, like freedom of expression, minority rights, and civil 
liberties. I told this to him in person because without that, no 
democracy--no democracy--can long thrive.
  So I look forward to meeting for the second time this year with the 
Prime Minister later this afternoon to stress the importance of 
democratic values and the urgency of our Nation working together.


                       Tax Convention with Chile

  Mr. President, on the Chile tax treaty, for decades, Chile has been 
one of America's strongest partners in Latin America--economically, 
diplomatically, militarily, and scientifically.
  Today, the Senate will take a monumental step to strengthen United 
States-Chile relations by passing the Chile tax treaty. This treaty has 
been in the works for over a decade. It has strong bipartisan support, 
and now is the time to finally get it across the finish line.
  The United States-Chile treaty is consistent with other tax treaties 
we have with more than 60 countries, which boosts American 
competitiveness on the global stage.
  Chile is the home to the world's largest lithium reserves--the 
precious metal used in emerging technologies like iPhones, EV 
batteries, and renewable energy storage.
  So as the world races to advance clean energy technologies, Chile 
will be a critical ally for anyone looking to lead the way. But without 
a tax treaty with Chile, American companies could face double taxation 
and other barriers to investment and trade, leaving them at a 
significant disadvantage against foreign competitors.
  If the United States is serious about remaining ahead of countries 
like China, it is imperative we pass this treaty today and put American 
business back on a level playing field with the rest of the world when 
it comes to Chile. So this is a very important treaty for our future 
and for our leadership in technology and in clean energy. I hope it 
will get as close to unanimous support as anything can get in this 
body.
  I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, especially 
Senators Menendez and Risch for their work on this issue, and I look 
forward to the Senate finally getting this treaty passed later this 
afternoon.


                              H.J. Res. 44

  Finally, Mr. President, on the pistol brace CRA, later this morning, 
Senate Republicans will force a vote on a bill seemingly designed to 
make America's gun violence epidemic even worse. Here, at a time with 
all this gun violence, Republicans are putting a bill on the floor that 
makes it easier--easier--to conceal an assault-style pistol, something 
that has been used in mass shooting after mass shooting. Shame on them.
  At issue is a commonsense rule released by the ATF regulating the use 
of pistol braces, widely available accessories that modify AK-style 
pistols so that they function identically to short-barreled rifles. If 
you have ever seen a gunman fire what looks like a machine gun with 
just one hand, that is what pistol braces allow you to do. And because 
they don't have a long barrel, it makes it much easier to conceal them; 
so people for bad purpose, particularly those who are involved and want 
to do mass shootings, love these weapons. And we are making it easier 
for them to get them.
  Some of the moves that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
make are just appalling.
  America's legacy of gun violence has been made significantly worse 
because of pistol braces. Even a surface look at recent mass shootings 
reveal that gunmen were often aided by a pistol brace.
  In the shooting in Dayton in 2019--9 killed, 17 injured--outside a 
bar, the gunman used a pistol brace.
  Consider the shooting in Boulder in 2021--10 killed, including a 
police officer. Again, the gunman used a pistol brace.
  And we cannot forget that tragedy in Nashville--three teachers 
murdered, three 9-year-olds slaughtered. The photo from that day haunts 
me and should haunt us. I think of it all the time: students ushered by 
police in a single file through the parking lot, parents frantically 
looking for their children, a little girl--that is the picture I think 
of--a little girl looking out the window of the schoolbus in tears, 
scared for her life.
  Today's Republican push to ease access to deadly pistol braces is an 
insult to countless families who have lost loved ones because of these 
enhanced weapons. This proposal is a shameful--shameful--step backward 
in America's fight against gun violence, and it is just utterly 
confounding and perplexing that our Republican colleagues are pushing 
this kind of legislation.
  Americans are tired of hard-right politicians who intentionally turn 
a blind eye to all the suffering in our communities while they actively 
work to take us backward in the fight against gun violence. I will 
strongly oppose this CRA and urge my colleagues to likewise vote no.


              Nomination of General Charles Q. Brown, Jr.

  Mr. President, finally, later this morning, I will be meeting with 
Gen. CQ Brown, President Biden's nominee for the next Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  General Brown is exceptionally qualified to serve as the Nation's 
highest ranking military officer and will be an important adviser to 
the President on military decisions and operations.
  General Brown's nomination would normally pass with consent, without 
cloture needed. I want to hear this morning from General Brown about 
the damaging impact that Senator Tuberville's holds on senior military 
promotions is having on our national security and military readiness.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S2199]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.


