Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 198, I call up the bill (H.R. 1181) to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under which certain persons may be treated as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 1181.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, too often, as Americans, we tend to take our freedom for granted. We should never forget we owe the freedom to our Nation's veterans. That is why it is so egregious that many veterans come home to find that they have to do battle with the VA--the very agency that is supposed to help and support them--to protect their own constitutional rights. The problem occurs when VA, for whatever reason, determines that a veteran needs assistance managing his or her VA financial benefits and decides to appoint a fiduciary.

Now, there may be many reasons that a veteran might need a fiduciary, such as a veteran who has TBI may have trouble with math and struggles to balance his or her checkbook. But it is important to remember that the decision to appoint a fiduciary is made by a VA bureaucrat, not a judge or a magistrate after ensuring that veteran's due process rights are protected.

Unfortunately, there are serious, unintended consequences when VA appoints a fiduciary. This is because, once VA decides that the beneficiary needs help with finances, even though there may be no evidence that the individual may be a danger to himself or others, the Department sends his or her name to the FBI to be added to the NICS list.

As you know, anyone whose name is on the NICS list is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm. This means that the veteran can no longer participate in sports like hunting or target shooting. The veteran is also legally obligated to relinquish any firearms he or she owns, including collector's pieces and family heirlooms.

I am opposed to the VA's existing policy not only because it deprives veterans of their constitutional rights without due process of law, I am also concerned that these veterans are not able to participate in recreational therapy programs like VA's program at the VA Grand Junction medical center in Colorado that enables veterans with physical and mental disabilities to go hunting or shooting. I know from personal experience that these therapy programs are very effective in helping these heroes recover from injuries that they have received while serving our country.

It is unfortunate that some of the opponents of this bill are perpetrating the outdated stereotypes that people who are mentally ill may be violent and should be feared. I am concerned that these false characterizations may actually deter people from seeking the health services they need.

It is hard enough for some people to admit they need help, Mr. Speaker, but image how much more difficult it is when they fear that they would be stigmatized and isolated. It is also possible that some veterans decide to avoid using VA healthcare services all together out of fear that a VA bureaucrat may decide that they are incompetent and take away their constitutional rights.

Let's take a look at the people who actually are added to the NICS list as a result of the Veterans Administration's appointing a fiduciary.

There are currently more than 1,000 children under the age of 20 here on the NICS list, likely because VA appointed a fiduciary because they are too young to handle their own money.

VA has also added the names of 107,000 people over 80 years old to the NICS list. These individuals probably just need help with their finances due to their advanced age.

But should VA really take away the Second Amendment rights from our Nation's seniors, particularly those who fought for the country? It is outrageous that the only group of people that can have their constitutional rights taken away without a hearing before a judge or magistrate are the very people who fought for those rights and their dependents. Even criminals must be convicted in a court of law before their names are added to that list, Mr. Speaker.

H.R. 1181 would simply prohibit VA from sending veterans' names to the NICS list unless there is an order from a judge or a magistrate that says the person may harm themselves or others.

This proposal has enjoyed bipartisan support in the past. In 2011, the House passed H.R. 2349, which included similar provisions, by voice vote. And just last month, both the House and Senate passed H.J. Res. 40, which prevented the Social Security Administration from implementing a similar policy to report the names of some people who have received disability insurance benefits to NICS.

H.R. 1181 also has wide support among the veterans community, including the American Legion, the VFW, and AMVETS. H.R. 1181 is also supported by the National Disability Rights Network and the National Rifle Association. Additionally, H.R. 1181 has a positive statement of the administration's support.

Mr. Speaker, veterans who fought to defend the Constitution should also be allowed the rights it protects. I urge all Members to support H.R. 1181. It is the right thing to do, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In America, the last time I looked, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. What we have done with these veterans who have served this country, many of them injured in combat, is we have said you are guilty and you have to prove you are innocent to be able to own a firearm in your own home.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, people who are in a fiduciary status actually statistically have a slightly lower incarceration rate than veterans who are not. So to say that they are a danger to themselves or a danger to others is erroneous.

The other thing I would like to say is that the 21st Century Cures Act, Mr. Speaker, has codified basically the VA policy is what it did. It did not change the policy. What we are saying to veterans is that if you are an honorably discharged veteran who needs a fiduciary for whatever reason, you automatically lose a constitutionally guaranteed right.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), an active member of the Veterans Affairs' Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The text of this bill does not remove the names of anyone who is currently on the NICS list. It simply prohibits the VA Secretary from continuing to send the names of beneficiaries who utilize a fiduciary to the NICS list. And there is nothing in the bill that would require the VA Secretary to take any action with respect to those already on the list.

Just one other thing, Mr. Speaker, to show you how the VA's policy is not consistent: just as an example, a veteran who is rated at 100 percent disabled for PTSD is not automatically given a fiduciary, even though the symptoms required for that rating may include suicidal or homicidal ideation. So they are very inconsistent about how they do this. And of the 915,744 veterans who have a service-connected PTSD condition, only 1.7 percent of them have a fiduciary. Remember, they lose their constitutionally guaranteed right.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a hardworking member of this conference.

Mr. Speaker, once again, let me state this for the record. The text of this bill does not remove the names of anyone who is currently on the NICS list, except it prohibits the VA Secretary from continuing to send the names of the beneficiaries who utilize a fiduciary to the NICS list.

I don't want guns in the hands of anybody who should not own a gun who is mentally unstable, but what we are saying is that a VA rater should be a judge or a magistrate, where you can argue both sides of this in front of them. It shouldn't be a VA bureaucrat that is doing this.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I guess by listening to the debate that is going on, one would assume that someone who has a fiduciary would be a danger to themselves and others, and I think that is completely erroneous to assume that.

Let me read you excerpts of a floor statement that Senator Burr made in 2009 to show you how this can get off track. And we are going to put sort of a human face on this, just an excerpt from a letter that Jennifer wrote as the wife of Corey.

``Corey served in Iraq. He was a paramedic. He was severely injured by an IED explosion in 2004, which caused severe burns, damage to his lungs, and severe traumatic brain injury after shrapnel entered his skull. Corey spent . . . 5 years recovering from his injuries. Jennifer reports that he is walking, talking, and enjoying life at home with his two children.

``Now it gets really sad. Because of his head injury, Corey still requires help with certain things. The VA said he needed help managing his disability compensation payments, and they named Jennifer, his spouse, as his fiduciary''--his wife. ``That is where I would like to read you her letter. Again, I quote from the letter:

`` `On May 19, 2009, we had our annual fiduciary meeting with the VA field examiner. At the end of the meeting, our field examiner said he needed to read a statement to us. He read the Brady Bill statement and then stated that Corey can't own, possess, use, be around, et cetera, any firearms. He then went on to say that anyone in our household can't own a gun while living in this household.

`` `I asked him about Corey going on adaptive hunting trips and he said he couldn't. Corey stated that he had a gun that was handed down from his grandfather and that Corey was going to hand it down to his son, and the field examiner told him that he couldn't have it. He stated to Corey that if he did own a gun or be around a gun that he would be threatened with imprisonment.

`` `The way that that field examiner talked to Corey about this issue was not appropriate. The field examiner said that I could challenge it and handed me a blank sheet of paper with a VA heading. I asked the field examiner for the statement that he read to me, but he said that he had to ask his boss if he could actually provide a copy of that statement. After 2 weeks of me emailing him, I finally got the attached papers in the mail. I think the VA is taking this way out of concept, and I would greatly appreciate your support.'

``Well, in case any of my colleagues think the government would never prosecute someone like Corey for possession of a firearm, being around a firearm, I wish to read to my colleagues excerpts from the VA directive that went out to all VA regional offices on September 29, 2009, on this very issue.

