to be able to make sure that we are not always just doing the talking but always doing toli listen. this has been something in the 26 months i've served ins been congress, has been important to us from day one.those ar those are important issues. when we talk about middle america, there is a mass of people -- >> we will leave this at this point to go like to use senate for further debate on resolution repealing mental health background checks for gun purchases. life to the senate and consider the president's nominations for his cabinet, even though we've had little nor cooperation -- little or no cooperation from the other side of the aisle. last night we confirmed the president's top economic advisor, something you would think that people would think was pretty important. the secretary of the treasury, and we did confirm the president's secretary of verpts affairs. ironically, the vote for the secretary of veterans affairs was 100-0.

so maybe somebody can explain to me what was the necessity of delaying the confirmation of the secretary of veterans affairs for three weeks, leaving that important agency without a designated and senate-confirmed head. earlier today we considered the nomination of may hay may to serve as -- of linda mcmahon to serve as the next head of the small business administration to help our country's job creators reach their potential and again we had an overwhelming vote for linda mcmahon for the s.b.a. so my question is again, what purpose is served by delaying, by foot dragging and by obstructing the president's choice of his cabinet members? we're glad we finally confirmed them, but to be honest it is not much to celebrate. but carrying out this unprecedented obstruction of qualified nominees, our friends across the aisle are simply precluding the senate from considering other actual

legislation that would actually be helpful to the american people. well, from my vantage point, it is pretty clear why they're headed down this self-destructive path. our friends continue to listen to and sadly to cater to radical elements of their own party who simply haven't gotten over the election and have decided to obstruct the president and his agenda at all costs. but we know for a fact from our private conversations that our democratic friends are not -- well, they're fractured. some of them remembered what happened in 2014 when, under the leadership of then-majority leader reid, essentially everybody was frozen out of offering legislation or amendments to legislation on the floor, including members of the majority party, then the democrats at the time. that strategy really backfired,

resulting in a huge republican class of outstanding senators in 2014. people don't like that across the country. they think we're sent here to solve problems and to work together to make progress on behalf of the american people. this sort of mindless obstruction or footdragging for footdragging's sake doesn't make any sense to them, and it doesn't make any sense to me either. now, i realize the minority leader, democratic leader, probably has the toughest job in washington, d.c., to try to keep the far-left fringes of his party happy while trying to do the work of the american people, who sent us here to legislate. i do know there are members of the democratic croix cuss who -- i do know there are members of the democratic caucus who are very effective working for their legislation. some of them happen for running for reelection in states carried

by president trump. you would think that they would be incentivized to tell the leadership of their own party or the far left of their party, who wants to do nothing but resist the trump agenda and our bipartisan agenda in the senate, that they would tell them to stand down or they're not going to participate in that kind of obstruction. because i think they're enlightened self-interest tells them not only this is what the american people sent us to do, to be productive on a bipartisan basis, but it's also in their electoral self-interest as well. as long as the democratic leader caters to the fringe of his own party and resists any sort of cooperation, i think they can expect the same sort of results after senator reid led his party down that path in 2014. we're now headed in the fourth week of the new administration, and we've only confirmed a handful of this president's cabinet picks. and that's bad news, not just

for us but for the american people as well. surely after the election of november 8, when president obama said he wanted to make sure he participated in a peaceful transition of power to the next election, surely he was appealing to the better angels of all of those who perhaps were disappointed by the outcome of the election. but that's what we do as americans. we pull together in the best interest of the entire country. yeah, we get together and we fight perhaps and we take opposing parties in elections, but once the election is over, after the ballots are counted, we work together in the best interests of the american people. but that's not happening, and that's really not just bad for the senate, that's bad for the country. our job in the senate is to consider these nominees and to move on them so that the president of the united states can be surrounded by the people he's chosen to help him lead the

country, and i would tell you, i've been incredibly impressed by the quality of people that he has selected. so as we begin to consider the remaining nominees put forward by president trump, i hope our friends on the other side will start to realize the ramifications of their quest to stop the senate or to drag out these deliberations and preclude us from doing other constructive work. but one thing i can promise you is that thanks to the efforts of senator reid in the last congress, all of these nominees will be confirmed. our colleagues face the same choice they've had all along. they can either work with us to help get these advisors vetted and then confirmed, or they can make it painful for all of us, for no good reason. and reveal to the country just how ineffective they truly are when this comes to trying to