                              H.J. Res. 44

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to follow the remarks of the 
majority leader. Last Saturday night, there was a Juneteenth 
celebration in Willowbrook, IL. There was music and people gathered in 
a parking lot of a strip mall, and they were having a generally good 
time. And then gunfire erupted. At the end of just a few minutes, 1 
person was dead and 22 had been wounded--Saturday night.
  That wasn't the only gun violence in the region over the holiday 
weekend. We estimate that at least 14 were killed and another 61 
injured from gunfire. It is a common occurrence, sadly, across America. 
We have felt it in Illinois. Some estimate that we have had over 50 
mass shootings so far this month, and we are only at June 22.
  What is going on in America? It is a serious question.
  But what has happened every weekend in communities across this 
country is a reminder that Americans cannot gather to celebrate a 
holiday, a graduation, or even a funeral without the ever-present 
threat of gun violence.
  It goes without saying, but I am going to repeat it: Gunfire is the 
No. 1 killer of America's children. Gunfire is the No. 1 killer of 
America's children.
  Many of my constituents beg me to do something as chairman of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. They say: Can't you at least regulate the 
use of some of these guns so that they don't get in the hands of people 
who will misuse them?
  I tell them that I want to do that and I share their sentiments but I 
don't have the votes to do it. You need 60 votes on the floor of this 
100-Member Senate to get anything of that nature passed, and it is hard 
to do.
  One in five Americans say they have lost a loved one to gun 
violence--one in five. That is unthinkable in other countries around 
the world. Yet it has become the American way, sadly.
  Yet, today, we are facing an incredible effort by the Senate 
Republicans a little later this morning. They are trying to take a gun 
safety provision off the books. They want to weaken a law that has been 
on the books for 90 years--90 years.
  They want to overturn a regulation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms, and Explosives that prevents people from turning pistols into 
short-barreled rifles. This regulation is on devices known as 
stabilizing braces. They convert pistols into a weapon that can be 
fired from the shoulder, but they still only have a barrel under 16 
inches long so they can be easily hidden under a jacket.
  For almost 90 years, short-barreled rifles have been controlled under 
the National Firearms Act, along with machineguns and sawed-off 
shotguns. Why? Because they combine the accuracy of a rifle with the 
concealability of a handgun. It is a deadly combination.
  Pistols with stabilizing braces have a reputation in this modern 
America. The mass shooter who killed 9 people and injured 17 in Dayton, 
OH, in 2019 used one of these weapons. One was used by a mass shooter 
in Boulder, CO, in 2021, who killed 10 people, including a policeman, 
and by another mass shooter who killed 5 and injured 19 in 2022 in 
Colorado Springs.
  The Covenant School shooting in Nashville, TN, this past March--that 
horrible scene that we remember, teachers and children being killed at 
their school--that shooter had one of these weapons as well.
  So a Republican Senator is going to come to the floor today and say 
that we should weaken a safety measure that has been on the books for 
almost 90 years, to make it easier for people to wield short-barreled 
rifles that have been used in mass killings in America.
  What are we thinking?
  The Fourth of July is just around the corner. I remember the last 
Fourth of July. My wife and I were vacationing in Michigan when we 
heard the news that there had been a mass shooting in Highland Park, 
IL, at the Fourth of July parade. A gunman got on top of one of the 
downtown buildings where the crowd had gathered for this parade, and he 
used an assault weapon and fired 83 rounds in 60 seconds, firing 
randomly into a crowd, killing 7 innocent people who just came out for 
the Fourth of July parade and wounding almost 55 others.
  Think of that for a moment: in 60 seconds, that kind of damage with 
those kinds of weapons.
  And here we have, leaving for the Fourth of July break this year, an 
effort by the Senate Republicans to authorize the use of a piece of 
equipment that has been used over and over again in America in mass 
shootings, killing innocent people, including schoolchildren in 
Nashville, TN.
  What are they thinking? At a time when gun violence is the No. 1 
killer of children, at a time when we read about it day in, day out, 
they want to make it easier to have a weapon that serves as a short-
barreled rifle, that makes so many people vulnerable and kills them in 
such a rapid fashion. This makes no sense whatsoever, but it defines 
the Republican Party's attitude toward gun control.
  We have had one exception to what I just said, and that was last 
year. After the Uvalde incident, we finally did something. I think it 
was positive, and it was bipartisan. I salute the Republicans who 
joined in on that, but I hope today they come to their senses and don't 
weaken this 90-year-old law and make it easier for people to use these 
weapons in a violent way, in a deadly way.
  The ATF rule gives law-abiding gun owners plenty of options to comply 
with the law: removing the stabilizing brace which is at issue here, 
attaching a longer barrel to the gun, or registering the weapon like 
other short-barreled rifles because that is what it is. So there are 
plenty of ways that you can comply with the rule, but our colleagues 
want to throw it out and make it easier to buy these weapons, 
equipment, that can be used to make a more deadly weapon.

  The rule is common sense, and the last thing we should do is wipe it 
off the books. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the resolution.


                              Pride Month

  Mr. President, on a separate issue, this weekend, cities around the 
globe, including Chicago, will be hosting their annual Pride parades. 
It will be a chance to join together in celebrating the LGBTQ community 
and to honor the history of the Pride movement.
  Sadly, today, even during Pride Month, extremist politicians 
throughout America are trying to rewrite that proud history. Since the 
start of the 2022 school year, Republican lawmakers in more than 30 
States have introduced bills banning or limiting access to books in our 
Nation's libraries and classrooms, and many of these books focus, at 
least in part, on LGBTQ identity and history.
  This is not a coincidence because these book bans are not only an 
affront to the First Amendment; they are a shameful and deliberate 
effort to erase the LGBTQ community from the American story. Well, try 
as these politicians might, the truth is that you can't erase the 
history or the progress when it comes to human rights. You cannot erase 
the courage and sacrifice of Pride pioneers like Marsha P. Johnson and 
Harvey Milk, and we cannot erase our LGBTQ colleagues who have broken 
barriers and who are proving to young people like them that they are a 
vital part of the Nation's history.
  I am going to ask that the remainder of my statement be placed in the 
Record because I have to go to the Appropriations Committee, but I want 
to salute the people who participated in yesterday's hearing in the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. It was a hearing that, really, I was proud 
of at the end. I didn't know going in how it would work.
  There was a 16-year-old transgender girl from Alabama with her father 
who appeared, and she did an extraordinarily good job testifying and 
answering questions. There was a doctor from Texas who has been 
involved in gender-affirming care for more than 10 years. She talked 
about the difficulties in dealing with children who are searching for 
answers in their lives, looking for a place in this world, and hoping 
that they can find someone whom they can talk to--parents and medical 
professionals.
  It struck me that there are decisions being made every single day 
across America by parents and families, life-and-death decisions and 
decisions that are critical. We need to say to these families: You make 
the best decision for your child.
  But when it comes to gender affirming care, many States have stepped 
in