``The directive is meant to inform fiduciary field examiners of their obligation if they were to witness a violation of the Brady Act. I am going to quote from this VA memorandum to the field examiners.

`` `Field examiners or other VA employees who encounter beneficiaries believed to be in violation of the Brady Act are required to notify the fiduciary activity manager as soon as safely possible. At no time should the employee place him/herself in danger. The fiduciary activity manager at the VA regional office of jurisdiction must immediately report the alleged violation to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,' '' and here is the number.

And that is straight out of their memorandum, Mr. Speaker.

We don't want weapons, no one in this room, and none of my colleagues on the VA Committee, Republican or Democrat, want weapons in the hands of someone that is considered dangerous. But we have American heroes that are being denied their Second Amendment right to even keep their grandfather's gun. I feel that, if you want to go and have your due process rights in front of a court of law or magistrate, that is perfectly okay. That is the way our system works. But not a VA rater. They don't get to do that. And I think, by passing this bill, we will guarantee those rights to our American heroes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I include in the Record two documents from the VFW and The American Legion supporting this legislation.

Veterans of Foreign Wars

of the United States,

March 8, 2017.

Hon. David P. Roe,

Chairman, House Veterans' Affairs Committee, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Roe: On behalf of the men and women of the

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) and our

Auxiliary, I am pleased to offer the VFW's support for H.R.

1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.

It is unconscionable to require veterans to choose between

the care they have earned and deserve and their

constitutional rights. Your legislation would ensure veterans

who suffer from mental health conditions no longer have to

worry about losing their 2nd amendment rights when seeking

potentially lifesaving mental health care. By elevating the

threshold for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal

Background Check System, this important legislation would

help destigmatize mental health and protect veterans'

constitutional rights.

The VFW commends your leadership on this issue and your

commitment to our nation's veterans. We look forward to

working with you to ensure the passage of this important

legislation.

Sincerely,

Carlos U. Fuentes,

Director,

VFW National Legislative Service.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, served in the military as a military doctor in the 2nd United States Infantry Division in Southeast Asia many years ago, so I have seen patients who were mentally ill. One of the things that has bothered me is that we are perpetuating an outdated stereotype that mentally ill people are prone to violence. Most are not, and perpetuating this stereotype that they are may result in their being isolated or not seeking treatment. This is unfortunate for people who suffer from mental illness and need support and understanding.

I think we do them a great disservice. My bill would require a court of law rather than a VA rating specialist--that is all we are saying here--to determine whether an individual actually poses a danger to themselves or others before their name gets sent to the FBI and added to the NICS list. A VA employee should not be able to add a veteran's name to a NICS list before that veteran has been afforded due process.

Let me explain how bad it really is. It is outrageous that a criminal has more rights than a veteran when it comes to being placed on the NICS list--at least they aren't added to the list until they have been convicted by a judge or a jury, Mr. Speaker. We should at least treat our American heroes that well.

Here is another point I would like to make: a veteran that has been rated--listening to the debate to show you how the VA system is not a standard for everyone. A VA veteran rated 100 percent for PTSD does not automatically get a fiduciary because they are 100 percent service- connected disabled because of their service even though the symptoms require that, for that rating, it may include suicidal or homicidal ideation.

All we are saying--and I think, hopefully, everyone would agree--is that you deserve as an American citizen--and especially an American citizen, Mr. Speaker, who has served this country whether in combat or not, who has served his country in the military--your day in court and at least be heard by a judge and jury.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this proposal is not new. It has been passed out of committee in 2010, 2011, 2013, and this year. It passed the full House, H.R. 2349, in the 112th Congress, which is included in this proposal, by a voice vote.

On February 2, the House approved H.J. Res. 40, which nullified the Social Security Administration rule that would have similarly restricted the Second Amendment rights to certain disabled people who require help managing their finances. There is no reason that veterans who have fiduciaries should be treated any differently than Social Security beneficiaries who need help managing their finances.

Next, Mr. Speaker, veterans who need fiduciaries are not necessarily mentally ill. A veteran may not be able to handle his or her finances due to conditions such as traumatic brain injury. Furthermore, The American Legion testified in 2015 about a case in which the VA declared a veteran incompetent because he told his doctor he didn't pay his bills. But, in reality, the veteran didn't pay his bills because, like a lot of us, of the division of household responsibilities. His wife paid the bills, and he got caught up in that. Then to get out of it is a chore.

I wanted to say, once again, I really feel strongly about this because we worked on the 21st Century Cures bill on removing the stigma of mentally ill people that because someone is mentally ill, they are a danger to themselves or others. Perpetuating this stereotype, I think, is dangerous. I think it keeps people from coming in and seeking the help that they need.

Also, and I have participated in this, Mr. Speaker, at home where we have used hunting trips or fishing trips to help veterans with PTSD get back on their feet and assume--instead of treating it as a disability and saying: We are going to get you well and back on your feet and be a productive member of society.

I am afraid if we stereotype this, we will prevent people from coming in for the very needed help that they so richly have earned and need.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as all of us in this incredible place that we are in, the House of Representatives in the Capitol of the U.S., our hearts go out to everyone, especially the families, of all those touched by that horrible tragedy that was just described. I am willing to work with anyone on the committee or otherwise in a reasonable way to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and people who are dangerous. There is no question we are all willing to do that. But that case did not involve a veteran who had a fiduciary.

I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment even if others aren't. I think we can all agree that veterans should not be denied the same due process rights that all other Americans receive. What this bill does is ensure that veterans do not lose their constitutional rights without a judicial hearing.

The freedoms granted under the Constitution of this great country should apply to all Americans, especially those who have been willing to put their lives at risk to protect those same freedoms. It is wrong for veterans and beneficiaries who use a fiduciary to lose their Second Amendment right without due process.

This commonsense bill would ensure that no veteran or beneficiary is declared mentally defective simply because a VA rater appoints someone to assist with the management of that person's financial affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as all of us in this room are, I am personally devastated that our Nation loses 20 of our finest citizens to suicide every day. Ending this tragedy is one of the top priorities we have on the Veteran Affairs' Committee and as a nation. We have and will continue to work with the VA to develop programs that will effectively help identify and treat veterans who may be considering ending their own lives.

But denying veterans who have fiduciaries their constitutional rights will not end veteran suicide. It is unfair to paint all veterans who may need a fiduciary with the same broad stroke and to assume that just because someone needs assistance with their financial affairs, that they may also be violent and a danger or they are contemplating suicide. That is just plain wrong.

It is unfortunate that the arguments advanced by some of the opponents of this bill reinforce the false impression that people who suffer from mental health challenges--and veterans, in particular--are dangerous. There is no evidence that people who suffer from mental illness are more likely to be more violent than people in the general population--just none. I am convinced that perpetuating this outdated and incorrect stereotype makes the situation worse, deterring people from seeking the very health services that they need.

It is difficult for some folks to admit they need help. I saw patients like that for years who finally broke down in my office and explained that they were depressed or whatever the situation may be. Imagine how much harder it is when people feel that they will be stigmatized or isolated because other people may fear them?

By passing this bill, Congress will send a strong message that people who suffer from mental illness are owed the same respect and have the same constitutional rights as every other American citizen.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of our Members to support H.R. 1181, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for extending me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we are only one month into 2017; and today we have another closed rule or, as I call them now, Putin rules. This is the kind of process they have in Russia: no amendments, no debate, no nothing, completely shut down. It is your way or the highway.

This is not the way the United States House of Representatives, the greatest deliberative body in the world, should be run. This is shameful. I have very serious concerns about the road that we are traveling down, Mr. Speaker.