obstruct this confirmation process. my hope is that they'll decide to course correct and determine for the good of the entire country that the right thing to do is to move forward on these nominees. we were able to take up the v.a. secretary and the secretary of labor, basically by consent, by agreement, without having to grind through this lengthy process that we're having to do on the mulvaney and pruitt nomination, just to get those done before saturday. it's not necessary, and it's not going to change the outcome. mr. president, we're also going to take up an important congressional resolution of approval. the rule in question allows the social security administration to report folks who may need help managing their money to the national criminal instant background check system, also known as nics. this is just another chapter in the same story that we heard

last year when we successfully pushed back on the veterans administration for trying to do the same thing. bureaucrats unilaterally taking away people's constitutional rights without even notifying them of the reason, much less without giving them an opportunity for a due process hearing. well, this isn't a small matter. we've got to make sure that the bureaucracies can't continue to infringe on fundamental rights garnetted to all -- guaranteed to all men's. now we have a chance to repeal this unconstitutional rule and to protect those just trying to receive the social security benefits that they've earned. so i look forward to doing away with this particularly noxious rule soon, this week. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i am here principally to speak about the nics social security act, congressional review act resolution that is before our chamber, but the events of the last 24 hours really raise before us the urgent and unavoidable issue of needing an investigation into 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 that 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 the russian ambassador and other phone calls to other foreign powers what the subjects of the conversation were, even whether they were going to be made. and only an independent counsel can know with complete credibility and be 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 that we give to our intelligence and about the independence of our justice system. i have certainly respect for the office of the attorney general, but jeff sessions was deeply involved in president trump's campaign and in the presidential transition, and 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. and 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. 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 estimation in recent years, we've had the terrible responsibility of bearing witness to the trauma and grief that follows gun violence. we see it in our streets every day, not just in sandy hook that every day weighs on our hearts and minds and thoughts in connecticut, but the more than 30,000 deaths every year and countless injuries all across the country in big and small towns, 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 and 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. 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. more than 30,000 people died -- if more than 30,000 people died

every year from a disease or other kind of communicable illness, 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 meet that call. enforcing the law that already exists is exactly what the regulation entails. and so we must be ready to move forward. and yet, as my friend and

colleague, senator murphy, noted earlier, the congressional review act resolution that 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 shall issues that would prevent them from safely handling a gun, from possessing a gun. federal law also requires agencies who have information indicating that people are disqualified from gun possession to share that information with the nics background check system. and under that regulation, 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 not only -- 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. that is almost an exact quote. repealing this regulation could lead to great harm, exacerbating the 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 the country. i ask that it be made part of the record, mr. chairman, if there's no objection. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: it says, quote, we all know that it is due to loopholes in current law that 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 enactment of the nics improvement amendment act. these killings must stop and this rule as implemented last year must help to do that. i ask unanimous consent also that a letter from the national league of cities which makes the same point be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blumenthal: we must note it-

it is critical to note in fact that neither i nor any of the proponents of the social security administration's rule believes that all or most or even a significant percentage of those who are suffering from mental health issues are dangerous. far from it. the overwhelming majority of people who confront mental health health issues seek the treatment that is right. i've been an advocate of mental health parity beginning when i was attorney general of connecticut and the first issue on this law was modeled that the state law. 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 that 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 s.s.a.'s regulation 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 that 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, and that is estimated to 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 treat, 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 start in their home and prevent its misuse by themselves or by others. but it's possible that s.s.a.'s initial determination will be

wrong, and that's why crucially , please understand, be crucially the regulation also provides due process. in fact, these due process protections are necessary when a constitutional right is at stake. and this right, second amendment right must be respected as the law of the land. the regulation entitles those who are affected by it to advance notice. they are told when going through the process to appoint someone else to handle their benefits that they will forfeit their firearms rights. 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. and it's one that allows s.s.a. to grant relief upon a determination that the beneficiary will not be

