Senate now, i would ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted this congress for darren dodd from the u. S. Secret service and salia m [inaudible] from the department of justice. Without objection. Okay. Today i come to the floor to address my colleagues about the bipartisan resolution of disapproval that i introduced on january 30th along with senator crapo and 24 other cosponsors. This resolution now has 32 cosponsors and, of course, thid resolution of disapproval is absolutely necessary. The resolution is a procedure as we know under the Congressional Review Act for repealing executive branch regulations. The regulation at issue in thisd disapproval resolution was issued by the Social Security administration under president obama. This regulation unfairly stigmatizes people with disabilities. If the regulation is not repealed, it will allow the agency to very unfairly deprive Social Security recipients of their second amount rights Second Amendment rights. The regulation would flult disability recipients being reported to the National Instant criminal background check system as ineligible to own a firearm. And, thus, have their Second Amendment rights violated. Now, this is essentially a national ban gun gun ban list. The agency accomplishes this by doing two things; determining if a person has a disorder on a vague, quoteunquote, mental disorder list and, two, appointing a representative payee to manage benefit payments. Thises process has been in place this process has been in place for years to merely assign a representative payee. Thats merely someone who help the recipient with their finances who is authorized to deal with the bureaucracy on the behalf of that Social Security recipient. Now it is being used to report beneficiaries to a list so thato they cannot buy or own a gun. And, of course, once on that list, individuals ar prohibited as ive already inferred from purchasing, owning and possessing firearms. Thus, violating Second Amendment rights. The regulation is flawed beyond any kind of repair. It results in reporting people to the gun ban list that should not be on that list at all. It deprives those people from their Constitutional Rights and in a very important way violating their Constitutional Rights without even due process. Under current federal law, one must first be deemed mentally defective before being reported to the gun ban list. However, the mental disorder list in this regulation is filled with vague characteristics that do not fit into the federal, quoteunquote, mentally defective standard. The disorder list is inconsistent with the federal mentally defective standard. More importantly, the list was never designed to regulate firearms. As such, it is improper to uses it for that purpose. Many of the disorders on the list are unrelated to gun safety. For example, the disorders list includes eating disorders, disorders that merely impact sleep or cause restlessness and even disorders that could cause, quoteunquote, feelings of inadequacy. Because the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, they government must have a very compelling reason to regulate, and the regulation must be very narrowly tailored. Its unfairly stigmatizes people then with disabilities. The government is essentially saying that a person with a disability such as an eating disorder is more likely to be violent and should no longer be allowed to own a gun. There is no evidence to support that general idea, and consequently, people being denied Constitutional Rights without i due process. And if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their Mental Illness, then the government should have to prove it. Pretty basic constitutional law. The government should have to prove if youre denied a constitutional right. Council the National Council on disabilities and that happens to be a nonpartisan and independent federal agency has said this, quote the rule stigmatizes a group of people or who are not likely to perpetuate the kind of violence the rule hopes to address. Furthermore, it deprives a much broader class of individuals of a constitutional right that was intended by federal law. End of quote. In addition, the American Civil Liberties union has said, and i quote, we oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and Diverse Group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee and a propensity towards gun violence, end of quote by the American Civil Liberties union. The con sor or shut up for consortium for citizens with disabilities, and thats a coalition of 100 National Disability groups, thattium shas consortium shares the same concerns about regulation, and i quote from them the current public dialogue is replete withs inaccurate stereotyping of people with mental disabilities as violent and danger, and there is a real concern that the kind of policy change encompassed by this rule will reinforce those unfounded assumptions, end of quote. In other words, unfounded assumptions about who might be disabled or not. So, mr. President , i ask that these letters be entered into the record. Without objection. Some of the supporters of thu new gun ban have brought forth be forth arguments to try and discredit the other side. They have said that repealing the agency rule will allow the mentally ill to acquire firearms. Let me tell you why that is not true. Under this