The 115th Congress is only a few weeks old, and we have already ushered in a process that is alarmingly restrictive. Sadly, it has become routine in this Republican House for the majority to close down the process, rush bills through the House without regular order, enforce the rules for Democrats but not for Republicans, and insist on spending all of our time on partisan legislation instead of working together to find bipartisan compromises and solutions to the real problems facing American families and workers.

Mr. Speaker, today's legislation makes clear that the Republicans are eager to repeal protections put in place to help the American people. We should be working to expand opportunity for hardworking families and strengthen safeguards to put the American people first, not corporations, not wealthy CEOs, not big donors, and not special interests, but the people ought to come first.

Today is another sad day. We are engaged in what I would call mindless legislating. While my Republican friends say they want to repeal needless regulation--something that we all want to do--the process my Republican friends have embraced, to put it gently, is reckless. No matter what you think of a particular regulation, or rule--or, in many cases, they are protections--no matter what you may think of a particular regulation, there is no denying that these rules that my Republican friends are bringing to the floor to repeal went through a vigorous process that took months and months, and even years to complete.

They went through agency review. They went through a lengthy comment period, oftentimes thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people weighed in on the pros and cons of a particular idea. But the idea that we would just erase them with the blink of an eye, no hearings, no markups, nothing, it is a mindless way to legislate and a disturbing way to govern.

The ``act first and think later'' approach was on full display with President Trump's Muslim ban. It was so hastily enacted that his own Secretary of Homeland Security didn't even know that the President was signing the executive order until he saw it on cable news. The Trump White House did such a poor job of briefing the Federal agencies charged with enforcing the policy that airports across the country were caught completely off guard, and there was widespread confusion and chaos about how to carry it out.

That is what happens when you don't embrace a process that is thoughtful. You get confusion, you get chaos, and you usually get bad policy.

The mindless approach to governing by Republicans continued this week. On Monday, President Trump announced that, for every new regulation passed, two regulations must be repealed. That is it. No details on what kind of regulations would be repealed, or why they would be repealed. This is a blind shotgun and arbitrary approach to our Nation's laws. We shouldn't be dumbing down the way we govern. The American people deserve better from their leaders in Congress, and I think they deserve better from their leaders in the White House.

Now, when this legislation came before the Rules Committee the other night, there were plenty of questions. The hearing went on for a long time. Lots of the questions came from my Republican friends. And I will tell you, the chairman's answers were not always that enlightening. I think maybe some more hearings would have helped. But in response to some of these objections, namely, did the bill undergo any review by a committee, one of my Republican friends--and it may have been the gentleman from Colorado--said: We don't have time. We don't have time for hearings. We have so many regulations that we want to repeal.

Don't have the time for a hearing? Don't have the time to understand what we are doing? I thought that was part of our job. We were supposed to deliberate. We were supposed to read the bill. We were supposed to understand the impact of the actions that we may or may not take in this Congress. That is our job.

The American people have given us the responsibility to take the time to do our job right and to carefully consider the laws we pass. To say that we don't have time for hearings and deliberation--never mind, we don't have time to allow an open process where people might want to offer amendments--is ridiculous. It is shameful. And I will tell my Republican friends, stand up to your leadership on this. This is not the way this House should be run.

So as we consider the repeal of the NICS rule, we should remember that Congress has failed to take any meaningful action on gun violence at all. We have massacres on a regular basis in this country. All we do is we have a moment of silence. That is our response. We have a high rate of suicides in this country due to gun violence. It is something we ought to talk about. And I think that the NICS rule is a commonsense, responsible gun safety measure that could potentially save the lives of thousands of people in this country. I think Congress has the responsibility to keep our families safe, not remove safeguards that help prevent gun violence.

Far too many have lost their lives to preventable gun violence. This rule is intended to keep firearms out of the hands of those suffering from severe mental illness. That is a commonsense idea that I think we all should agree on. In 2007, President George W. Bush signed a bipartisan bill to identify individuals ineligible to possess firearms because of severe mental health issues. This rule allows for a reporting method to ensure that the law is implemented effectively.

It is intended to save lives. Every year in the United States, more than 21,000 people kill themselves, and mental illness is also an important factor. A gun is used in the majority of these cases. The people listed on NICS are the 75,000 dealing with the most severe mental illnesses. These are people who need help, not access to a dangerous weapon like a gun.

I think this rule is a critical step, but we must close the online gun show loopholes, and we must ensure universal background checks. I think we ought to bring to the floor a bill that says that if the FBI and our security agencies have put you on a terrorist watch list and think that you are too dangerous to fly on an airplane, then you ought not to be able to go out and buy a gun.

But under the way this House is run, we can't even bring those things to the floor for a debate. The Republican leadership and the Republican Rules Committee blocks it so that there can't be real deliberation on the House floor.

When people ask me all the time, Why can't you have a debate on this, or why can't you have a vote on it, I have to explain that the House Rules Committee, run by nine Republicans, says

no to everything, says no to every idea that they don't absolutely embrace. And that is not the way Congress should be run.

Mr. Speaker, even if you disagree with me on the value of this rule, I think it is an important enough issue that there ought to have been a hearing. There ought to have been that opportunity to deliberate and to talk about it and what the impacts are. But no, nothing. We don't have the time. So here we are.

Mr. Speaker, the other bill before us is a naked attempt by Republicans to undo anticorruption rules. The rule that they are so upset about would require energy companies on the U.S. stock exchange to disclose payments they make to foreign governments for access to their natural resources.

Now, there are reasons for this. It is important that there be transparency. We heard all about the plans to drain the swamp, but President Trump and the Republicans are doing all they can to turn the swamp into a cesspool.

Putting aside all of his conflicts of interest that, I think, are on a collision course with corruption, I mean, repealing things like this, is just a bad idea. The Republicans in Congress are trying to roll back regulations like this one that are aimed at increasing transparency and fighting corruption.

ExxonMobil heavily lobbied against this rule. And now, with former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson on the cusp of becoming our country's new Secretary of State, Republicans are proposing to kill this anticorruption rule that benefits Big Oil. That is reckless, and it is irresponsible.

When this rule was enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank bill in 2010, the Big Oil lobbies strongly fought against it in court, but Congress fought back to assert America's traditional role as a global leader in fighting corruption. American leadership delivered results. The European Union promptly moved to enact nearly identical legislation, as did Canada with support of its global mining companies.

But now, Big Oil is back seeking repeal of the rule so their payments can be kept secret from the American people. They claim they will be at a competitive disadvantage to foreigners, or they will have to reveal commercially sensitive information.

But with Europe and Canada in the same disclosure system, the playing field is now level and the companies already filing have suffered no commercial harm, nor revealed vital secrets. The fact is, this won't cost a single American job, and the only thing oil companies will need to do differently is report their numbers.

Aside from Big Oil, those most eager to repeal this rule are autocrats in places like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela--with oil wells, gas fields, or copper mines--who want to keep the money secret from their citizens. Why should we do their bidding? Why should we be in league with them?

On top of that, this rule is our most affordable and effective way to fight corruption abroad. We cannot afford to betray our own principles and severely undercut our allies in Europe and Canada. It would cost countless lives over the long run and endanger our security. We need to put American interests first, ahead of the special interests, ahead of the corporate interests, and retain that important rule.

Obviously, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the repeal of these two rules, but you got to do what you got to do. But I urge you to vote ``no'' on this rule.

And I ask you to vote ``no'' because it should be a principle vote.

This place is becoming so closed up, so restrictive, that this is not a deliberative body anymore. We are not talking about things anymore. It is basically whatever the leadership wants, whatever Donald Trump wants, you bring to the floor, rubber stamp it, and that is it.

I don't care what political party you are in, nobody who got elected by the people of this country should stand for that kind of process.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

With regard to the NICS bill, I have a very different version of history than the gentleman does, including one that represents a bipartisan compromise with the Bush White House.