"dangerous to public safety," a term that has meaning. s.s.a. is also required to notify the fix background check system if the beneficiary's name should be removed. whether because it was submitted in error or because the 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 chose be by my colleagues to attack this regulation, the congressional review act prevents all of those improvements, any at all, in severely limiting the time for debate, it denies us adequate consideration. and 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 social security administration from complying with the legal requirement to submit records to the background check system in the future. it will hamstring this agency and prevent it from fulfilling its obligation to public safety. and that's 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 c.r.a. to undo this rule would, quote, not only allow guns to be placed into the hands of individuals determined legally incapable of using them safely, but it also creates an i are i -- an irresponsible,

irreversible precedent. as i have always said, i will work with any of my colleagues on good-faith steps to stem the tide of gun violence in this country, and i would be more than happy -- in fact, i'm eager -- to work with them to fix flaws that 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 asked me time and time again why congress does nothing to confront the epidemic of gun violence in this country.

it would create an irresponsible, i are i -- irreversible precedent. but 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. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

you

quorum call:

mr. markey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you. mr. president, may i ask for a vitiation of the calling of the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. markey: thank you so much, mr. president. mr. president, it's valentine's day, and senate republicans and president trump want to deliver a love letter to their

sweetheart, the national rifle association. to the republicans and president trump, nothing says "i love you" like let's weaken background checks on gun sales because that's exactly the issue before us today. today republicans in congress and president trump want to gut a commonsense safety measure that would help keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. after the tragedy in newtown, connecticut, the obama administration undertook a comprehensive review of federal law to identify, quote, potentially dangerous individuals who should not be trusted with firearms. the social security administration was required to

identify and report to the national instant criminal background check system those people who receive social security benefits due to severe mental impairment and who require a fiduciary representative to manage those benefits. that is a sensible policy. if you can't manage your disability benefits because of a mental impairment, you probably shouldn't be trying to manage a gun. indeed, current law prohibits individuals from purchasing a firearm if a court, a board, a commission, or other lawful authority has determined that a mental health issue makes them a danger to themselves. or to others. or that they lack the mental

capacity to contract or manage their own affairs. so the purpose of the rule is simply to include in the federal background check system information about the social security administration that it already has about beneficiaries who current law already prohibits from possessing a firearm. but even this fair, reasonable, and commonsense limitation on gun purchasing is too much for the n.r.a. and its republican congressional allies. so they have turned this afternoon to the congressional review act to roll back this rule. and by doing so, they would

block the social security administration from issuing a similar rule on this subject in the future. so this is short sh sighted on -- so this is shortsighted on the one hand and very dangerous on the other for a long, long time in our country. because it's these loopholes in the background check system that have already allowed people to obtain guns despite being judged a danger to themselves or to others. especially family members. loopholes in the system allowed the virginia tech, tucson, aurora, and newtown shooters to obtain guns. we need to close loopholes like the ones that allow people who are mentally impaired from buying guns.

repealing this rule only keeps the loophole open. recent polls show that 92% of americans support background checks for all gun buyers, including 87% of republicans in our country support background checks on who is in fact purchasing a gun in our country. but not the national rifle association. the national rifle association sent an action alert to its membership on this current attempt to repeal the background check rule stating, quote, the first progun legislative act of the trump era in congress is on the verge of success, but it needs your help to get it over the line. that's all you need to know. so on this valentine's day, the united states senate should show some real love and compassion. let's open our hearts to the

american people who overwhelmingly are demanding commonsense gun control efforts like the one this rule puts in place. let's defeat this ill-advised effort to roll back a rule which keeps guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. this is really the job of the congress. this is the carnage that we see in america. it's the indiscriminate issuing of licenses for guns to people who have not gone through the background checks that ensure that they are qualified for the handling of a weapon within our society. everyone else can get the weapon. everyone else who goes through the check gets the weapon, but not people who should not have them. so this is a big moment here.

it unfortunately gives an insight into what the republican agenda is going to be this year. it's a radical agenda. it's an agenda which says to the national rifle association, we are going to pass your agenda no matter how radical out here on the floor of the senate. but the american people are saying that they want n.r.a. to stand for not relevant anymore in american politics. that's what they want us to say, especially with the polling so overwhelmingly bipartisan, democrat and republican, in terms of commonsense background checks that are in the law to protect innocent families in our country. so all i can say is this isn't anything that's radical, this regulation. it's something that's commonsense. it's something that protects american families.

and i urge strongly that the united states senate reject the removal of this regulation from the statutes of our country. and i yield back, mr. president, the balance of my time. the presiding officer: who yields time?