[[Page S2200]]

and said to the doctors involved and the parents involved: Stop the 
conversation. You are not going to discuss it with children who are 
troubled and need some help.
  That is wrong. Medicine and science should prevail, not prejudice, 
when it comes to transgender people. The hearing yesterday was a good 
one, and I think it was an indication that Pride Month is taken 
seriously by the U.S. Congress and particularly the Senate Judiciary 
Committee.
  The history of Pride is the history of America--hard-won progress, 
that may come in fits and starts, but over time, brings us closer to 
fulfilling the promise of equal justice under law. And if we truly want 
to honor Pride's history--then we need to do more than celebrate the 
month of June; we need to draw from the Pride movement's legacy and 
spirit of resistance.
  Yesterday, as I mentioned, the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, 
held a hearing on the urgent need to defend the rights of LGBTQ+ 
Americans. You see, the very same politicians who are at this moment 
trying to ban books in schools and libraries are also introducing laws 
targeting our LGBTQ+ youth, along with the medical professionals who 
care for them and the parents who love them.
  Since the start of 2023, more than 525 of these bills have been 
introduced in 41 States, many specifically targeting trans youth. Some 
bills seek to ban gender-affirming care, while others are designed to 
dictate what sports kids can play or what bathrooms they can use. But 
all of them are part of the same, concerted effort: using the powers of 
government to target children and their families.
  Put yourself in the shoes of these families for just a moment. 
Imagine being the parent of a trans child and meeting with a doctor who 
is helping guide you through potentially life-and-death decisions. 
These are the most personal moments imaginable. They are hard enough as 
is. And the last thing you need is a politician forcing themselves into 
the doctor's office and telling you how to care for your child, a child 
who is already struggling--and who is only asking for the freedom to 
live as who they are in their hearts.
  The Committee heard from one of those young Americans: Harleigh 
Walker. She is a 16-year-old transgender girl from Alabama, which has 
enacted laws threatening her ability to access the care she needs to be 
happy and healthy. Ms. Walker told the committee, ``I want all of you 
to look at me, here and now, and hear my words. I am a VERY happy 16-
year-old. I have wonderful friends who accept me . . . for who I am. 
I'm active in my school's debate team and other extracurricular[s]. . . 
.
  ``I'm just trying to be a teenager in America. Same as any other 
teen, but I keep having to jump through hoops that other people my age 
don't have to. . . . I'm here in front of this Committee instead of 
enjoying summer vacation, just to try and ensure that my right to exist 
isn't taken away.''
  Ms. Walker identified an urgent need for new policies that support 
transgender children and protect them from bullying and harassment.
  Parents and families of transgender children are facing fundamental 
questions about their children's health, identity, and future. They are 
asking for Congress to step up and protect their children from 
discrimination in schools, businesses, and hospitals. And this Senate 
has a chance to do so by passing the Equality Act, which was 
reintroduced this week by Senators Merkley, Baldwin, and Booker and 
which I am cosponsoring.
  Let us show these families--and every LGBTQ+ American--that they are 
not alone. Let us show them our support and solidarity--not just during 
Pride month, but every day of the year.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.


                             Voting Rights

  Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today just a few days ahead of the 
anniversary of one of the most devastating Supreme Court voting rights 
decisions in our Nation's history.
  This coming Sunday marks the 10-year anniversary since the Supreme 
Court's Shelby v. Holder decision, when--surprise, surprise--a 
conservative majority of the Supreme Court voted to dramatically erode 
Americans' access to the ballot and undo 50 years of voting rights 
protections.
  Now, with the benefit of hindsight and my 6 years serving as 
California's chief elections officer, I can say that the decision in 
Shelby was not just an anomaly in our Nation's history. Since Shelby, 
we have seen State after State exploit this decision to enact dozens of 
laws designed to make it harder for some people to vote.
  Despite the proponents' claims, the effect of these laws is to make 
it harder and, disproportionately, for voters of color, voters with 
disabilities, college students, and senior citizens to register to 
vote, to stay registered to vote, or to actually cast their ballot.
  But, unfortunately, we have seen this before. While the Fifteenth 
Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1870, guaranteeing all 
citizens the right to vote regardless of race, that did not stop States 
from limiting access to the ballot. Poll tests, literacy tests, 
grandfather clauses, coupled with the brutal violence of the Jim Crow 
South, made it nearly impossible for Black citizens and other 
minorities, at the time, to exercise their constitutional rights. Yes, 
I know it is not pleasant to be reminded of this, but I think it is 
important to keep restating these facts for the record before they end 
up getting censored out of some history books in schools in different 
parts of this country. The times we live in, I tell you.