So I have a very, very different recollection of history than he does on that. And on the other bill, it is all about corruption, and it is all about giving Big Oil what they want.

At the end of the day, the two interests that are most happy with the repeal of this rule are Big Oil and Russia. And if that is where we believe that we ought to be using our energy to help then go ahead and vote to repeal it. But again, I think that this process speaks for itself.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and, if they do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lofgren's bill to overturn and defund President Trump's immoral, unconstitutional, and discriminatory executive order banning Syrian refugees and suspending immigration from certain countries.

President Trump's executive order flies in the face of our Nation's values. It compromises our national security by providing terrorist groups with a recruiting tool. This executive order needs to be overturned, and, if we defeat the previous question, we will bring up legislation to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) to discuss our proposal.

Does the gentleman have any other speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again, as my distinguished colleague, Ms. Lofgren, stated, we want to defeat the previous question because we are horrified, quite frankly, by the impact that President Trump's executive orders on immigration have had on a lot of good, decent people, many of whom have already been vetted. We have students who have been held up who have student visas, we have dual citizens who have been caught up in this mess, and we have people coming to get human rights prizes. I could go on and on and on, but we need to correct this. We are better than this.

I would suggest to my Republican friends, rather than circling the wagons to try to defend the indefensible, they ought to join with us and defeat the previous question so that we can actually do the right thing and overturn this narrowminded, misguided, and discriminatory policy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Colorado if he has additional speakers or is that the speaker we were waiting for?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am not sure where to begin, because I have heard so many fascinating things here today.

The distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said we are here today to enunciate the rules. I don't know what there is to enunciate. The only thing to enunciate is this is a closed rule. It is yet another closed rule. There is no opportunity to have any real deliberation, no real discussion. On top of that, there were no hearings on any of this stuff.

No matter what your position is, I have to be honest with you, listening to the gentleman, Mr. Massie, just speak, I think it would have been nice if the Judiciary Committee could have actually had a hearing on this and maybe delved into some of the issues that the gentleman raised.

When people say that there is no due process, I would remind them that, under the rule, impacted beneficiaries are notified that this determination is being considered and they are provided a process to challenge that determination. Should the Social Security Administration determine that that recipient is able to safely use or possess guns, rights are restored and the person's name is removed from NICS. That is what it says.

Now, if there is a way to improve this, I am all for improving it; but by passing this measure here today, you prevent the agencies that are impacted here from ever being able to revisit the issue unless Congress deemed it appropriate.

So we are not trying to fix anything here. Basically, what we are doing is the bidding of the National Rifle Association to eliminate anything aimed at protecting people from gun violence in this country.

The gentleman from Colorado talked about the fact that his constituents want the right to protect their rights for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well, my constituents want that, too, but they have a right to not have to be victims of gun violence. They have a right to protect their loved ones who may use a weapon against themselves or their family members.

But again, we can have this argument on whether or not we should do more--and I believe we should--to protect people in this country from gun violence, but that discussion ought to have happened first in the Judiciary Committee, at a minimum, not in the Rules Committee. I am on the Rules Committee. I admire the intellect of everybody on the Rules Committee, but our expertise is not on judiciary matters.

Similarly, on the other rule that is being repealed, the Financial Services Committee should have deliberated on that. I think there are some serious issues raised by repealing that rule, issues that I think go to the heart of corruption not only here in the United States, but around the world.

When the chairman of the Rules Committee got up and gave his description that somehow the U.S. oil companies are only being singled out, it makes my case why we should have had a hearing. What he just said, in my opinion, does not reflect reality.

The fact of the matter is, I looked at section 1504 of Dodd-Frank. It doesn't just require all extractive companies in the U.S. It says that all extractive companies, U.S. and foreign, listed on the U.S. exchanges are to publicly disclose the payments they make to governments for oil, gas, and mining resources.

And then, on top of that--and I said this earlier--is that other countries have followed suit. Canada and the European Union and Norway have all passed similar laws. It is not just the United States being singled out. That is just wrong. Maybe, if we had a hearing in the committee of jurisdiction, that would have been clear, and this wouldn't be a point of contention.

The fact of the matter is, it is a simple reporting requirement. It places no limits or restrictions on who companies can pay money to or how much or for what. It has absolutely no regulatory effect on any aspect of their business operations. There is absolutely no benefit to nullifying this commonsense law unless your objective is to make it easier for corrupt elites to steal money. The rule has no regulatory impact on business operation and does not define illegal or improper payments. It is a simple reporting requirement.

There is a problem with corruption, especially in places like Russia. Now, I know with the new administration, Russia is now in, and we are all supposed to say nice things about Russia. But Russia has a terrible record on human rights, and Russia has a terrible record when it comes to corruption, and we know that. We ought to not just cave to everything that Russia wants, and Russia and Big Oil want this repealed.

So I would say to my colleagues that we can argue about the merits of all of this, and that is fine, but I go back to my original point. This is the rule, and the Speaker of the House talked about the importance of regular order. I have heard my colleagues talk about the importance of regular order. We don't have regular order. You are all out of order. We end up coming to the floor with legislation that is always under restrictive processes, and most of the time now, in this new Congress, completely closed rules. That doesn't just disadvantage Democratic lawmakers who may have some ideas or may want to raise some issues, it disadvantages Republicans who may want to come to the floor with thoughtful ideas.

I urge my colleagues to absolutely vote ``no'' on this rule because, again, we are getting into this habit where it is closed, closed, closed, closed, closed, and it undermines the integrity of this House of Representatives. It really is shameful.

Finally, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a debate and a vote on overturning President Trump's awful, discriminatory executive orders on immigration. It jeopardizes our national security. It was carelessly implemented, carelessly put together. It is shameful. It is unconscionable that we are confronted with the mess that we are confronted with now.

I know it is uncomfortable to talk about issues that impact the new President who is of your party, but this

is absolutely the right thing to do. And if you want to vote no on these things, vote no on them, but allow us to have the debate and allow us to have the vote. I urge ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I recently joined the Committee on Veterans' Affairs because of its bipartisan history of working together to improve care for our veterans. I stand ready to work with the committee--in particular, with Chairman Roe--and with every Member of this House to improve and work on the important issues that affect our veterans every day. However, I cannot support this bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it.

As this House knows all too well, there is a veterans suicide crisis in this country, a crisis that is enabled by the easy access to firearms. Just last week, the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, David Shulkin, told the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs that the issue of veteran suicide is one of his highest priorities, and it needs to be a priority of this House as well.

Today, on this day that we have this debate, 20 brave men and women who have worn the uniform in service of this country will take their lives in suicide, and the vast majority of them will use a gun.

As folks all over the country who have helped veterans know, the means matter. Research has shown that more than 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm are ultimately fatal compared with just 5 percent for all other means. That is why addressing the public health crisis in the veteran community demands a thoughtful and comprehensive approach: to ensure that veterans in crisis do not have easy access to guns and that they get the care that they need and deserve.

And yet, today, this House is voting on legislation that completely ignores the crisis that many of our most vulnerable veterans are facing. Unfortunately, this bill was rushed to the floor with no consideration in committee, collaboration, or even time for all of us to understand its full implications. The majority scheduled H.R. 1181 for a vote in committee last week with the bare minimum notice required, even having to move the start time of the markup to comply with the 48-hour notice requirement.

During last week's committee markup, I raised the concern shared by many who work closely on this issue that H.R. 1181 would end up being applied retroactively. The result of this bill being applied retroactively would mean that, if it should pass, more than 170,000 veterans currently prohibited from owning a firearm would be able to

pass a background check and buy a gun.

While the chairman expressed his sincere intent and desire that this legislation not be applied retroactively, it is fair to say that reasonable people disagree on how this bill would be implemented. This honest disagreement, alone, illustrates exactly why this House should be taking its time on a bill that could have such a profound impact on our Nation's veterans.