regulation, the Social Security administration never, ever determines a person to be mentally ill before reporting them to this gun ban list. It does not provide due process before reporting them to the list. The once the agency places a person on this disordered list, it then moves to assign a representativi payee. But that is a very flawed process as well. The former Social SecurityAdministration Inspector general said the following last year in testimony before a committee about assigning a representative payee, a very short quote from the inspector general. It is not a scientific decision, the it is a personal opinion. End of quote. Now, its quite obvious you were our constitution and due process that the personal opinion of ane bureaucrat cannot be the basis for taking away a persons Second Amendment rights. Further, a june 2015 internal Social Security report found significant shortcomings in the representative payee process; i namely that, and i quote from the Social Security report, the Social Security administrations capability determinations were or undeveloped were undeveloped, undocumented and insufficiently documented, end of quote. Now, very legitimate question can be raised, how can any of us be comfortable allowing our fellow citizens to be subjected to such a process, a process that leads to the violation of Constitutional Rights . The regulation does not then require a formal hearing at any point. Federal law and othertions, reqi regulations require that a formal hearing take place. 18usc922 paren d, a paren four p requires adjudication before depriving someone of the right to own a firearm due to Mental Illness. There can be no adjudication if there is no hearing. In a 1996 atf federal register notice says, quote the legislative history of the gun control act makes it clear that a formal adjudication issa necessary before firearms disabilities are incurred, end quote. The Obama Administration knew that fundamental rights required constitutional due process. At the bare minimum, that requires a hearing. Yet in this rule, no hearing is being afforded to that individual that will eventually their have their Constitutional Rights abrogated. And, of course, that ought to be considered not only a travesty, but a travesty on the constitution as well. Na the constitutional due process is entirely nonexistent because there is absolutely no opportunity for an individual to challenge the proceedings against them. The American Civil Liberties union has echoed the same concerns, and i quote from the aclu, the rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the Social Security administrations transmittal of the names to the National Instant criminal background check system database. End of quote from the aclu. The Second Amendment is very much being tossed aside without a formal dispute process to challenge the actions before a constitutional right is abridged. F on these facts alone, the regulation should be repealed, but theres yet more. The regulation tails to establish fails to establish that a person is a danger to themselves or a danger to others before taking away theha Constitutional Rights that the Second Amendment allows. If a right, if a rule premised on safety is to have any credibility, one would obviously think that the government needs to prove a person is dangerous. But this rule fails in that regard because it does not require the agency to find a person is, in fact, dangerous. The Second Amendment is ang fundamental right requiring the government to carry the burden showing a person has a dangerous Mental Illness. O this regulation obviously and simply does not achieve that requirement. To be clear, however, if this regulation is repealed, federal gun probe prohibitions will still exist. Individuals who have proven to be a danger to themselves or a danger to others till be pro will still be prohibited from purchasing firearms. Also individuals who are found to have a dangerous Mental Illness will be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. N also a person convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor crime of Domestic Violence will still be prohibited from purchasing and and own and possessing a firearm. The same for those involuntarily committed to a mental institution. So, prime minister, as government so, mr. President , as government expands, liberty contracts. And it follows that with the expansion of government power is centralized here in this island surrounded by reality that we call washington, d. C. Rather than throughout the americaneop. People. And often with that centralization of power, the centralization of power that you see in this regulation by the Social Security administration, fairness does not necessarily follow. This obama era regulation is a perfect example of government wielding too much power, the our to deny people due process, the power to deny people their Constitutional Rights under the Second Amendment, the process i described here is extremely problematic, and it calls for doing away with this rule by passing this resolution of is disapproval. It is not clear that any of these disorders a person is labeled with has anything whatsoever to do with a persons ability to responsibly own a tire arm. A firearm. And there is insufficient due process to insure that a person actually has a given disorderis that would interfere with their safe