Transcripts For CSPAN2 Gun Background Checks 20170214

Senate now, i would ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted this congress for darren dodd from the u. S. Secret service and salia m [inaudible] from the department of justice. Without objection. Okay. Today i come to the floor to address my colleagues about the bipartisan resolution of disapproval that i introduced on january 30th along with senator crapo and 24 other cosponsors. This resolution now has 32 cosponsors and, of course, thid resolution of disapproval is absolutely necessary. The resolution is a procedure as we know under the Congressional Review Act for repealing executive branch regulations. The regulation at issue in thisd disapproval resolution was issued by the Social Security administration under president obama. This regulation unfairly stigmatizes people with disabilities. If the regulation is not repealed, it will allow the agency to very unfairly deprive Social Security recipients of their second amount rights Second Amendment rights. The regulation would flult disability recipients being reported to the National Instant criminal background check system as ineligible to own a firearm. And, thus, have their Second Amendment rights violated. Now, this is essentially a national ban gun gun ban list. The agency accomplishes this by doing two things; determining if a person has a disorder on a vague, quoteunquote, mental disorder list and, two, appointing a representative payee to manage benefit payments. Thises process has been in place this process has been in place for years to merely assign a representative payee. Thats merely someone who help the recipient with their finances who is authorized to deal with the bureaucracy on the behalf of that Social Security recipient. Now it is being used to report beneficiaries to a list so thato they cannot buy or own a gun. And, of course, once on that list, individuals ar prohibited as ive already inferred from purchasing, owning and possessing firearms. Thus, violating Second Amendment rights. The regulation is flawed beyond any kind of repair. It results in reporting people to the gun ban list that should not be on that list at all. It deprives those people from their Constitutional Rights and in a very important way violating their Constitutional Rights without even due process. Under current federal law, one must first be deemed mentally defective before being reported to the gun ban list. However, the mental disorder list in this regulation is filled with vague characteristics that do not fit into the federal, quoteunquote, mentally defective standard. The disorder list is inconsistent with the federal mentally defective standard. More importantly, the list was never designed to regulate firearms. As such, it is improper to uses it for that purpose. Many of the disorders on the list are unrelated to gun safety. For example, the disorders list includes eating disorders, disorders that merely impact sleep or cause restlessness and even disorders that could cause, quoteunquote, feelings of inadequacy. Because the Second Amendment is a fundamental right, they government must have a very compelling reason to regulate, and the regulation must be very narrowly tailored. Its unfairly stigmatizes people then with disabilities. The government is essentially saying that a person with a disability such as an eating disorder is more likely to be violent and should no longer be allowed to own a gun. There is no evidence to support that general idea, and consequently, people being denied Constitutional Rights without i due process. And if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their Mental Illness, then the government should have to prove it. Pretty basic constitutional law. The government should have to prove if youre denied a constitutional right. Council the National Council on disabilities and that happens to be a nonpartisan and independent federal agency has said this, quote the rule stigmatizes a group of people or who are not likely to perpetuate the kind of violence the rule hopes to address. Furthermore, it deprives a much broader class of individuals of a constitutional right that was intended by federal law. End of quote. In addition, the American Civil Liberties union has said, and i quote, we oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and Diverse Group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee and a propensity towards gun violence, end of quote by the American Civil Liberties union. The con sor or shut up for consortium for citizens with disabilities, and thats a coalition of 100 National Disability groups, thattium shas consortium shares the same concerns about regulation, and i quote from them the current public dialogue is replete withs inaccurate stereotyping of people with mental disabilities as violent and danger, and there is a real concern that the kind of policy change encompassed by this rule will reinforce those unfounded assumptions, end of quote. In other words, unfounded assumptions about who might be disabled or not. So, mr. President , i ask that these letters be entered into the record. Without objection. Some of the supporters of thu new gun ban have brought forth be forth arguments to try and discredit the other side. They have said that repealing the agency rule will allow the mentally ill to acquire firearms. Let me tell you why that is not true. Under this regulation, the Social Security