if no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: we have a very bad regulation on the -- that's been put out by the social security administration that needs to be obliterated, and so we're using the process called the congressional review act to show congress's displeasure with social security and to get this

regulation off the books. now, there's been a lot of talk about how this congressional review act is a 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, quote, the c.r.a. -- meaning the congressional review act -- the c.r.a. is a powerful mechanism for controlling overreach and the national coalition for mental health recovery recommends its use cautiously. in this particular case the potential for real harm to the constitutional rights to 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, the mcmhr feels that utilizing the congressional review act to repeal the final rule is not only warranted, but is necessary. end of quote. i would add to that, obviously necessary. so, mr. president, i'd like to enter that letter into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: there's also been talk about how supposedly dangerous it will be in this social security regulation is terminated. i don't see how that can be

possibly be realistic if the social security administration doesn't even determine a person dangerous in the first place and dangerous in regard to whether or not they ought to be able to -- to make use of the constitutional right of second amendment to own and possess first time. now, others in this debate continue to mention that mentally ill people will be able to acquire first tim afirearms. -- firearms. now, very important, social security does not determine a person to be ill prior to reporting their names to the gun ban list, which being on the list denies you your constitutional rights. the agency has confirmed this in writing to my office.

quote, yes, you are correct. the social security administration does not diagnose individuals as mentally ill. end of quote. supporters of this gun ban fail 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 quote, unquote, 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're doing, that if the regulation is disapproved, agencies will no longer have to prohibit to report -- 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 you don't have a constitutional right to own arms under the second amendment is contrary to two recent supreme court decisions that verify that applies to an individual. that is why the regulation 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 institute criminal background check system without adequate due process. and that's the same system that social security was going to report people to. now, veterans were reported just because some lonely bureaucrat wanted to report them with no opportunity to have -- to first have a neutral authority, hold a hearing, finding that individual is dangerous or actually have a dangerous and condition. -- a dangerous condition. these were veterans that needed financial help managing their benefit payments. now, it's 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. so just like the social security administration, the v.a. 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 v.a. 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 dangerous before reporting their names to the gun ban list. now, that's common sense, isn't

it? you ought to find out 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, and i quote, i do not dispute the senator from iowa suggested that some of these veterans may be suffering from mental illness not serious enough to disqualify them from owning a firearm, but certainly many of them do. end quote. senator durbin also said, quote, let me concede at the outset reporting 172 names goes too far, but eliminating 174,000 names goes too far. for the record, though, it wasn't really 174,000 names going too far, it was 260,381

names that the v.a. sent to the gun ban list. that happens to be 98.8% names that are on all lists because of alleged mental defectiveness. 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. but now we have this 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're going to have to do to straighten out the v.a. so the social security administration is about to make the same mistake as the v.a. unless we stop it right here and

right now. and if this regulation is not real peeled, 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 also provides no

formal hearing before a person who 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. and 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. 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 pointed out are also the solutions to the problem. if supporters of the agency rule wants the social security 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're dangerous and have 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. 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 that they're not dangerous in order to get their name off the gun ban list. common sense, isn't it? you ought to be not guilty until proven innocent. if you can't have a gun, common sense tells me you ought not to have to prove that you can have a government to -- a gun to the government. the government should prove you should not have a gun. any way you look at trks the

regulatory -- 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're dealing with here is a fundamental constitutional right backed up by two supreme court decisions in the last ten 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 person 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 if anybody else is coming to seek the floor or not. if somebody -- i'm -- if i'm infringing on somebody else's time, i would yield the floor. in the meantime, i would ask permission to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i rise today to discuss some criticism i've heard about the nominee to fill the seat on the supreme court. that nominee is neil gorsuch. my colleague, the minority leader, last week met with the nominee. afterwards he told reporters that he had, quote, serious, serious concerns about the judge. well, i guess i shouldn't be surprised. after all, it seems that 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, quote, unquote, mainstream. but it became clear immediately that this nominee is widely regarded as a mainstream judge with impeccable credentials. liberal law professor lawrence tride says, quote, he's a brilliant, terrific guy who would do the court's work with distinction, end of quote. alan dershowitz who certainly is no conservative says judge gorsuch will be, quote, hard to oppose on the merits, end of quote. even president obama's acting