  These violations were so egregious and so pervasive that it would 
take Congress nearly a century to address them. Congress only took 
action after the marches of civil rights leaders and the chorus of 
protests grew so strong that they could no longer be ignored.
  The country witnessed the civil rights movement and leaders like Dr. 
Martin Luther King and John Lewis call out the fundamental hypocrisy of 
a nation that promised all men and women to be equal but whose 
professed principles stopped at the entrance to the polling place.
  The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a monument to freedom, but it 
certainly was never intended to be temporary, let alone a final chapter 
in the struggle for equality. The Voting Rights Act was actually a 
reminder--a reminder that America's democracy is imperfect and that it 
is each generation's job to bring us closer to being a more perfect 
union.
  So in June of 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down section 5 of 
the Voting Rights Act in that Shelby v. Holder decision--the provision 
which required States with a history of racially motivated voter 
suppression to prove that any new laws or regulations would not 
adversely impact minority voters before they could be implemented--that 
decision undid 50 years of voting rights protections. In an instant, 
the Supreme Court scrapped section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which 
was a critical tool that successfully protected us against the most 
egregious forms of voter suppression.
  As a result of the Shelby decision, today too many eligible 
citizens--eligible citizens--have fallen victim to a new set of 
barriers put in place by Republican-led State legislatures. Modern-day 
voter suppression efforts might be a little bit more subtle than what 
we saw in the mid-20th century, but make no mistake, they are no less 
effective in suppressing the vote. Purging voter rolls, limiting vote-
by-mail opportunities, limiting early-voting opportunities--these are 
all strategies designed to make it unduly harder for people to have 
their voice heard in our democracy.
  While we may celebrate the recent Supreme Court decision in Allen v. 
Milligan, which was vitally important in upholding section 2 of the 
Voting Rights Act and affirming decades of the Supreme Court's 
jurisprudence on the Voting Rights Act, we must remember that the act 
as a whole is failing to function as it was intended, as it was 
originally adopted.
  Make no mistake, the right to vote--the precious right to vote--
continues to be attacked. Mississippi has passed one of the strictest 
voter ID laws in the country. Georgia cut 10 percent of its polling 
places ahead of the 2020 elections--mostly around the Atlanta 
metropolitan area--despite the fact that more than 2 million new voters 
had registered. More voters deserve more opportunities to vote, not 
less. In fact, since 2020 alone, 33 States have passed at least 104 new 
restrictive voting laws.

[[Page S2201]]

MAGA Republicans continue to spread false claims of massive voter fraud 
to cynically justify their voter suppression agenda.
  It is these types of threats to our democracy that actually fueled my 
work as California secretary of state prior to my joining the Senate. 
As the chief elections officer for a State of nearly 40 million 
people--the most populous State in the nation and the most diverse 
State in the nation--I actually worked to implement automatic voter 
registration, same-day voter registration, to upgrade California's 
voting systems to meet higher security standards, and to expand mail-in 
voting and in-person early-voting opportunities. We intentionally and 
aggressively worked to make our democracy both more secure and more 
inclusive, not less. That is why today there are almost 22 million 
Californians on the voting rolls. That is right--there are more voters 
in the State of California than the population of the State of Florida. 
The voter rolls are now the most accurate and up to date they have ever 
been. That is good for election integrity, and we have seen record 
turnout as a result in four of the last six elections. That is the way 
democracy is supposed to work.
  Now California has taken a stand because our right to vote is worth 
fighting for and because when it comes to defending and strengthening 
our democracy, California proudly leads. Now it is time for Congress to 
follow this example.
  In the fight for civil and voting rights, a quote by Dr. Martin 
Luther King is often invoked, and I will quote it:

       The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward 
     justice.

  Too often in our Nation's history, it has been Congress that has 
obstructed our path to justice. This body has not always upheld the 
legacy of the Americans who marched for the right to vote, who risked 
their safety for the right to vote, who gave their lives so that we 
might all have a say in our democracy.
  Ten years after Shelby, it is clear that this decision has undermined 
the fabric of our democracy. So it is time that we pass the John Lewis 
Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore a preclearance 
requirement that helped protect the voting rights of all Americans.
  I believe that what I learned in high school government class was 
right. Our country is stronger when more eligible Americans 
participate. That is why we must also pass and implement the Freedom to 
Vote Act to set a national baseline of voter protections and access to 
the ballot.
  Our vote is sacred. It is how citizens exercise their voice in the 
political process. It is how we hold elected leaders accountable. And 
it is how we, together, shape our country's future.
  It is our sworn duty, colleagues. It is our sworn duty to protect the 
right to vote. So I urge all of us to join me in restoring these key 
components of the Voting Rights Act. Let's pass once again landmark 
legislation to protect our sacred right to vote, and let us live up to 
the legacy of the civil rights movement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). The Senator from Connecticut.


