[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 201 (Wednesday, December 6, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5778-S5780]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 173

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, as I listen to the objection of my 
colleague from Utah, I am really struck by the absurdity and 
exaggeration involved in opposition to these commonsense measures that 
would simply save lives. The idea that we haven't debated background 
checks--what could be more untethered to reality? We have debated 
background checks for as long as I have been in the U.S. Senate and 
before then, when I was attorney general seeking to champion universal 
background checks. We have debated them in the Judiciary Committee ad 
nauseam. And we have shown, through the Bipartisan Safer Communities 
Act, that we can break the hold of the gun lobby that is the source of 
those absurd and ridiculous arguments.
  Background checks take no guns away from any law-abiding citizen. 
They simply assure that people who are dangerous to themselves or 
others don't have them. That is the purpose of red flag laws, which I 
have also championed, and many of the other measures that we seek to 
pass--the repeal of PLCAA, which guarantees unbridled immunity to gun 
manufacturers; ghost guns, which we seek to ban because law enforcement 
finds them so dangerous; and numerous other commonsense measures.
  I am here on behalf of a bill, Ethan's Law, S. 173, which ought to be 
common ground for everyone. It simply requires safe storage. And we 
know that 500 Americans every year, including more than 100 children, 
die from unintentional firearm injuries, many of them involving weapons 
that are unsafely stored.
  There are loaded and unlocked guns in the homes of 4.6 million 
American children, and many of them perish because their parents or 
their neighbors' parents fail to safely store those weapons.
  Nobody knows it better than Kristin Song. Her son died as a result of 
an unsafely stored weapon just after his 15th birthday. He was with a 
friend, and a firearm stored in a Tupperware box was used in play by 
these two young boys. Ethan Song died, and Ethan's Law, which I am 
seeking to pass by unanimous consent today, is in his memory. It was 
passed by the State house of representatives in Connecticut and our 
State senate. And 26 States--red, blue, purple--already have some form 
of safe storage and child access prevention laws on the books.
  We know from the record of these laws in Connecticut that they work; 
they save lives. And we know also that gun owners believe that safe 
storage ought to be the law, ought to be required, ought to be mandated 
so that lives are saved.
  In fact, even the firearms industry--including the National Rifle 
Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation--agree that 
safe storage is a critical part of responsible gun ownership.
  The NRA tells gun owners that ``[s]trong boxes and security cases . . 
. are inexpensive and give . . . quick access to . . . firearms in a 
defensive situation.''
  The NSSF tells gun owners to ``[a]lways make absolutely sure that 
firearms in your home are securely stored out of the reach of children 
and . . . unauthorized persons.''
  Ninety percent of the guns used in unintentional shooting deaths by 
children were left unlocked and loaded. The numbers are outrageous and 
depressing, but we can do something, and we should do something. And 
that is why I am here today to urge that we pass a bill that ought to 
be common ground--bipartisan common ground--and show that, in fact, 
democracy can work. We can pass measures that save lives that should be 
bipartisan. There ought to be no Republican versus Democratic debate on 
this floor or anywhere else. It ought to be a matter of

[[Page S5779]]