administration never, ever determines a person to be mentally ill before reporting them to this gun ban list. It does not provide due process before reporting them to the list. The once the agency places a person on this disordered list, it then moves to assign a representativi payee. But that is a very flawed process as well. The former Social Security Administration Inspector general said the following last year in testimony before a committee about assigning a representative payee, a very short quote from the inspector general. It is not a scientific decision, the it is a personal opinion. End of quote. Now, its quite obvious you were our constitution and due process that the personal opinion of ane bureaucrat cannot be the basis for taking away a persons Second Amendment rights. Further, a june 2015 internal Social Security report found significant shortcomings in the representative payee process; i namely that, and i quote from the Social Security report, the Social Security administrations capability determinations were or undeveloped were undeveloped, undocumented and insufficiently documented, end of quote. Now, very legitimate question can be raised, how can any of us be comfortable allowing our fellow citizens to be subjected to such a process, a process that leads to the violation of Constitutional Rights . The regulation does not then require a formal hearing at any point. Federal law and othertions, reqi regulations require that a formal hearing take place. 18usc922 paren d, a paren four p requires adjudication before depriving someone of the right to own a firearm due to Mental Illness. There can be no adjudication if there is no hearing. In a 1996 atf federal register notice says, quote the legislative history of the gun control act makes it clear that a formal adjudication issa necessary before firearms disabilities are incurred, end quote. The Obama Administration knew that fundamental rights required constitutional due process. At the bare minimum, that requires a hearing. Yet in this rule, no hearing is being afforded to that individual that will eventually their have their Constitutional Rights abrogated. And, of course, that ought to be considered not only a travesty, but a travesty on the constitution as well. Na the constitutional due process is entirely nonexistent because there is absolutely no opportunity for an individual to challenge the proceedings against them. The American Civil Liberties union has echoed the same concerns, and i quote from the aclu, the rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the Social Security administrations transmittal of the names to the National Instant criminal background check system database. End of quote from the aclu. The Second Amendment is very much being tossed aside without a formal dispute process to challenge the actions before a constitutional right is abridged. F on these facts alone, the regulation should be repealed, but theres yet more. The regulation tails to establish fails to establish that a person is a danger to themselves or a danger to others before taking away theha Constitutional Rights that the Second Amendment allows. If a right, if a rule premised on safety is to have any credibility, one would obviously think that the government needs to prove a person is dangerous. But this rule fails in that regard because it does not require the agency to find a person is, in fact, dangerous. The Second Amendment is ang fundamental right requiring the government to carry the burden showing a person has a dangerous Mental Illness. O this regulation obviously and simply does not achieve that requirement. To be clear, however, if this regulation is repealed, federal gun probe prohibitions will still exist. Individuals who have proven to be a danger to themselves or a danger to others till be pro will still be prohibited from purchasing firearms. Also individuals who are found to have a dangerous Mental Illness will be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. N also a person convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor crime of Domestic Violence will still be prohibited from purchasing and and own and possessing a firearm. The same for those involuntarily committed to a mental institution. So, prime minister, as government so, mr. President , as government expands, liberty contracts. And it follows that with the expansion of government power is centralized here in this island surrounded by reality that we call washington, d. C. Rather than throughout the americaneop. People. And often with that centralization of power, the centralization of power that you see in this regulation by the Social Security administration, fairness does not necessarily follow. This obama era regulation is a perfect example of government wielding too much power, the our to deny people due process, the power to deny people their Constitutional Rights under the Second Amendment, the process i described here is extremely problematic, and it calls for doing away with this rule by passing this resolution of is disapproval. It is not clear that any of these disorders a person is labeled with has anything whatsoever to do with a persons ability to responsibly own a tire arm. A firearm. And there is insufficient due process to insure that a person actually has a given disorderis that would interfere with their safe use of a firearm. Notably, even a representative payee has been assigned notably, even the if