                              H.J. Res. 44

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, in just a very short time, we will be 
voting in this body on whether to take a step backward in our efforts 
to stop gun violence.
  Let's be very clear: The vote in just about half an hour will be to 
overturn a regulation that was final at the beginning of this year and 
went into effect at the end of May--just weeks ago. Yet our Republican 
colleagues are all too ready to take that step backward on a regulation 
that would help prevent the kinds of tragedies that we have seen again 
and again and again in this great country. In a short time, this 
regulation will be before us in a way that, I hope, we will defeat 
soundly.
  Just last week, we held a summit in Hartford, CT, bringing together 
all of the major groups involved in trying to prevent gun violence and 
addressed by the President of the United States, who has promulgated 
this regulation that requires the registration of pistol braces. It is, 
perhaps, seemingly, a small matter to the vast majority of Americans, 
but the fact is that, in the past 4 years alone, pistol-stabilizing 
braces have been used in a number of mass tragedies.
  Just to give you an example, 10 people were killed and 3 injured at a 
grocery store in Boulder, CO; 9 people were killed and 27 injured 
outside a bar in Dayton, OH; 5 people were killed and 25 injured at a 
club in Colorado Springs, CO; 6 people were killed at a church school 
in Nashville, TN.
  In each of these instances, people were killed by someone using a 
pistol brace. They are so dangerous because they can convert pistols 
into short-barreled rifles, and they do it by providing stability. A 
brace attaches a pistol to a shooter's arm, stabilizing the gun and 
allowing it to be fired from the shoulder. The shooter thereby acquires 
the power and accuracy of a rifle with an easily concealed pistol.
  So, today, we are here to decide whether that ATF rule, supported by 
the President--to his credit--and designed to keep Americans safe from 
these makeshift rifles, will stand.
  What was so apparent in Hartford when the President spoke to us there 
was the energy and spirit reflecting America's support for these kinds 
of commonsense gun violence prevention measures. All of those groups 
that attended, representing the American people, were, in fact, 
energized by a growing consensus in America: that the majority of 
Americans support these kinds of commonsense measures.
  More and more, the gun violence prevention movement is led--not just 
supported but led--by young people who see our future as stopping gun 
violence on our streets that continues to take more than 100 lives 
every day. These young people--some of them were actually in Sandy Hook 
and were 6 years old at the time that their fellow elementary school 
students were taken from us--are now graduating from high school. They 
are voting. They are supporting candidates. They are running for 
office. This new generation is going to say ``enough is enough'' just 
as they did in Hartford at this summit and just as the President said, 
in effect, when he addressed them.
  So the President is taking action under his present authority, even 
without new legislation, to try to confront and contain and stop gun 
violence.
  We need to be committed to new legislation. I have urged background 
checks to be applied universally, ghost gun bans, assault weapon bans, 
large-capacity magazine bans, and perhaps, very feasibly and achievably 
in this Congress, a requirement for safe storage.
  Much more is necessary as a matter of legislation, but the President 
is committed to taking action under his present executive authority to 
require commonsense measures, and this registration requirement is one 
of them.
  Let's be very clear: It doesn't ban pistol-bracing; it simply 
requires that gun owners register them. The rule amends ATF's 
regulation to require and clarify, when someone uses a pistol-
stabilizing brace to convert a pistol into a short-barreled rifle, that 
that person needs to register the gun as a short-barreled rifle. If 
somebody is going to convert a pistol into a short-barreled rifle, it 
needs to be explicitly registered.
  Today, we have a choice. Either we allow shooters to turn pistols 
into powerful, accurate, easily hidden rifles, with total impunity, or 
we have the courage to protect our communities. That is a choice that 
we have right here on the floor of the U.S. Senate by every single one 
of us--whether to save lives or continue to enable those pistols to be 
more lethal, more deadly, and more intolerable.
  I have been working on this issue for a long time. When I first 
became Attorney General of the State of Connecticut in the early 1990s, 
I championed a ban on assault weapons. I defended it in our State 
courts against many of the arguments made here. At that point, the 
number of advocates was a handful on our side. This movement has grown, 
and it has been fueled by the tragedies that we confront--the ones that 
I mentioned--where short-barreled rifles had been used with a pistol 
brace and lives had been lost because of this contraption that makes 
guns more lethal, more deadly.

  We don't need pistol braces for legitimate uses of guns; and if they 
have legitimate uses, they can simply be registered.
  The movement that has built over these years since the early 1990s 
and,

[[Page S2202]]

most directly, since Sandy Hook, has been fueled by these tragedies 
that we can help prevent going forward. That is our obligation today. 
The summit that came together just last week in Hartford, where the 
President committed himself unequivocally and dramatically to these 
kinds of commonsense measures, can be advanced if we permit this kind 
of executive action to be taken.
  Now is no time for a step backward. Now is no time to say to the 
President: You can't take this kind of commonsense action under 
existing authority.
  Now is the time to move forward with stronger legislation--all of 
those measures that I mentioned and more--that will make America safer 
and that will help prevent the kinds of tragedies that these pistol 
braces simply aggravate and fuel.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that, prior 
to the scheduled vote, I be permitted to speak for 10 minutes, Senator 
Marshall for 5 minutes, Senator Kennedy for 10 minutes, and Senator 
Schumer for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, America is crying out for this Congress to 
do something about the epidemic of mass shootings. We average more than 
a mass shooting a day right now. Kids are living in fear when they walk 
into school. People don't know where the next shooter is coming from. 
No place seems safe.
  So what is the Senate Republicans' answer to this paralyzing fear and 
anxiety that Americans have about mass shootings?
  Their answer today is to put a resolution before the floor of the 
Senate that would make legal a new class of semiautomatic rifles that 
has been banned for 100 years because they are too dangerous.
  So the answer to the mass shooting crisis in this country is of more 
assault rifles, more dangerous weapons, and taking a class of weapons 
that has been illegal for a century and putting them on the open 
market.
  That is outrageous, and it is completely removed from the 
conversation that families and kids are having all across this country. 
Instead of taking dangerous assault weapons off the streets, this 
resolution would put more of them into the commercial marketplace.
  I want to talk for a few minutes today about how dangerous this 
resolution is and to ask my Republican colleagues to vote with us--to 
vote with us--against this resolution so that we can protect our 
families and our kids from criminal acts and mass shootings.
  For almost a century, the law has treated different types, certain 
types, of firearms differently than others; namely, those that Congress 
has seen as more dangerous and more closely associated with violent 
crime. Short-barreled rifles are in that category. They are more 
transportable and concealable than long rifles. They have a longer 
range, greater accuracy, and more firepower than pistols. It is kind of 
the perfect recipe for criminals. That is, in part, why they are more 
highly regulated than your standard handgun or your standard hunting 
rifle or even an AR- or AK-style assault rifle.
  To own a short-barreled rifle in this country, you have to pay $200 
for a tax stamp. You have to undergo a background check. You have to 
register that firearm with the ATF. You can have one, but you have to 
go through that process. That system--the courts have agreed--is 
consistent with the Second Amendment. It allows for responsible, law-
abiding citizens to acquire these dangerous weapons while keeping them 
out of the hands of criminals, people who want to commit crimes with 
them.
  Now, what has changed?
  Well, in recent decades, gun manufacturers have responded to the 
widespread popularity of AR-15 rifles by selling a variant that they 
call either a large-format pistol, or a heavy pistol. It is a shorter 
version of an assault rifle. It has a shorter barrel, and it lacks a 
shoulder stock. These guns, theoretically, can be fired one-handed, but 
very few people want to do that. They are too large and heavy to 
control effectively, so they haven't been very popular in the 
marketplace. So the industry figured out a way to make them more 
popular.