The fact of the matter is that, should H.R. 1181 be signed into law, it would need to be read together with the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which requires--requires--Federal agencies to update the records they have previously shared with NICS, meaning, should this bill pass, the VA would be required to remove the 170,000 records they have previously shared with NICS since none of those were approved by a court, nor did they meet the new standard established by this bill.

Now, with respect to the text of the bill itself, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, contrary to its name, would create an end run around the firearms mental health prohibitor that we have attempted to refine and improve since Congress passed the Brady Act nearly 20 years ago and the bipartisan NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007.

Put simply, this bill would make it easier, not harder, for those veterans in crisis to get access to a firearm by establishing a new judicial requirement that is far higher than any other agency's or department's implementation of the firearms mental health prohibitor, and, quite frankly, would be impractical, if not impossible, for the VA to actually use. The VA is already strapped for resources, and it is unclear if it has the legal standing to initiate a legal proceeding such as that suggested in the bill.

As Members of this House know very well, there has been a fierce debate in this country over the meaning and extent of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. But the question before this House today is not whether an American has a right to own a firearm. The Supreme Court has been very clear on this issue, and the controlling law has been settled. However, constitutional rights are not absolute. As the late Justice Scalia wrote in the controlling Supreme Court Heller decision on the Second Amendment, ``the Second Amendment is not unlimited.''

The question before this House is whether we are going to summarily overturn the VA's efforts over the last 20 years to help prevent veteran suicide and protect veterans' families by reporting the names of veterans with serious mental health issues to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, known as NICS.

Supporters of this legislation argue that the current process used by the VA to share mental health records with NICS is overinclusive and must be thrown out and replaced with a process that ensures veterans' due process rights.

I agree that the current process is overinclusive, and I agree that we must do more to ensure veterans have sufficient notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a meaningful opportunity to appeal any decision that may impact their constitutional rights; and I stand ready to work with my colleagues on the committee and in this House to more specifically tailor the application of the firearms background checks law as it applies to veterans, both prospectively and retroactively.

But a wholesale elimination of the VA's long-established practice to help keep firearms out of the hands of veterans who are at serious risk of harming themselves or others is dangerous and misguided.

To be clear, of the 170,000 veterans currently prohibited from owning a firearm, as of 2015, almost 20,000 of them were diagnosed with schizophrenia, over 11,000 with dementia, and over 5,000 with Alzheimer's. For a veteran suffering with a significant mental health condition like one of these, access to a firearm is a serious matter.

Moreover, just 3 months ago, this Congress passed bipartisan legislation that codified a process for how the VA can make a determination of the mental capacity of a veteran before that information is sent to NICS. The 21st Century Cures Act, which passed this House 3 months ago by a vote of 392-26, required a veteran to be provided notice of a proposed financial competency determination and given an opportunity to be heard, present evidence, and be represented at a hearing.

H.R. 1181 seeks to undo this carefully crafted compromise before we even have a chance to study the impacts of the 21st Century Cures Act or the VA's existing practices.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by 12 veterans, including retired Generals Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus, whose leadership and support for our military and veterans community is unquestioned and who believe that this bill could put mentally ill veterans in harm's way by giving them easy access to firearms.

Veterans Coalition for

Common Sense,

March 14, 2017.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Chuck Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Speaker

Ryan and Leader Pelosi, As dedicated service members and

members of the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense, we write

to you today to express our grave concerns with legislation

being considered by Congress, the Veterans 2nd Amendment

Protection Act. This proposal would put America's veterans

who need our support the most in harm's way by providing them

with easy access to firearms. Instead of passing this

irresponsible and dangerous legislation, Congress should

instead do more to guarantee that all veterans have access to

world-class medical and counseling services. We urge you to

oppose this bill.

Our nation is facing a devastating epidemic of veteran

suicide. The bill you are debating comes at a time when an

average of 20 veterans commit suicide each day, two-thirds of

whom do so by using a firearm. We know that non-deployed

veterans are at a 61 percent higher risk of suicide compared

to the American civilian population, and deployed veterans

are at a 41 percent higher risk. Firearms are the most lethal

means when it comes to suicide, resulting in death nine out

of ten times. When vulnerable veterans have access to

firearms, they can do harm not only to themselves but also to

family members and loved ones. The impact of these tragedies

is felt in communities across our nation.

Last week, we were pleased to hear Secretary of Veterans

Affairs (VA) David Shulkin announce his intent to provide

urgent mental health care services to veterans with other-

than-honorable discharges. This is a step in the right

direction. Over 22,000 soldiers in the Army alone have

received these bad paper discharges since 2009 due to mental

health conditions, and they are among the ones who most need

access to comprehensive mental health services.

But they are not the only ones. In 2008, President Bush

signed a law requiring all federal agencies to submit the

names of individuals who are legally prohibited from

possessing guns to the National Instant Criminal Background

Check System (NICS). Since then, the VA has submitted over

174,000 names of servicemen and women who require a fiduciary

to manage their benefits and have been determined through

clear and convincing evidence to meet the federal standard

for gun prohibition. Of these 174,000, 19,000 are individuals

that suffer from schizophrenia and another 15,000 have severe

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Everytown for Gun Safety and a coalition letter led by the Newtown Action Alliance signed by over 40 organizations from around the country opposing this bill.

Everytown for Gun Safety,

New York, NY, March 7, 2017.

Re Reject H.R. 1181, which would put U.S. veterans in danger.

Hon. Phil Roe,

Chairman, House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the current practice of information sharing between the VA and NICS is overinclusive and that alternatives should be explored that would more appropriately balance veterans' Second Amendment rights with ensuring that veterans who pose a danger to themselves or to others do not have access to firearms.

This bill, however, was not considered through regular order and no genuine attempt was made to work across the aisle or with the VA to craft a real solution that addresses the real crisis of veterans' suicide in this country.

I stand ready to work with the chairman to address legitimate concerns regarding the VA process. And in fact, just yesterday, I visited at length with VA Secretary Shulkin on how we can all work together to keep our veterans safe and get them the care and support they and their families need.

I cannot support any bill, especially one addressing an issue as important as veterans' suicide, through this rushed process.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 1181. Our veterans put their lives on the line for this country. We shouldn't put their lives and their families at risk when they need us most.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the assertion that there is no due process in this act and that the 21st Century Cures Act did not do anything to help veterans.

The 21st Century Cures Act codified the following due process guaranteed to veterans through the VA. Individuals are notified by the VA that a fiduciary is recommended and are allowed 30 days to respond with a notification of acceptance or contest, and they are notified of the implications that this would have for being reported to NICS. The veteran then has 60 days to present evidence against the need for a fiduciary. And as required by law, the VA relief process allows impacted individuals to maintain their fiduciary, but regain gun eligibility removing their names from NICS. These are all already processes in place.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), who is the vice ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I note that the chairman noted the support of some of the veteran service organizations, and I think it is noteworthy that the IAVA, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, has in the past supported this bill. They do not support it this year. They do not because they are so concerned about the crisis we are facing, particularly in their members--those who have come back from the wars in the last 10 or 20 years. They are concerned about that veteran suicide crisis that we are facing and are concerned that this bill might make that worse.

We have heard repeatedly assertions that this would be the only category, that veterans alone would be deprived without adjudication. That is not true. In fact, the law for the firearms prohibitor covers many categories of people who do not have any legal determination:

Anyone who is an unlawful user or addicted to a controlled

substance is prohibited, does not require any adjudication.

The NICS has 23,000 people who are prohibited under the controlled substance addiction and use category. Anyone adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution, there are 4.2 million people. There are a wide variety of people who are in that category, again, many without court orders. Those were aliens, those dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, that is 10,000 individuals. So it is not unique to veterans. There are other categories as well.