common sense and common agreement across the aisle.
  Mr. President, so as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 173 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; I further ask that this bill be considered read a third 
time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table.
  No single gun owner will lose a gun--none--as a result of this 
measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. BUDD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I oppose S. 
173 for a simple reason. It is unconstitutional in a number of ways.
  First, the bill infringes on the Second Amendment rights of law-
abiding citizens by placing burdens on a citizens' right to keep and 
bear arms within a home.
  Second, this bill thrusts the Federal Government into an area that is 
reserved to the States, thus violating the principle of federalism.
  The laws in Connecticut and the laws in North Carolina should reflect 
the values and behaviors of those respective States. Simply put, a one-
size-fits-all approach doesn't fit the needs of our constituents.
  Thirdly, Congress does not have the power under the commerce clause 
of the Constitution to pass the bill.
  A law-abiding gun owner with a firearm in their home doesn't qualify 
as interstate commerce, and the Federal Government has no right to 
infringe upon it.
  Fourth, this bill duplicates existing laws and practices that are in 
place at the State level.
  My colleague mentioned some of those. He mentioned State laws. For 
example, in North Carolina, we have criminal penalties for adults who 
improperly store a firearm in a way that allows a minor to obtain it 
and commit a crime.
  Finally, this bill would make it harder for law-abiding gun owners to 
defend themselves and their loved ones.
  At a time when our cities and our towns are plagued by waves of 
crime--often made worse by the soft-on-crime policies of Democrat 
politicians--it makes no sense for the Federal Government to make it 
illegal for homeowners to quickly defend themselves inside their own 
home.
  Just this year in North Carolina, in my own State alone, there have 
been at least 13 documented instances of defensive gun use in the 
home--defensive gun use. In these instances, North Carolina residents 
have used guns to defend themselves against home invasion, assaults, 
domestic violence, and residential burglars.
  No matter what somebody believes about the Second Amendment, we share 
the desire to protect our kids and to keep them safe. We all want our 
kids to be safe. That is why gun rights groups across the country have 
safety courses, online materials, and in-person training to teach 
citizens--both young and old--how to safely own, operate, and enjoy 
firearms.
  Now is not the time for more unconstitutional proposals that will not 
ultimately keep people safe. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, 10 years I have been in this incredible 
institution, the U.S. Senate, and I am stunned that we are still having 
this debate.
  We know, if you read our Constitution, that we formed our form of 
government with lots of high callings, but the first is to provide for 
the national defense.
  It is astonishing to me that the No. 1 killer--the No. 1 threat--the 
No. 1 issue facing our children in America is death by gun violence. 
This is a purview of the Federal Government as is written by our 
Constitution.
  And the Second Amendment, like the First Amendment, is not absolute. 
You can't yell ``fire'' in a crowded movie theater. There are 
limitations on our fundamental rights.
  Don't take my word for it; take the Supreme Court of the United 
States. A conservative Court in the Heller decision made it very clear 
that government can take steps--reasonable steps--to protect our 
Nation.
  So what does it mean in a country when the top killer of our children 
is gun violence, and we cannot take commonsense steps like the ones 
spelled out in the law that was just objected to? Safe storage of 
weapons, this is not an infringement of someone's right to own a gun. 
Safe storage of weapons, this is not taking away someone's gun. Safe 
storage of weapons, this is not a violation of someone's fundamental 
rights.
  What it is, is a reasonable step to protect children because 90 
percent of the kids in our country who are dying by suicide or 
unintentional shootings are in homes where a loaded gun is easily 
accessible to children--children as young as 3 years old getting their 
hands on these weapons.
  Over 40,000 Americans die in a year to gun violence, and the response 
of this body is to do nothing. Forty-thousand Americans, the No. 1 
killer of our children, and instead of seeing this as a crisis, as far 
as having special hearings and gatherings to put our minds together in 
a bipartisan way, how do we stop our children from dying, how do we 
stop our children from being slaughtered--instead of this being 
something that is concerning us to do something, we do nothing.
  And I am sorry, inaction is complicity in this violence. If you 
object to this, what is your idea to protect our children? If you 
object to this, what is your idea to stop so many kids, so many 
Americans from dying? Tell me what it is because Martin Luther King 
said it plain, in another point in American history, in another crisis. 
He said: What we will have to repent for as a nation is not just the 
vitriolic words and violent actions of the bad people but the appalling 
silence and inaction of the good people.
  And so I know this body. I know the good, hard-working, dedicated 
Americans who serve here. But the inaction is appalling. The inaction 
is complicity. The strongest Nation on the planet Earth gives the 
implicit messages to our children and their parents: We can't protect 
you. So you know what we are going to do? We are going to teach you how 
to hide because we are now in a nation where there are more active 
shooter drills than there are fire drills.
  What message is this to our children and our families that we are 
saying we are going to do nothing? Another year will pass, another 
40,000 Americans are going to die, and we do nothing to protect you.
  That is unacceptable to me. We are better than this. We are stronger 
than this. The very ideal of liberty should be that our people should 
not live in fear. But by our inaction, we have a nation where people 
all over our country are now chained to fear, shackled by grief, 
communities ripped apart, families in mourning. And a simple step in 
America, a simple Federal law like seatbelt laws, a simple Federal law 
like the safety of our airplanes, a simple Federal law to address the 
No. 1 cause of killing of our children, that if you have a loaded 
firearm at home, you should lock it up and keep it away from a child, 
we can't do that.
  Well, Merry Christmas, America. The most urgent and basic thing this 
body should do is to protect children. And the No. 1 cause of child 
death in America, what have we done this year? Nothing--nothing.
  This is a time we should act. This is a time we should join together. 
I call on my Republican colleagues to put forth one idea that will save 
a child from gun violence, to show that your allegiance is to safety 
and security.
  No other country deals with this. We are an aberration when it comes 
to deaths by gun violence. No other nation allows their children to be 
slaughtered--Canada, New Zealand. I can tell you the nations that have 
taken action and, as a result, have seen a dramatic drop in the numbers 
of deaths.
  We are an exceptional country, but in this case, being the exception 
is horrific to too many. And so I am disappointed to sit here and 
witness an objection, but I am relentless. We must be undeterred 
because change is not always easy. But in this case, we, as a country, 
with thousands of our children dying every year, must stay determined 
to make the change necessary for us to protect the people of this great 
Republic.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

[[Page S5780]]

  

  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to speak for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.