  In 2012, the first stabilizing brace was created to help a disabled 
veteran shoot an AR platform pistol one-handed. You kind of see a crude 
version of it here. It was sort of a rubber sling that slipped over the 
buffer tube at the rear of the weapon and then cinched down on the 
shooter's forearm with Velcro straps. This original design solved a 
very specific problem for a disabled shooter, but the gun industry saw 
an opening, and it wasn't about to let that opportunity slip by.
  ``The large format pistol really took off in 2014,'' says one article 
in the NRA's own magazine, Shooting Illustrated. What began as this 
rubber orthotic device turned into something that looked very 
different. It looked exactly like a shoulder stock.
  Manufacturers started designing and marketing stabilizing braces 
designed for disabled individuals that would enable firing from the 
shoulder--firing short-barreled rifles, essentially, from the 
shoulder--and resources popped up all over the internet showing gun 
enthusiasts how to use these pistol braces designed for disabled 
shooters to turn their large-format pistols--not very useful--into 
short-barreled, shoulder-fired weapons.
  Outdoor Life said:

       The AR pistol of yesteryear is not the same platform that 
     shooters are enjoying today for one reason: the stabilizing 
     brace.

  To be clear, it has always been illegal--for 100 years--to modify a 
large-format pistol by adding a stock or a brace for the purpose of 
firing it from the shoulder without going through that process I 
mentioned: getting the tax stamp, going through the background check. 
Whether knowingly or unknowingly, gun owners who modified their 
firearms in this way were creating short-barreled rifles. That is not 
allowed under the law, but manufacturers capitalized on widespread 
ignorance of the law to expand their stabilizing brace designed for 
disabled shooters and selling it as something intended to be fired from 
the shoulder by nondisabled individuals. Their advertising sometimes 
says that they weren't intending it to be fired that way, but over and 
over, you see marketing suggesting something very different.
  So here is what happened. The ATF stepped in to correct this. The ATF 
stepped in to eliminate this ambiguity and just make it clear that, as 
you have not been able for 100 years to turn a short-barreled rifle 
into something you can fire from your--you can't take a pistol and use 
one of these braces to fire from your shoulder, that that needs to be 
the rule and the regulation going forward. So the ATF steps in with a 
pretty simple rule that basically says: If a brace-equipped pistol 
looks like a rifle, fires like a rifle, if the people who made it are 
trying to sell it as a rifle, then it is a rifle.
  There is no ban on these braces or on weapons equipped with them, 
even short-barreled rifles. You just have to abide by the law to 
acquire one, which means a tax stamp, a background check, and 
registration. All we are doing, all the ATF is doing, is essentially 
reaffirming what has been the law for 100 years. If you want a short-
barreled rifle or you want to convert a pistol into a short-barreled 
rifle, you just have to go through that process. Get the tax stamp, go 
through the background check, and register the gun.
  At the same time, there is nothing in this rule to prevent a disabled 
veteran who wants to equip a pistol with a true stabilizing brace that 
is not designed to fire the weapon from the shoulder from doing exactly 
that or to prevent a manufacturer from selling a stabilizing brace 
designed to satisfy those specific needs of the market. But this isn't 
what the gun industry has been selling. The gun industry hasn't been 
selling true stabilizing braces to disable veterans; they have been 
selling an ability to convert a pistol into a short-barreled rifle.
  The opponents of this rule will tell you that it is an 
unconstitutional gun grab. They are not likely to tell you that it is 
just law enforcement doing their job and enforcing a law Congress made 
almost a century ago. The courts have upheld Congress's authority to 
regulate some firearms more stringently than others because they are 
especially dangerous or unusual, which is

[[Page S2203]]