But I really think the bottom line is this: we have heard a great deal of agreement that we care about our veterans, we want to prevent military suicides, and we know that for some of these veterans, it would be dangerous for them to have a firearm. That is precisely why this committee should have had a hearing, so we would have had the opportunity to systematically address these issues and find a better way forward that recognizes that some veterans who need a fiduciary also should not have firearms, and some who need a fiduciary, there is no concern there. But we have been deprived of that opportunity in committee, to do the work we should be doing in committee, to work together in a bipartisan way to fashion a better way forward.

This is way too far. It is an overreaction to a process that should be fixed, and we are committed to do that. But the alternative we are presented with today will wholesale uproot the 20-year process of the Veterans Administration that would be dangerous and wrong, and we remain committed to working together in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I note that 18 of the 26 Members of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee did not serve during a time when there has been a hearing on this bill--18 of us, and that includes me. The evidence that the chairman was referencing from 2015 was from a hearing that never occurred, so there was never an opportunity to discuss that evidence. Again, I think this underscores the extent to which we really do need a hearing.

I have to say, since 2012, when the Newtown shootings occurred in my district, the public feels differently about this now, and our veterans numbers have been going up and up. So I think it is high time for us to have a hearing. It has been 5 years. We should be looking at this process.

The last point I will note: there has been much made of the Constitution today and how outrageous it is. In 20 years since this process has been in place in the VA, I note that no one has ever challenged this successfully in court as a violation of constitutional due process, and I know the love our veterans have for the Constitution, as we do in this Chamber. That tells me that many families, for example, actually are relying on this.

So, again, I pledge to the chairman we should be working together in committee to get this process right. This is not the way to do it, not with this bill, not with the questions, and not without an opportunity for us to do the things I have referenced.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard spirited and passionate remarks here today, but I think it underscores how much we would benefit, the veterans that we serve would benefit, their families, and this Chamber would benefit from our pursuing regular order with this very important topic. So, again, I urge in the strongest possible terms for my colleagues to vote against this bill, to give us the opportunity to get this process right, to safeguard our veterans, protect them from military suicide, and to preserve their rights in the best possible way. This hastily considered, rushed-through legislation that leaves way too many questions and way too much risk for our veterans I must strongly oppose.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, we have a very bad regulation that has been put out by the Social Security Administration that needs to be obliterated, so we are using a process called the Congressional Review Act to show Congress's displeasure with the Social Security Administration and to get this regulation off the books.

Now, there has been a lot of talk about how the Congressional Review Act is the wrong vehicle to repeal the disastrous regulation. So I want to quote a contrary opinion from the National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery saying this:

The CRA--

Meaning the Congressional Review Act--

is a powerful mechanism for controlling regulatory overreach,

and NCMHR urges its use advisedly and cautiously. In this

particular case, the potential for real harm to the

constitutional rights of people with psychiatric and

intellectual disabilities is grave as is the potential to

undermine the essential mission of an agency that millions of

people with and without disabilities rely upon to meet their

basic needs. Therefore, in this instance, NCMHR feels that

utilizing the CRA to repeal the final rule is not only

warranted, but necessary.

I would add to it that it is obviously necessary.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, there has also been talk about how supposedly dangerous it will be if this Social Security regulation is terminated. I don't see how that can possibly be realistic if the Social Security Administration doesn't even determine whether a person is dangerous in the first place--and ``dangerous'' meaning in regard to whether or not they ought to be able to make use of the constitutional right of the Second Amendment to own and possess firearms.

Others in this debate continue to mention that mentally ill people will be able to acquire firearms. Now this is very important. The Social Security Administration does not determine a person to be mentally ill prior to reporting their names to the gun ban list, and being on the list denies you your constitutional rights. The agency has confirmed this in writing to my office:

Yes, you are correct. The Social Security Administration

does not diagnose individuals as mentally ill.

Supporters of this gun ban failed to address why individuals are not provided formal due process before reporting their name to the list. Supporters have also failed to talk about how the regulation is inconsistent with the statutory standard of ``mental defective.''

An existing statute requires agencies to report individuals to the gun ban list who are ineligible under current law for possessing firearms. That requirement does not require the existence of any regulation to be effective. So it is plainly wrong to claim, as was said this very day by the people opposed to what we are doing, that if the regulation is disapproved, agencies will no longer have to report prohibited persons. The reverse, in fact, is true.

The regulation usurps unlawful authority to report people to the gun ban list who are not barred from owning guns under current law and that the agency is prohibited from reporting under current law, especially without the adjudication that is required under current law.

Opponents of the regulation base their opposition on the language of the regulation, existing law, and the Constitution, citing the Constitution to say that you don't have a constitutional right to own arms under the Second Amendment, which is contrary to two recent Supreme Court decisions that verify that that applies to an individual. That is why the regulation's supporters must resort to arguments that lack legal and factual foundation.

Supporters of this gun ban also fail to address how overly broad this regulation is, as written. It will capture innocent Americans, denying innocent Americans their constitutional rights. Sadly, then, we know how this will play out if this regulation were allowed to go forward because we have the example of the Department of Veterans Affairs reporting hundreds of thousands of veterans to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System without adequate due process. That is the same system that Social Security was going to report people to.

Veterans were reported just because some lonely bureaucrat wanted to report them, with no opportunity to first have a neutral authority hold a hearing, finding that that individual is dangerous or actually has a dangerous condition. These were veterans who needed financial help managing their benefit payments.

It is common sense that needing help with your finances should not mean that you have surrendered a fundamental constitutional right of self-defense that you have under the Second Amendment.

Just like the Social Security Administration, the VA does not determine whether a veteran is dangerous before reporting his name to the gun ban list and denying that veteran his Second Amendment constitutional rights to own and possess firearms. The VA regulation is eerily similar to what the Social Security Administration wants to do.

On May 17, 2016, Senator Durbin and I debated my amendment that would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to first find veterans to be a danger before reporting their names to the gun ban list. Now that is common sense; isn't it? You ought to find out if they are really dangerous before they are denied a constitutional right.

During the course of that debate, Senator Durbin admitted that the list was broader than it should have been. He said:

I do not dispute what the Senator from Iowa suggested, that

some of these veterans may be suffering from a mental illness

not serious enough to disqualify them from owning a firearm,

but certainly many of them do.

Senator Durbin also said:

Let me just concede at the outset, reporting 174,000 names

goes too far, but eliminating--

As my legislation proposed to do--

174,000 names goes too far.

For the record, though, it wasn't really 174,000 names going too far. It was actually 260,381 names that the VA sent to the gun ban list. Now that happens to be 98.8 percent of all names that are in the alleged ``mental defective'' category.

The Department of Veterans Affairs reported more names by far than any other agency without sufficient justification. Senator Durbin's staff and mine have met over these issues since that debate, and I appreciate and thank him for that outreach.

Now we have the Social Security Administration problem and, through the Congressional Review Act, we can do something about it. We don't have to pass a separate piece of legislation, like we are going to have to do to straighten out the VA. So the Social Security Administration is about to make the same mistake as the VA unless we stop it right here and right now.

If this regulation is not repealed, the agency has informed my staff that approximately 15,000 to 75,000 beneficiaries of Social Security may be reported annually, denying them their constitutional right to bear, possess, and own firearms. That figure of 15,000 or even more so--the higher figure of 75,000--will add up very quickly.

In my earlier speech today on this topic, I made clear that the agency regulation is defective in many ways; namely, the regulation does not require the agency to find a person dangerous or mentally ill. The regulation provides no formal hearing before a person is reported to the gun ban list.

Supporters have also said that repeal of this regulation will interfere with enforcement of gun prohibition laws. Such a position is without any merit--denying people constitutional due process.

