Transcripts For CSPAN2 Gun Background Checks 20170215 : vima

Detailee from the secret service and the detailee from the department of justice. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Grassley today i come to the floor to address my colleagues about the bipartisan resolution of disapproval that i introduced on january 30, along with senator crapo, and 24 other cosponsors. This resolution now has 32 cosponsors and this 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 this 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 If the regulation is not repealed, it will allow the agency to very unfairly deprive Social Security recipients of their secondamendment rights. The regulation would result in disability recipients being reported to the National Instant criminal background check system as ineligible to own a firearm, and thus, have their secondamendment rights violated. Now, this is essentially a national ban gun ban list. The agency accomplishes this by doing two things determining if a person has a disorder on a vague quote, unquote, mental disorder list, and, two, appointing a representative payee to manage benefit paymen payments. This process has been in place for years to merely assign a representative payee. Thats merely someone to help a recipient with their finances who was 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 that they cannot buy or own a gun. And, of course, once on that list, individuals are prohibit prohibited, as i have already inferred, from purchasing, owning, and possessing first time, thus, violating Second Amendment rights. The regulation is flawed beyond any kind of repair. It results in reporting people to the gunban list that should not be on that list at all. It tkpr deprives those peep it deprives those people for 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 quote, unquote medically defective standard. The disorder list is inconsistent with the federal mentally defective standard. More importantly, the list was never designed to regulate first time. As such, firearms. As such, it is improper to use 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 quote, unquote, feelings of inadequacy. Because the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, the government must have a very compelling reason to regulate, and the regulation must be very narrowly tailored. Its unfairly steug it 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 anded should no longer 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 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. 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 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. Under of quote by the American Civil Liberties union. The consortium for citizens with disabilities and thats a coalition of 100 National Disability groups that consortium shares the same concerns about regulation, and i quote from them the current public dialogue is replete with 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 have unfounded assumptions. In other words, unfounded assumptions about who might be disabled or not. Mr. President , i ask that these letters be entered into the record. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Grassley some of the supporters of the new gun ban have brought forth arguments to try and discredit the other side. They have said that repealing the agency rule will allow the mentally ill to acquire first time. 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 gunban list. It does not provide due process before reporting them to the list. Once the agency places a person on this disorder list, it then moves to assign a representative payee. But that is a very flawed process as well. The former Social Security Administration 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. It is a personal opinion. End of quote. Now, its quite obvious, under our constitution of due process, that the personal opinion of a bureaucrat cannot be the basis for taking away a persons secondamendment rights. Further, a june 2015 internal Social Security report found significant shortcomings tphp the representative in the representative payee process, name will that, and i quote from the Social Security report. The Social Security capability determinations were undeveloped, undocumented, and insufficient r sufficiently and insufficiently documented. End of quote. A 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 other regulations, require that a formal hearing take place. 18usc4 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. A 1986 federal register notice said, quote, the legislative history of the guncontrol act makes it clear that a formal adjudication is 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 have their Constitutional Rights abrogated. And of course that out to be considered not only a travesty but a travesty on the constitution as well. 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 abridg abridged. On these facts alone, the regulations should be repealed, but theres yet more. The regulation fails to establish that a person is a danger to themselves or a danger to others before taking away the 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 a fundamental right requiring the government to carry the burden showing a person has a dangerous Mental Illness. This regulation obviously and simply does not achieve that requirement. To be clear, however, if this regulation is repealed, federal gun prohibitions will still exist. Individuals who have been determined to be a danger to themselves or a danger to others 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. Also a person convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor crime of Domestic Violence will still be prohibited from purchasing and owning and possessing a firearm. The same for those involuntarily committed to a mental institution. 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 american 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 power 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 disapproval. It is not clear that any of these disorders a person is labeled with has anything whatsoever to do with the persons ability to responsibly own a firearm. And there is insufficient due process to ensure that a person actually has a given disorder that would interfere with their safe use of a firearm. Notably, even a representative payee has been assigned notably, even if a representative payee has been assigned, the individual still maintains the capacity to contract. Thus, the 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 positive that the governments wrong. They must prove in a sense approving 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. Its not only unfair, its unconstitutional. 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. 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. Can you wait a minute. I ask, mr. President , unanimous consent that the Senate Recess from 12 30 to 2 15 today. The presiding officer is there objection . Mr. Hatch mr. President . The presiding officer without objection. The senator from utah. Mr. Hatch mr. President , the senate is considering h. J. Res. 40, disapproval of misguided Social Security administration regulation. That infringes on Many Americans Second Amendment rights. As a cosponsor of the Senate Companion to this resolution which was filed by chairman grassley, i would like to add my voice to that of the many advocates including the National Disabilities rights and network and groups like the National Rifle association who worked to protect the rights of lawabiding gun owners who have expressed support for this important legislation. 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 long time supporter of americans constitutional right to keep and bear arms, i was deeply troubled by this regulation which allows the Social Security administration to report individuals they considered in the words used in the regulation to be quote mentally defectives unquote to the National Instant criminal background system or nics if they have quote mental impairments unquote receive disability benefits and receive them through a representative payee. When someone receives benefits through s. S. A. s Representative Payee Program, s. S. A. Field Office Employees have deemed them unable to manage their finances. However, s. S. A. s Representative Payee Program itself is by many accounts infectively administered and you dont have to take my word for it. As recently as 2013, the Government Accountability office identified that s. S. A. Quote struggles to effectively administer its payee program. Unquote. There are unexplained and large discrepancies across various regions of the country that s. S. A. Serves in numbers of beneficiaries who are assigned by s. S. A. Field offices to be in the payee program. Yet despite these known gaps and discrepancies, s. S. A. Apparently thought that this system was sufficient to determine whether some beneficiaries should be afforded a constitutional right. Well, thats lets be clear. Under s. S. A. s rule, individuals who were not found by s. S. A. 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 nics system works effectively to prevent violent criminals and those who actually do pose a threat from purchasing firearms, this regulation is exceedingly overbroad. Moreover, it is not at all clear to me that s. S. A. Employees in field offices should be put in charge of deciding who can legally purchase a firearm. Of course the bureaucracies in s. S. A. Who were prodded by the Obama Administration to write the rule say that they will create some sort of internal structure to allow beneficiaries to appeal the decisions of s. S. A. Employees. Of course that means that s. S. A. Would need to construct a new costly adjudication system to review decisions that its employees are not well equipped to make in the first place. This is particularly strange given that it is Standard Practice at s. S. A. To decry the agencys funding levels while also claiming that it is already unable to adequately serve its beneficiaries due to budgetary shortfalls. All of this does not add up. The s. S. A. Is at all not equipped for this decision making. Moreover the standards that would apply under the regulation for s. S. A. To report a beneficiary to the nics represent a luch lower bar than the one anticipated in the applicable federal statutes to determine the eligibility to purchase a firearm. That being the case, we need to pass chairman grassleys resolution of disapproval which has already been approved by the house of representatives with bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this resolution and i want to thank my friend from oregon for allowing me to go forward on this short senate remarks. I yield the floor. Mr. Wyden mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from oregon. Mr. Wyden mr. President , i listened carefully to my colleagues on the ot