why there is no unrestricted right to own a machine gun or a sawed-off 
shotgun or a short-barreled rifle no matter how it becomes a short-
barreled rifle.
  When Congress passed the National Firearms Act, it chose to regulate 
these dangerous firearms by taxing them and requiring registration. 
Courts have agreed: Possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle 
poses a danger to the community.
  Events have borne this out. Over the last 5 years, unregistered arm-
brace-equipped guns have been used in high-profile mass shootings in 
Dayton, in Boulder, and in Colorado Springs. Mass shooters like these 
unregistered arm-brace-equipped guns.
  This is a good rule. It doesn't make any new law; it merely helps to 
enforce a law that has been on the books for almost a century. The ATF 
is just doing their job.
  To pass this resolution would put onto the conventional commercial 
marketplace a new class of dangerous, concealable assault weapons that 
for 100 years we have had consensus in this country need to be 
regulated in a more comprehensive way.
  The ATF is doing their job, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose 
this resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Kennedy's 
resolution of disapproval of the ATF's stabilizing brace rule. This 
rule is a dangerous attack on every American's Second Amendment rights.
  I want to start by telling you why this is important. Where I live in 
Kansas, typically we will have one sheriff or a deputy on call at a 
time, and he is covering an area of 60 by 40 miles, so often the 
nearest law enforcement officer is 45 minutes to an hour away.
  Like many States, we are seeing an uptick in the rise of crime, with 
fentanyl flooding across our border. Twenty tons of fentanyl has been 
seized. We can't imagine how much came across this open border. But 
along with the fentanyl and the open border, we are seeing crime on the 
rise. More and more families feel afraid that they are not secure. Even 
my own wife 2 weeks ago asked me to take her out to our family gun 
range and give her some lessons on how to handle a weapon as well.
  By the way, women's favorite weapon for self-protection is a short-
barreled rifle. It is what they feel comfortable with. It is not loud. 
It is easy to control.
  Why are we trying to punish Americans who just want to defend 
themselves and practice their Second Amendment rights?
  In complete disregard for Americans' constitutional rights, President 
Joe Biden enacted an unlawful rule banning stabilizing braces--known 
commonly as pistol braces--allowing the ATF the full authority under 
the law to prosecute millions of Americans for firearms they purchased 
perfectly legally. Through Biden's rule, millions of responsible gun 
owners suddenly have become felons.
  As law-abiding Kansans get the book thrown at them under this Second 
Amendment power grab, the President's own son commits an actual gun 
violation felony, and he walks away with a sweetheart deal. I ask you, 
what type of message does that send to law-abiding American gun owners 
across the country? This is wrong. Americans realize this is a double 
standard.
  Sadly, this egregious policy uniquely impacts our Nation's disabled 
veterans who use a pistol brace to handle their firearms. For some of 
these individuals who risked their lives for our freedoms, a pistol 
brace is the only option for safe and effective firearm use. But under 
this ruling, the constitutional right to bear arms is null and void if 
you use a stabilizing brace to operate a firearm.
  That is why the President bypassed Congress and carried out his gun-
grabbing agenda through the regulatory state, demanding his ATF use a 
misguiding interpretation of the National Firearms Act to enforce this 
heavyhanded policy.
  Let me be clear. The National Firearms Act does not--does not--give 
the ATF the authority to ban pistol braces. Congress has not, nor 
should it ever, give the ATF this power.
  This rule represents the largest gun grab in American history, 
potentially impacting as many as 40 million responsible gun owners. We 
refuse to accept the supersized AFT's unconstitutional power grab, and 
I am proud to stand here with Senator Kennedy and defend Kansans' and 
Louisianans' Second Amendment rights.
  I will continue to stand firm here with all of my colleagues and 
oppose this executive overreach by the ATF.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use a prop 
during my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to spend a few minutes talking 
about Senator Marshall's and my legislation to overturn President 
Biden's squid-brained idea with respect to pistol braces.
  The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Mr. President, as you 
well know, gives private citizens the right to possess a firearm, 
including a pistol, and to use it lawfully. That is not a right of 
government; that is a right that each of us has as Americans.
  Justice Scalia said it pretty well in DC v. Heller:

       The American people have considered the handgun to be the 
     quintessential self-defense weapon.

  So many people who are opposed to the Second Amendment--they say they 
are not opposed to the Second Amendment. They say they just want to 
regulate guns. They don't. They want to abolish guns. And many of them 
wouldn't know a gun from a J.Crew catalogue. This is a handgun. This is 
what we are talking about.
  Our Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We know that. It is 
subject to reasonable--reasonable--restriction by government, 
consistent with the Constitution and the country's ``historical 
tradition of firearm regulation.'' Those aren't my words; those are the 
Supreme Court's words. I am quoting New York State Rifle and Pistol 
Association v. Bruen by the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, in many 
States, you can't own a bazooka. That is a reasonable restriction. Your 
right to own a gun can also be restricted if you suffer from mental 
illness. That is what we have concluded as a society as a reasonable 
restriction.

  The issue today is very simple. It is whether President Biden's 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms' new rule, in effect, banning 
or, at a minimum, severely restricting pistol braces is a reasonable 
restriction under the Constitution. That is what we are discussing 
today.
  Trigger warning: This is a pistol brace. I know it is scary. This is 
a pistol brace. It fits on your forearm like this. Here it is right 
here. To the pistol brace is added another piece that grips the 
handgun. That is what we are talking about here.
  A pistol brace is also known--this scary piece of equipment here is 
also known as a stabilizing brace or an arm brace. It is a simple 
device. It is mounted to the rear of the pistol. It is designed to 
anchor the pistol to the shooter's arm, right here--it goes on the 
forearm--so the shooter can shoot the pistol with one hand.
  Now, why is that important? Because some Americans don't have two 
hands or the use of two hands or two arms. Pistol braces were invented 
to help handicapped people, particularly handicapped veterans, who 
don't have the use of both of their arms.
  You don't have to be a handicapped person to use a pistol brace. Some 
studies have shown that there are as many as 40 million pistol braces 
in the United States that President Biden wants to outlaw--not 4 
million, 40 million--and most of them--I would say virtually all of 
them--are owned by law-abiding citizens.
  Now, this pistol brace, other than stabilizing the pistol, it doesn't 
change the pistol in any way. The pistol brace doesn't change the 
caliber of the pistol. It doesn't make it more powerful. The pistol 
brace doesn't change the number of rounds that the pistol can hold. The 
pistol brace doesn't make the pistol an automatic pistol. Automatic 
weapons are forbidden in the United States. And the pistol brace 
doesn't make the pistol fire any faster. The pistol brace also does not 
help the shooter load the pistol more quickly.