As I made clear in my earlier speech, important Federal gun laws are still on the books, even if the agency rule is repealed. This is so because this new regulation is actually inconsistent with those existing Federal gun laws. For example, individuals who have been determined to be dangerous or mentally ill will be prohibited, as will those convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, and the same for those involuntarily committed to mental institutions.

While discussing the faults and defects of the rule, I think it is important to highlight that the issues I have pointed out are also the solution to the problem. If the supporters of the agency rule want the Social Security Administration to report individuals to the gun ban list, changes need to be made. Individuals must first be determined by a neutral authority after a fair hearing meeting the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. If they are dangerous and have a dangerous mental illness, then they could constitutionally be denied that right. Constitutional due process is a very important part of that process.

If we do not act, the agency will erroneously report tens of thousands of people per year to the gun ban list, and not one of them will have been adjudicated to be dangerous after a hearing with due process, not one of them will have been adjudicated to be mentally ill after a hearing with due process, and all of them will have had the government's burden shifted to them to prove they are not dangerous in order to get their name off the gun ban list. It is common sense, isn't it? It ought to be that you are innocent until proven guilty. If you can't have a gun, common sense tells me you ought not have

to prove that you can have a gun to the government; the government has to prove that you should not have a gun.

Any way you look at it, the regulatory scheme is patently unfair. If the government wants to regulate firearms, it needs to produce a clearly defined regulation that is very narrowly tailored to identify individuals who are actually dangerous and who actually have a dangerous mental illness. The government must also afford constitutional due process.

What we are dealing with here is a fundamental constitutional right backed up by two Supreme Court decisions in the last 10 years. With that type of constitutional status, the Second Amendment requires greater effort and greater precision from the government in order to fairly regulate how the American people exercise that constitutional right. This regulation simply doesn't meet that standard.

I urge my colleagues to support the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. President, I don't know whether anybody else is coming to seek the floor. If I am infringing upon somebody else's time, I will yield the floor, but in the meantime, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss some criticism I have heard about the nominee to fill the seat on the Supreme Court. That nominee is Neil Gorsuch.

My colleague, the minority leader, met with the nominee last week. Afterward, he told reporters that he had ``serious, serious concerns'' about the judge. Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised--after all, it seems the minority leader had concerns about the nominee even before the nominee was announced.

Before Judge Gorsuch was announced, the minority leader made clear that any nominee must be ``mainstream.'' But it became clear immediately that this nominee is widely regarded as a mainstream judge with impeccable credentials. Liberal law professor Laurence Tribe says that ``he's a brilliant, terrific guy who would do the Court's work with distinction.'' Alan Dershowitz, who certainly is no conservative, says that Judge Gorsuch will be ``hard to oppose on the merits.'' Even President Obama's Acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, said Judge Gorsuch ``would help to restore confidence in the rule of law.'' The chorus goes on.

Apparently, because the nominee is so obviously mainstream, the benchmark for my colleague's concerns keeps changing. The minority leader has conveniently developed a new test. Now he says the benchmark is independence: ``The bar for the Supreme Court nominee to prove that they can be independent, has never, never been higher.''

Well, fortunately for the minority leader, Judge Gorsuch passes that bar with flying colors, just like he passed the ``mainstream'' test with flying colors. The nominee's record makes clear that he is an independent and fairminded judge who is deeply committed to the separation of powers.

Here is just one example from his many opinions on this point. Just last year, Judge Gorsuch had to decide a case about the authority of the Board of Immigration Appeals, or the BIA, which answers to the Attorney General. The BIA wanted to change the Attorney General's power to waive immigration requirements for illegal immigrants, and it wanted the new rules to apply to undocumented immigrants whose waiver applications were already in the works. The nominee said no to this executive agency. To be clear, Judge Gorsuch was asked to decide whether an executive agency in charge of immigration laws could change the law on a whim in a way that many believed was unfair to immigrants who had already sought waivers. He said no.

With due respect to my friend the minority leader, there is no doubt that Judge Gorsuch would say no to this or any other part of the executive branch that oversteps its bounds.

Here is what the nominee wrote about the separation of powers and executive branch overreach. For him to defer to the executive agency in that case would be ``more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design.'' That is because doing so would allow agency bureaucracy to ``swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power,'' which the Constitution assigns to separate branches of government. So the nominee was concerned about the separation of powers. He was concerned about people whose liberties might be impaired, and because of those concerns, he said no to the immigration agency's policy whim of the day.

Judge Michael McConnell, a former colleague of Judge Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit, makes the same observation about this case. He says the scope of executive power arguably ``will be the most common Supreme Court issue of the coming decade.'' He says the nominee analyzes that issue in a way that is faithful to the Constitution and to the independence of the judiciary, and he points to the nominee's thinking on this question. Judge Gorsuch wrote:

What would happen . . . if the political majorities who run

the legislative and executive branches could decide cases and

controversies over past facts? They might be tempted to bend

existing laws, to reinterpret them . . . [this would] risk

the possibility that unpopular groups might be singled out

for this sort of mistreatment--and [would] rais[e] along the

way, too, grave due process, fair notice, and equal

protection problems. . . . It was to avoid dangers like

these, dangers the founders had studied and seen realized in

their own time, that they pursued the separation of powers.

That is the writing of an independent judge who believes in the separation of powers.

You know, there is a bit of irony to some of the criticism I have heard leveled against Judge Gorsuch. On the one hand, I have heard that he will have to be independent and that he won't rubberstamp the President's agenda. On the other hand, I have heard that he will be way too tough on the executive branch as it fulfills the President's agenda. It is quite obvious that, common sense tells us as we look at those two arguments that we can't have it both ways.

Judge Gorsuch has shown he is faithful to the separation of powers in the Constitution. That means he will be an independent judge who will say no when the other branches of government overreach.

You don't need to take my word for it. Listen to President Obama's Acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyal. He is no fan of the President's Executive order, but he says that Judge Gorsuch ``will not compromise principle to favor the President who appointed him.'' Instead, the Solicitor General said the nominee ``would help to restore confidence in the rule of law.''

Judge Gorsuch's record and reputation leave no room to doubt that he is a mainstream, independent judge. He will apply the law fairly, and he won't be afraid to say no when the Constitution requires it.

Every time my colleague the minority leader has set out a standard for filling this Supreme Court seat, this judge has met it. He is mainstream. He is independent. And when my colleague chooses a new standard, I bet the nominee will also meet that new standard.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I am here principally to speak about the NICS Social Security Act, Congressional Review Act resolution that is before our Chamber, but events of the last 24 hours really raise before us the urgent and unavoidable issue of needing an investigation into the recent activities of Michael Flynn. He resigned as the National Security Advisor last night after revelations that he misled Vice President Mike Pence and other top White House officials. He may have misled the President and others in the White House, but there are also very serious questions about who knew what when. These classic what did they know and when did they know it questions must be answered by an independent counsel or commission, and the reason it must be independent is the same very profoundly important reason that I gave to then-Nominee Jeff Sessions, now Attorney General.

The Attorney General must appoint a special counsel in cases where there is reason to question his complete impartiality and objectivity; the reality as well as the appearance mandate here that there be an independent investigation by a special counsel.

Only a special counsel, independent of the Attorney General and of the White House, can ask with penetrating, aggressive, unflinching analysis whether the President knew before Michael Flynn made those phone calls to the Russian Ambassador and other phone calls to other foreign powers what the subjects of the conversations were, even whether they were going to be made, and only an independent counsel can know, with complete credibility and being regarded that way by the public, as to what happened and who knew what happened and when they knew.

This issue is about more than just a phone call to the Russian Ambassador. It is about the integrity and honesty of public officials, about the protections we give to our intelligence, and about the independence of our justice system.