solicitor general neal katyal said judge gorsuch, quote, would help to restore confidence in the rule of law, end of quote. now, the course goes on, mr. president. apparently because the nominee is so obviously mainstream, the benchmark for my colleague's concerns keeps changing, moving the goal post. the minority leader has conveniently developed a new test. now he says that the benchmark is independence. quote, the bar for the supreme court nominee to prove that they can be independent has never, never been higher, end of quote. well, fortunately for the minority leader, the nominee passes that bar with flying colors, just like he passed the mainstream test with flying

colors. the nominee's record makes clear that he's an independent and fair minded judge who's deeply committed to the separation of powers. here's just one example from his many opinions on that point. just last year, judge gorsuch had to decide a case about authority of the board of immigration appeal, b.i.a. for short, which answers to the attorney general. the b.i.a. 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 an immigration law could change the law on a whim in a way that many believe was unfair to immigrants who had already sought waivers. he said no. with due respect to my friend, the minority leader, there's no doubt that judge gorsuch would say no to this or any other part of the executive branch that oversteps its bounds. here's what the nominee wrote about the separation of powers and the executive branch -- and the executive branch overreach. for him to defer to the executive agencies in that case would be, quote, more than a little difficult to square with the constitution of the framers' design, end of quote.

that's because doing so would allow agency bureaucracies to, quote, swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power, end of quote, 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 liberty might be impaired and because of those concerns, he said no to the immigration agency's policies whim of the day. 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, quote, will be the most prominent supreme court issue of the coming decade, end of quote. he said the nominee analyzes that issue in a way that's faithful to the constitution and to the independence of the

judiciary and he points to the nominee's thinking on this question. this is what judge gorsuch wrote. quote, what would happen if the political majorities who run the legislature and executive branches could decide cases and don't verseries over -- controversies over past facts. they might be tempted to ban existing laws, to reinterpret them. this would risk the possibility that unpopular groups might be singled out for this sort of mistreatment or would raise -- or would raise along the way to grave due process, fair notice, and equal protection problems. it was to avoid dangers like these, dangers the founders had studied and seen realized by their own time that they pursued the separation of powers.

sounds a little bit like you would find stated in the "federalist papers" on the role of a judge and the separation of powers. what i just quoted was the nominee's words. that's the writing of an independent judge who believes in separation of powers. you know, there's a bit of irony in some of the criticisms i've heard leveled against judge gorsuch. on the one hand, i've heard that we have to make sure that he'll be independent and that he won't rubber stamp the president's agenda. on the other hand, i've heard he'll be way too tough on the executive branch as it fulfills the president's agenda. well, it's quite obvious. common sense tells you, you look at those two arguments, you can't have it both ways. judge gorsuch has shown his faith -- he's 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. and you don't need to take my word for it. listen to president obama's acting solicitor general neal katyal. he's no fan of the president's executive order, but he says that judge gorsuch, quote, will not compromise principle in favor of the president who appointed him, end of quote. instead, that solicitor general said the nominee, quote, would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. judge gorsuch's record and reputation have no room to doubt that -- leave no room to doubt that he's a mainstream independent judge.

he'll 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's mainstream. he's independent. when my colleague chooses a new standard, i'll bet that the nominee will also meet that new standard. and the more of these faults that are pointed out, the stronger this candidate for the supreme court is going to come. i yield the floor. mr. president, i don't know whether a point of order -- there wasn't a quorum call when i got here. maybe you don't want to call the

quorum. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from pennsylvania. a senator: mr. president, i would ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: i also ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, mr. president, i rise this afternoon to pay tribute in just in a short fashion but to pay tribute to a pennsylvanian who passed away this past week, al bos bos. he was known as the owner of boscov department stores, a very, very successful retail department store chain. i rise not just to pay tribute to his life and his work, his success but most importantly what he meant to the people of pennsylvania. all that he did above and beyond in addition to his great business success. i want to extend condolences to the boscov family and to his wife, eunice and their children

and grandchildren and of course to the people of reading and burkes county but i think by extension our entire commonwealth because of what al meant to his community and the larger community in eastern pennsylvania but also went all the way up to my home area of northeastern pa pa. i live in scranton -- northeastern pennsylvania. i live in scranton. one of his stores was in the downtown business district and still is in scranton. so this is, i guess, personally to me as well. but al in this case in terms of his family leaves two generati generations who will carry on his legacy in so many ways. his three daughters ruth, ellen and meg and his five grandchildren. al was born in september, september 22 of 1929. he was the youngest son of solomon f. bosco he owe solomon