a representative payee has been assigned, the individual still maintains the capacity to contract. Thus, government is subject to a very low threshold to report names to the gun list and no burden of proof being necessary. By contrast, under this regulation those who are reported to the list must prove the negative. Theyve got to prove that the governments wrong. They must prove, in a sense in proving the governments wrong, they must prove that they are not a danger in order to get their name off of that gun ban list. For the government to shift the burden to the citizens whose rights it is depriving is clearly unfair. Ot its not only unfair, its unconstitutional. F the failure to determine a person mentally ill or that person being a danger to self or to others is a material defect to this regulation. Finish and so is the failure to afford constitutional due process. There is no reasonable basis under this regulation to justify abridging that very important fundamental constitutional right, and that is why this regulation must be repealed through the passage of this resolution of disapproval. I yield the floor. Senator oh, can you wait a minute . Mr. President . De i ask unanimous consent that the senate be recess from 12 30 tilling 2 15 today til 2 15 today. Is there objection . Mr. President . Without objection, the senator from [inaudible] mr. President , the senate is currently considering h. J. Res40, a resolution of approval. It infringes on Many Americans Second Amendment rights. As the cosponsor of the Senate Companion to this resolution filed by chairman grassley, i would like to add my voice to that of the many advocates,sa including the National Disabilities Rights Network and groups like the National Rifle associate who work to protect the right of lawabiding gun owners who have expressed support for this important legislation. To i would also like to express my appreciation to chairman grassley and others for their leadership on this issue. This illadvised regulation not only stigmatizes individuals with disabilities, it also violates the Second Amendment and Due Process Rights of Many Americans, and it should be repealed. As a longtime supporter of americans constitutional right to keep and bear arms, i was deeply troubled by thisow regulation which allows the Social Security administration to report individuals they considered in the words used in the regulation to be, quote, mentally defective, unquote, tol the National Institute criminal background check system or niccs as it is called. If they receive Disability Insurance benefits and receive those benefits through a representative payee. When someone receives benefits through ssas representative Payee Program, ssa field Office Employees have deemed them unable to manage their finances. However, ssas representativem Payee Program itself is, by mant accounts, ineffectively administered. And you dont have to take my word for it. As recently as 2013, the Government Accountability office identified that ssa, quote, struggles to effectively administer its Payee Program, unquote. Ere there are unexplained and large sc discrepancies across various regions of the country that ssa serves in numbers of beneficiaries who are assigned by ssa field offices to be in the paywith ee program. Yet despite these known gaps and discrepancies, ssa apparently thought that this system was sufficient to determine whether some beneficiaries should be afforded a constitutional right well, lets be clear. Under ssas rule, individuals who were not found by ssa employees or any other Competent Authority to be a danger to themselves or others but, rather, simply need help managing their finances will be prohibited from legally purchasing a firearm. While we all want to make sure that the niccs system worksnt effectively to prevent violent criminals and those who actually do pose a threat from purchasing firearms, this regulation is exceedingly overbode broad. Overbroad. Moreover, it is not at all clear to me that ssa employees in field offices should be put in charge of deciding who can legally purchase a firearm. Of course, the bureaucracies at ssa who were prodded by the Obama Administration to write the rule say that they will create some sort of internal structure to allow beneficiariei to appeal the decisions of ssa employees. Of course, that means that ssa would shield to construct would need to construct a new costly adjudication system to employees are not well equipped to make in the first place. This is particularly strange is given that it is Standard Practice at ssa to decry the agencys funding [inaudible] while also claiming that it is already unable to adequately serve its beneficiaries due to budgetary shortfalls. Mr. President , all of this simply does not add up. The ssa is not at all equipped for this kind of decision making. Ov moreover, the standards that a would apply under the regulation for ssa to report a beneficiary to the niccs represent a much lower bar than the one anticipated in the applicable federal statutes to determine the eligibility to purchase a firearm. Rc that being the case, we need to resolution of disapproval which has already been approved by the house of representatives with bipartisan support. I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this resolution, and i want to thank my friend from oregon for allowing me to go forward on this short set of remarks. I yield the floor. President . R