I certainly have respect for the Office of Attorney General, but Jeff Sessions was deeply involved in President Trump's campaign and in the Presidential transition. I expressed to him in the hearing on his nomination that he would have to distance himself from an investigation of exactly these issues to maintain impartiality and objectivity in that investigation. So I will write to him today, and the letter will be made public shortly, asking for an independent counsel, a special investigator who can produce the information that is necessary for the public to be assured that there has been an inquiry that is impartial, objective, comprehensive, and thorough. It has to be unflinching and unstinting, and it should be done as soon as possible.

Mr. President, I want to address the issue that is before us on the floor relating to the Congressional Review Act resolution that we will vote on shortly and in my view that will undermine existing law if it is passed. Too many times in recent years we have had the terrible responsibility of bearing witness to the trauma and grief that follow gun violence. We see it in our streets every day, not just in Sandy Hook, which every day weighs on our minds and thoughts and hearts in Connecticut but the more than 30,000 deaths every year and countless injures all across the country in big and small towns, the streets of Hartford as well as rural and suburban communities.

I am far from the only one in this Chamber who has borne witness to that trauma and grief. Gun violence has claimed too many lives in too many places, through mass shootings in movie theaters as well as the constant drumbeat of shootings that never make the headlines. Our constituents count on us to make them safe. That is one of the fundamental responsibilities of our government. And by overwhelming majorities, including majorities of Republicans and of gun owners, they support commonsense steps to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. In failing to move forward with legislation that would advance those goals, Congress has been complicit in this ongoing epidemic. It is truly a public health crisis. If more than 30,000 people died every year from disease or other kinds of communicable illnesses, there would be a call for drastic action.

This kind of public health crisis must be met with strong steps. When many of us in this body who believe that Congress must now take action to stem the scourge of gun violence hear one refrain from our colleagues--``enforce the law; enforce the law that already exists''-- we must heed that cry.

Enforcing the law that already exists is exactly what this regulation entails. So we must be ready to move forward. Yet, as my friend and colleague Senator Murphy noted earlier, the Congressional Review Act resolution we are about to vote on will not only fail to enforce existing law, it will undermine existing law. Federal law prohibits those who have severe mental health issues--that is to say, issues that would prevent them from safely handling a gun, from possessing a gun.

Federal law also requires agencies that have information indicating that people are disqualified from gun possession to share that information with the NICS background check system. Under this regulation, the Social Security Administration has proposed to do

exactly that. Pursuant to the 2007 NICS Improvement Amendments Act--a law passed in the wake of the horrific Virginia Tech shooting to address significant loopholes in the background check system--the Social Security Administration will submit records to NICS for Social Security recipients who meet a specific set of carefully defined criteria. The regulation will apply only to a subset of Social Security disability recipients. It does not apply to those who are receiving Social Security retirement benefits. It applies only to those disability recipients who have been found, based on the Social Security Administration's established criteria, to be severely impaired due to a mental disability and who are therefore unable to perform substantial work or manage their own disability benefits.

Repealing this regulation could lead to great harm, exacerbating loopholes and failings in the background check system that erode public safety.

I have a letter from the United States Conference of Mayors, which represents city leaders from across our country. It says that ``due to loopholes in current law, too many mass murderers are still able to too easily obtain guns. This includes the individual responsible for killing 32 people and injuring 17 others at Virginia Tech in 2007 that led to the enactment of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act. These killings must stop and this rule, as implemented last year, will help to do that.''

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the United States Conference of Mayors, as well as a letter from the National League of Cities.

It is critical to note that neither I nor any proponents of the Social Security Administration's rule believe that all or most or even a significant percentage of those suffering from mental health issues are dangerous--far from it. The overwhelming majority of people who confront mental health issues are peaceful and law-abiding citizens who seek only the treatment that should be everybody's right. In fact, I have been a strong advocate over many years of mental health parity, beginning when I was attorney general in the State of Connecticut. The very first Federal law on this issue that was passed was modeled in many ways after the State law that I championed. I was proud to support the passage of a bill last year to provide more resources to those seeking treatment, and I hope that it moves this country toward providing everyone with the care they need.

Mental health issues should be no cause for fear, no reason for stigma, no excuse for shame. Those who have come forward and been open about the treatment they have sought, in fact, have done themselves and their communities and country a great service. If I thought SSA regulations unfairly targeted people with mental illness or that it advanced the perception that they are inherently dangerous, I would oppose it with every fiber of my being, but that is not the regulation we have here.

As Senator Durbin said this morning and my colleague Senator Murphy reiterated, this rule is not one loosely applied to anyone who has some trouble balancing a checkbook; it applies only to those disability recipients with a serious and debilitating mental health issue. That is estimated to be about 75,000 people nationwide out of approximately 10 million Americans who suffer from a serious mental illness. Everyone who suffers from mental illness should have a right to treatment, but not all should have a gun. It is very unlikely that people who meet these criteria will be able to safely handle a gun or to safely store it in their home and prevent its misuse by themselves or by others.

It is possible that SSA's initial determination will be wrong. That is why crucially--please understand--crucially the regulation also provides due process. In fact, these due process protections are necessary when a constitutional right is at stake. This right, the Second Amendment right, must be respected as the law of the land. The regulation entitles those who are affected

by it to advanced notice. When going through the process to appoint someone else to handle their benefits, they are told that they will forfeit their firearms right. They are given that notice, and they are given due process. If they believe this is inappropriate or unnecessary, the regulation gives them that process to appeal. It is one that allows SSA to grant relief upon a determination that the beneficiary will not be ``dangerous to public safety,'' a term that has meaning.

SSA is also required to notify the NICS background check system if the name should be removed, whether it was submitted in error or because a beneficiary has recovered from the condition or because they were granted relief through the appeals process. Those are rights with real remedies, with due process, with fairness.

If I thought this regulation failed to provide adequate process that every individual is due, regardless of how much I support its goal, I would oppose it with, again, every fiber of my being because it should be and it is the law of the land.

Of course there may be ways that this regulation, like any regulation, could be improved if the criteria could be better targeted or if the due process protections could be made stronger or if the administration could be made more efficient. We should not hesitate to make those improvements. I would welcome suggestions for enhancements, but the methods chosen by my colleagues to attack this regulation--the Congressional Review Act--prevent any and all of those improvements.

Severely limiting the time for debate denies us adequate consideration. Much worse, it is a blunt-force instrument that will prevent the Social Security Administration from issuing any ``substantially similar'' regulation in the future. So the passage of this resolution will prevent the SSA from complying with the legal requirement for submitting legal records for a background check in the future. It will hamstring this agency and prevent it from fulfilling its obligation to public safety--that is regardless of whether new information comes to light or whether it would be possible to devise a better method of submitting these records.

In the words of the well-known and respected group Americans for Responsible Solutions, using the CRA to undo this rule would ``not only allow guns to be placed into the hands of individuals determined to be legally incapable of using them safely, but it also creates an irresponsible, irreversible precedent.''

As I have always said, I will work with my colleagues on any good- faith steps to stem the tide of gun violence in this country, and I would be more than happy--in fact, I am eager--to work with them to fix flaws they see in this regulation. We need to come together to improve the integrity and efficiency of the national background check system and keep guns out of the hands of people who cannot safely handle them. People who are dangerous to themselves or others--it may be a very small number, but they can do great tragic damage. The resolution we will vote on shortly accomplishes neither of these goals. It does nothing to answer my constituents who ask me time and time again why Congress does nothing to confront the epidemic of gun violence in this country. It would create an irresponsible, irreversible precedent. More important than the precedent is the consequence in real lives of the death and injury that could result. Those deaths and injuries are truly irreversible and irresponsible, and we can help to stop them by taking the right stand on this resolution.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.