and ethel boscov. he first made a name as an expert fly catcher in his father's neighborhood store, ninth and pike. in those days when he was just learning skills that would help him later in the business world, obviously people could see a great future for this young man. he was a graduate of reading high school. also graduated with a business degree from drexel university where he started his first business, a delivery service for hero sandwich chz would -- sandwiches which precede add great career in business. al received an honorary doctor of humanities degree from albright college in reading as well and a doctor of arts and letters from kings college in wimwilkesberry, pennsylvania ars

and a degree from cookstownstow. three distinguished honors. he served in the navy during the korean war. after his service al returned ho emto join the family business. in 1962 opened boscov's full service, full-time -- full service department store. boscov's west in suburban reading. since that time the boscov's chain has become the largest family-owned department store chain in the nation with 45 stores in seven states employing some 7,500 coworkers. here's what al said about his stores but also really the attitude he conveyed as a

business person as a member of the community. when he talked about people visiting his stores, he said, quote, we like to give people a reason for coming to boscov's even when they don't want to buy anything. they enjoy themselves and hopefully we make a friend, unquote. what a great attitude for any business leader, especially one who opened his business in the town within which he grew up. al's family remains especially proud of his continual efforts to fight prejudice and promote cultural understanding. for example, at times of growing racial tension in reading years ago, al used his three reading stores to present a heritage festival providing the opportunity for the african american community to share various aspects of black culture, whether it was food or art or writing or entertainment. similarly al boscov presented a puerto rican heritage festival in reading, both in his reading

and lebanon stores, lebanon being in the middle of pennsylvania. again bringing together the hispanic, white, and black communities with the theme of, quote, knowing is understanding, unquote. his belief that we all must take time to know each other and to take care of each other remains as one of the most important and his family hopes lasting legacies. as the chairman of boscov's, al set new standards for successful retailing, community involvement, and civic duty. he found and led the nonprofit our city reading, incorporated to assist reading in restoring abandoned homes and bringing about a resurgence in downtown reading. under his leadership more than 600 families had the opportunity to own and live in a new home. he led the efforts to equip a senior citizens center in downtown reading, the horizon

center provides seniors with hot meals and activities. i could go on and on, but i won't this afternoon. it's clear from his life that he was very successful. it is also clear from his life he gave and gave to not only his home community of reading but well beyond that. i know from my own personal experience what he did for northeastern pennsylvania, both lackawanna county, and a lot of other communities as well. and so we're thinking of al boscov today, remembering his generosity, remembering his legacy, and remembering the many contributions he made to the commonwealth of pennsylvania. mr. president, i would yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks on wednesday, february 15, there be 10 minutes of debate remaining equally divided

on h.j. res. 40. that the resolution be read a third time and the senate vote on passage of the joint resolution without intervening action or debate. further, that following disposition of h.j. res. 40, there be ten minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on executive calendar 16, mick mulvaney to be director of the office of management and budget and if cloture is invoked, time be counted as if invoked at 1:00 a.m. that day. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: so, mr. president, there be no more votes this evening. we'll have two votes tomorrow morning.

mr. toomey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleague, the senior senator from texas. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: so a little background i think will be helpful, mr. president. the social security administration has promulgated a rule regarding when it's employees should be sending names to be added to the nics system, the nics system of course is the system by which a person when they're added to it, it may not legally possess -- they may not legally possess a firearm. the rule hack final ewessed -- the fuel has been finalized but has not gone into effect. the rule has the right

intention. federal statute -- under federal statute the nics improvements act of 2007 stipulates that every quarter each federal agency must send any in fact it has showing that any person is disqualified from possessing a gun. each agency has the responsibility to update any information it sends to the attorney general. the social security has a duty to send information to the nics system. so the purpose of the rule i think is to send to nics the names of individuals who are dangerously mentally ill and thus are not legally entitled to a firearm. there are some protections that are provided in this rule. for instance, under the rule promulgated by the social security administration, a third party cannot get a gun owner declared mentally ill without the gun owner's knowledge or

consent. the -- under the rule, the individual has to file a disability claim for his self or herself. and the rule provides some mechanisms for individuals to challenge their inclusion in the nics system if they wish to do so. but there's serious disagreement and confusion about some other very important aspects of this rule. i have heard from, for instance, advocates for people with disabilities, and they are very concerned that the list of mental illnesses, for instance, is too expansive and might very well sweep in people who have mental health issues but are not at all dangerous to themselves or to others. and these advocates for people with disabilities have also expressed the concern that the rule doesn't require that a medical professional actually be involved in the determination of whether or not a person is dangerously mentally ill. and so of course these disability rights advocates raise the concern that an agency