senate from oregon senator from oregon. Mr. President , i listened w carefully to my colleagues on the other side, and i want to make sure people really understand what this debate is. All about. This debate is about background ch checks, its about Mental Health. It is not about taking away Constitutional Rights. And im struck, mr. President and i know the distinguished president of the senate has taken part in a lot of these debates as well is whenever there is a discussion about guns in the United States senate, senators get up and say we shouldnt be debating guns. We ought to be debating mentala. Health. Thats what were talking about here today. And Mental Health and, colleagues, were talking about background checks. Now, the fact of the matter is you can go into town Hall Meetings in any part of america, and you will hear extraordinary support for the whole idea of background checks. Background checks, as it indicated, is right at the heart of this mornings debate. Supporting background checks is not some extreme, farout position to hold. In fact, opposing background checks is the view thats way out of the mainstream of american political thought. A lean poll found that a recent poll found that 92 of gun owners supported expanded background checks. Let me just repeat that. 92 of gun owners, gun owners in america, support expanded background checks. As the courts continue to interpret the language of the, o Second Amendment, one matter has been made clear. Background checks are a constitutional part of the exercise of those rights. So so what im going to do is describe what this is all about, but i want to as we get going make sure that people understand that fundamentally this is about background checks, its about Mental Health, it is not about taking away somebodys Constitutional Rights. So heres how the proposal under discussion works. If there is an individual with a severe mental impairment that means another person, perhaps a family member, is in charge of their Social Security benefits, then the background check is to be informed by Social Security that the person with a severe mental impairment is inel eligible to buy ineligible to buy a gun. Now, the fact is you can always talk about tailoring the rule in a slightly, you know, different way. Its critically important that individuals who wind up in the background check system are not treated unfairly. But the fact is anyone who thinks that they have been unfairly affected by this proposal can appeal. And they are most likely goinghe to win as long as they are not a danger to themselves or anyone else. Security Administration Says no, that person has the power to take their case to court. So what were talking about here is, in my view, not about democrats, republicans, bt nsmocrats, republicans, bt in my view it is not about democrats, republicans, liberals and conservatives, you can just, talking about plano, on burnished common sense. We want, all of us to stop shooting by those who are in danger of hurting themselves or other persons. They came out last year that goes back to the shootings at Virginia Tech and sandy hook. The Previous Administration sought to do was to find common sense gun safety steps that could be taken under laws on the books. I want to emphasize this as well. Whenever we talk about guns, what senators always say ist lets use the laws that are on the books. We all want to trace new laws in the bike. So they sought to use the laws on the book to preevent the horrendous act of violence that have so chart our country in recent years and i know the previous senator has known something about that. So, help my colleagues willre oppose the resolution. I think we are all aware here, in the senate that whenever you have an issue that even touches on guns, everybody goes into their corner. They go into their respective, corners. My own view is, and i represent a state with a great many gun tw owners, i had more than 750 town Hall Meetings at home. And a lot of them involves debates about guidance. Overwhelmingly in a state like mine where there are a lot of gun owners, gun owners support making sure their background check, they want to address this as a Mental Health issue and gun owners overwhelmingly say they have just had it with congresswh doing absolutely nothing when it comes to practical common sense gun measures like background ju checks. They just look at what goes on in washington, d. C. And i have had so many gun owners not just a town meeting, but we we have an icon in our state, fred meyer and i think i have had a chicken at every fred meyer in the state of oregon. People come up and talk about this and say why in the world cant there be democrats and republicans who just come together to do something that helps make our country a little bit safer. And thats what this is about mr. President. I is a panacea, that somehow this is a magical lips or that is going to reduce gun violence in america. That would not be right and k certainly not part of how i see these debates. I see this as a commonsense practical measure relating to background checks and Mental Health. I listen to my colleagues, my friend from finance committee, senator grassley and of members of the senate feel so strongly that this particular rule needst addressing, then there ought to be a debate. The Senate Democrats and republicans get together and figure out how to improve the rule. But what is important is staff is not thats not