use of a firearm. Notably, even a representative payee has been assigned notably, even the if a representative payee has been assigned, the individual still maintains the capacity to contract. Thus, government is subject to a very low threshold to report names to the gun list and no burden of proof being necessary. By contrast, under this regulation those who are reported to the list must prove the negative. Theyve got to prove that the governments wrong. They must prove, in a sense in proving the governments wrong, they must prove that they are not a danger in order to get their name off of that gun ban list. For the government to shift the burden to the citizens whose rights it is depriving is clearly unfair. Ot its not only unfair, its unconstitutional. F the failure to determine a person mentally ill or that person being a danger to self or to others is a material defect to this regulation. Finish and so is the failure to afford constitutional due process. There is no reasonable basis under this regulation to justify abridging that very important fundamental constitutional right, and that is why this regulation must be repealed through the passage of this resolution of disapproval. I yield the floor. Senator oh, can you wait a minute . Mr. President . De i ask unanimous consent that the senate be recess from 12 30 tilling 2 15 today til 2 15 today. Is there objection . Mr. President . Without objection, the senator from [inaudible] mr. President , the senate is currently considering h. J. Res40, a resolution of approval. It infringes on Many AmericansSecond Amendment rights. As the cosponsor of the Senate Companion to this resolution filed by chairman grassley, i would like to add my voice to that of the many advocates,sa including the National DisabilitiesRights Network and groups like the National Rifle associate who work to protect the right of lawabiding gun owners who have expressed support for this important legislation. To i would also like to express my appreciation to chairman grassley and others for their leadership on this issue. This illadvised regulation not only stigmatizes individuals with disabilities, it also violates the Second Amendment and Due Process Rights of Many Americans, and it should be repealed. As a longtime supporter of americans constitutional right to keep and bear arms, i was deeply troubled by thisow regulation which allows the Social Security administration to report individuals they considered in the words used in the regulation to be, quote, mentally defective, unquote, tol the National Institute criminal background check system or niccs as it is called. If they receive Disability Insurance benefits and receive those benefits through a representative payee. When someone receives benefits through ssas representative Payee Program, ssa field Office Employees have deemed them unable to manage their finances. However, ssas representativem Payee Program itself is, by mant accounts, ineffectively administered. And you dont have to take my word for it. As recently as 2013, the Government Accountability office identified that ssa, quote, struggles to effectively administer its Payee Program, unquote. Ere there are unexplained and large sc discrepancies across various regions of the country that ssa serves in numbers of beneficiaries who are assigned by ssa field offices to be in the paywith ee program. Yet despite these known gaps and discrepancies, ssa apparently thought that this system was sufficient to determine whether some beneficiaries should be afforded a constitutional right well, lets be clear. Under ssas rule, individuals who were not found by ssa employees or any other Competent Authority to be a danger to themselves or others but, rather, simply need help managing their finances will be prohibited from legally purchasing a firearm. While we all want to make sure that the niccs system worksnt effectively to prevent violent criminals and those who actually do pose a threat from purchasing firearms, this regulation is exceedingly overbode broad. Overbroad. Moreover, it is not at all clear to me that ssa employees in field offices should be put in charge of deciding who can legally purchase a firearm. Of course, the bureaucracies at ssa who were prodded by the Obama Administration to write the rule say that they will create some sort of internal structure to allow beneficiariei to appeal the decisions of ssa employees. Of course, that means that ssa would shield to construct would need to construct a new costly adjudication system to employees are not well equipped to make in the first place. This is particularly strange is given that it is Standard Practice at ssa to decry the agencys funding [inaudible] while also claiming that it is already unable to adequately serve its beneficiaries due to budgetary shortfalls. Mr. President , all of this simply does not add up. The ssa is not at all equipped for this kind of decision making. Ov moreover, the standards that a would apply under the regulation for ssa to report a beneficiary to the niccs represent a much lower bar than the one anticipated in the applicable federal statutes to determine the eligibility to purchase a firearm. Rc that being the case, we need to resolution of disapproval which has already been approved by the house of representatives with bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues to join me i