[[Page S2204]]

  Except for stabilizing the pistol, it doesn't change the pistol in 
any way. It just makes it easier to hold, which is important 
particularly if you are handicapped.
  As one of my colleagues alluded to, pistol braces were invented in 
2012. They have been legal since. As I said, millions of Americans own 
them. Millions of Americans use them, especially handicapped Americans.
  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms has never had a problem 
with pistol braces--none, zero, zilch, nada--until President Biden 
became President. Now, President Biden and his ATF have promulgated a 
rule. It says attaching a pistol brace to a pistol somehow magically 
stops the pistol from being a pistol and turns it into a short-barreled 
rifle.
  The ATF has defended its proposed new rule, as has President Biden, 
by pointing to two mass shootings that were committed by individuals 
who used pistols with pistol braces.
  Now, why does it matter? Why is the ATF trying to say a pistol is no 
longer a pistol if you use a pistol brace; it is a short-barreled 
rifle? I will tell you why. You don't have to be a Latin scholar to 
figure it out because short-barreled rifles, once again, which the ATF 
says pistol braces turn pistols into, are heavily restricted by the 
National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. That is 
why they want to turn a pistol into a short-barreled rifle by using a 
pistol brace.
  Under these two Federal statutes, if the ATF can succeed, the ATF can 
require the owner of the pistol with the pistol brace to register it 
within 120 days with the ATF. They want to start a gun registry for 
law-abiding Americans. Hello. They want to start a gun registry. If the 
ATF pulls this off, this is what they can do.
  This is what you have to do if you own a pistol brace and you use it 
with your handgun, handicapped or otherwise. You have got to register 
it within 120 days with the ATF. You have got to destroy the pistol 
brace, or you have got to dismantle the pistol brace, or you have got 
to surrender your pistol to the ATF, or you have to destroy your 
pistol.
  And violations: If you don't do what the ATF says, violations of 
these two Federal statutes are punishable by 5 to 10 years in prison 
and fines up to $250,000.
  Stupidity should hurt more. Unless you self-identify as an idiot, you 
can see what is going on here. The American people may be poorer under 
President Biden, but they are not stupid.
  The ATF is trying to keep Americans from owning pistols and/or they 
are trying to keep Americans from owning pistol braces and/or they are 
trying to use this rule to start an extensive national gun registry. 
And the ATF rule is just a backdoor way to subject pistols to more 
smothering regulations.
  I swear to God and all the angels, Americans get so much government, 
they choke on it. They choke on it. Neither the National Firearms Act 
of 1934 nor the Gun Control Act of 1968 mention pistol braces, nor does 
the statute's legislative history.
  Under recent unambiguous decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in West 
Virginia v. EPA, in Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of 
Health and Human Services, and in King v. Burwell--all Supreme Court 
precedent--a regulatory Agency like the ATF does not have the power 
under our Constitution to decide major questions like banning pistol 
braces unless Congress says it is OK, through the text of the statute 
that the Agency is relying on. The statute itself clearly and 
unambiguously has to give the ATF the authority to ban pistol braces, 
and it does not.
  The ATF rule is unconstitutional. It is also unconstitutional under 
the U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol 
Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which was handed down a couple of years 
ago, because banning pistol braces is not part of our country's 
``historical tradition of firearm regulation.''
  The ATF rule also violates, in my judgment, the Americans With 
Disabilities Act of 1990. And finally, the ATF rule and President 
Biden's rule are just--the rule is just plain bottom-of-the-barrel 
moronic.
  Attaching a pistol brace to a pistol, which doesn't change the pistol 
in any fundamental way except stabilizing it, does not stop the pistol 
from being a pistol. It doesn't. And it sure doesn't turn it into a 
short-barreled rifle. Pistols are pistols. Rifles are rifles. Duh. All 
the pistol brace does is allow an American, especially a handicapped 
American, to safely grip a pistol and control it in a safe manner. That 
is all it does. Like I said, stupid should hurt more.
  This ATF rule is why so many Americans wonder how so many 
governmental officials in Washington, DC, made it through the birth 
canal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. SMITH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, America's tragic epidemic of gun violence 
has been made worse by easy access to pistol braces. But today, 
amazingly enough, with all of these mass shootings, Republicans want to 
loosen safety rules regarding these accessories and take us backward in 
the fight against gun violence. It is hard to believe that that is what 
is happening.
  Pistol braces make it easier to conceal and transport weapons that 
function as highly dangerous short-barreled rifles and, in many 
instances, have been accessories of choice in recent mass shootings. 
Some of these mass shooters choose these braces to cause mayhem, and we 
are loosening the rules on them.
  It is hard to believe our Republican friends are doing this. How on 
Earth can Republicans look at our Nation's gun violence and think the 
right answer is to make these accessories easier to own? How can 
Republicans look away from tragedies in Dayton, in Boulder, and in 
Nashville, and in so many other places where pistol braces were 
involved, and conclude that we should reverse commonsense gun safety 
rules?
  When you use a pistol brace, if you are up to bad purpose, it makes 
it easier to conceal a weapon with AR-15-like power.
  Today's Republican push to reverse safeguards against deadly pistol 
braces is an insult to families torn apart by these accessories. It is 
in my mind almost every day, when the shootings occurred in Tennessee 
and the shooter used a pistol brace, and three 9-year-olds were killed, 
as well as three teachers, and you saw the picture of the little girl 
crying on the bus leaving the school because she was so frightened. I 
think of that picture every day.
  This proposal would mark a horrible--horrible--step backward in 
America's fight against gun violence. I urge my colleagues--I hope on 
both sides of the aisle--to vote no.


                          Vote on H.J. Res. 44

  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the joint resolution 
is considered read a third time.
  The joint resolution was ordered for a third reading and was read the 
third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  The yeas and nays have been requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 171 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski

[[Page S2205]]


     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--50

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Coons
       
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 44) was rejected.

                          ____________________