bureaucrat without any medical expertise could potentially add somebody to the nics system without a doctor being involved and without that person being in any way dangerous. these advocates also tharg there is not a sufficient process for individuals who are wrongly denied their second-degree amendments. under the rule, it appears that it could take years for an individual to adjudicate this question if there was a case of mistaken identity or they were deemed to have a mental health issue that they challenge. it could take years for them to resolve that. all that time they would be disqualified from owning a firearm and even if that individual prevailed and it turned out that the social security administration had mistakenly put them in the nics system, well, their legal fees would still have to be incurred by the individual despite the enact they had no responsibility for this.

look, i agree that something ought to be done in this area, but i am not fully confident that this rule gets it exactly right. my preferred outcome here, my ideal would be for the social security administration to produce a new rule, one that takes into account these legitimate concerns that have been raised, especially by people in the disability rights community. and if they did that -- and i would look forward to working with the social security administration, and i could very, very well support such a rule, and i would support such a rule if they addressed these things properly. and i would further say that we have time to do this, mr. president. as i mentioned earlier, while the rule has been finalized, it has not gone into effect. it does not go into effect until december 19 of this year. we have over ten months to reconsider an get this right. now, some have suggested, but wait a minute, we'll never have a chance to redo this if we pass the congressional review act, which repeals this rule, because it will preclude the social

security administration from promulgating a new version of the rule. people say that because the congressional review act says that if we enact this resolution of disapproval, quote, request a new rule that is substantially the same as such a rule may not be issued. end quote. wcialtion it is my opinion that -- well, it is my opinion that a new rule issued by the social security administration that addresses abroaptly the concerns -- apropt lit concerns that i -- appropriately the concerns that i mentioned would not be the same as the current rule. it would be a very different rule. and since it would not be substantially the same, it would be permissible under the congressional review act for the social security administration to correct these flaws and come up with a new rule. i wanted to ask the senior senator from texas, the majority whip and a member of the senate judiciary committee, is it your opinion that if subsequent to passage of the congressional

review act with respect to this rule, if the social security administration promulgated a new rule that met the standards that i have set forth, in that case, the new rule would be -- would not be substantially the same as the current rule and therefore would not be precluded by passage of the congressional review act. is that the opinion of the senator from texas? mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator fro texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i agree with my friend and colleague from pennsylvania. if the social security administration were to amend the rule to include and due process and a finding of mentally illness that would be a fundamentally different rule that is not substantially similar. under the current rule merely filing for a disability benefit on the grounds of a condition, say, for example, like anxiety can trigger a permanent did he deprivation of constitutional rights without any physician or adjudicated body finding the

person is dangerously mentally ill. so i certainly agree with the concerns raised by my friend and our colleague from pennsylvania that the rule he is describing would not be substantially similar to the rule currently in effect and that that would be no bar to the social security administration writing a substitute rule in accordance with the viewers he's expressed. there may still be a few differences between news terms of what exactly the rule would be. but there is no distance between us in terms of the conclusion that a replacement rule that provides for due process would not be substantially similar and would not be barred under the congressional review act. mr. toomey: well, i thank the senator from texas for joining me in this discussion. we certainly share the view about the possibility of a

future different rule, and i look forward to working with the senator from texas as well as people at the social security administration to achieve that. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mri note the absence of a quorum -- mr. cornyn: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 255. the presiding officer: which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar no. h.r. 255, an act to authorize the national science foundation and so tports. the presiding officer: -- forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar no. 6, h.r. 321. the presiding officer: which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar no. 6, h.r h.r. 321, an act to inspire women to enter the aerospace field and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor saya. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table p-fplt. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. wednesday, februar february 15, follow the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date,

and the time for the two leaders be reserved until later in the day, further that following leader we marks the senate resume consideration of h.j. res. 40 as under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the >> to be the new white house budge director, a vote to move ahead with that nomination coming up tomorrow and several more cabinet nominations on the agenda for later this week. here's some earlier debate on the background checks iow resolution. >> before i speak on the issue