going to be possible if this resolution passes. If this role is struck down under the Congressional Review Act it wouldnt just scrap this particular background check it would prevent this issue from being addressed for quite a number of years. Im going to close by talking a bit personally for a minute about why i feel so strongly about this. My late brother jeff who passeda at 51 suffered from schizophrenia. A serious mental impairment. His he started to withdrawn his teens. His condition just got worse over the next few years. We were close, it was just a couple of years younger than me. I watched a continuing odyssey that jeff went through the various Mental Health facilities , runins with the law on the streets. I will say that not a day went by in our household when we werf not worried that jeff was going to hurt himself or somebody else. That was the reality for the family and that is a fear that i know is seen in households all across the country day in and day out. My brother received benefits from Public Programs while he wo struggled with a mental were impairment. My dad wrote a book about it because we were so hopeful that one time. He wrote a book called conference schizophrenia. But, we always felt that itt would be a big mistake if jeff could buy a gun it wouldve been a danger to himself. He wouldve been a danger to others and, i dont dont think americans should have to carry f that burden and experience that kind of worry that comes along with the danger that we felt week after week for years in our household. And that i know other familiesry across the country feel as welly the president of the senate was not in the chair when we started off by saying to me this is about background checks. It is about Mental Health, its not about taking away peoples constitutional peoples Constitutional Rights. I can understand why other people would have a difference of opinion. Thats what the senate is about. Thats what the senate is supposed to do, debate these issues. So somebody says there is a better way to do this ande improve it, count me in. Count me in to talk with colleagues, the president of the senate and others about it. But. But you oppose this resolution today and you close out that door. You preempt that possibility because of the way the Congressional Review Act actually works. So, i urge my colleagues to oppose this. This is what the senate says it wants to do when we talk about guns. I wish i had a nickel every time the summit talks about god i wish i had a nickel each time a senator gets up and says wee shouldnt be working on guns we should be working on Mental Health. Thats what this is about. Ii urge mike colleagues to oppoe the resolution and i yield the t floor. Thank you mr. President. I have heard my republican friends tell those of us who gun changed to talk to our constituents against gun violence and what we should do is focus on enforcing the existing laws. We dont need new laws we just need to work on enforcing the existing law. Senator wyden said he was shed had a dime every time hes been told that our focus should be on background checks. I wish i could have a dime every time i heard republicans tell me we should change existing law. Yetr i would also be a rich man if i had a had a dime every time republicans come to the floor and tried to undermine the existing law and try to rewrite the existing law to make it harder in order to enforce it. The appropriations act is loaded up with writers that hamstring enforcement agencies do not allow them to actually enforce existing laws. Today before us it will make it harder for the federal government to do it we have been told to do for decades which is people who are seriously mentally along the list that are prohibited from buying guns. Thats existing law. The existing law says if you are convicted of a serious crime, or you have a serious mental by illness and you have gone through a process by which a determination has been made by Government Agency as such, that you should not be able to buy a weapon. Why do we have that why we comer together to say even with note on so this over and over again that if you have committed a Violent Crime that you are likely, more likely than if you have not committed a Violent Crime to commit another one. Sand have seen these mass shooters walk into places Like Sandy Hook Elementary School where moviem theater in colorado or classroom in blacksburg. We know that people with serious Mental Illness in this country can go buy a very powerful weapon and to great damage with it. Now, that does not mean there is an inherent connection between Mental Illness and violence. In fact we know the opposite toe be true if you are mentally ill youre probably more likely to be the victim of violence than to be the perpetrator of it. But, when on this country given the fact that weapons are so easy to come by, people with Mental Illness, serious Mental Illness who have an intersection with visions of violence often do great time. So we made a collective decision that if you have a serious Mental Illness you probably should not be able to go by an assault weapon. Thats what the law says. Section 101 of the nixon improvement act is entitled enhancement of it requirement that federal departments and that information to the instant criminal background check system. Thats legislation that democrats and republicans supported and it commands that they provide relevant information to the criminalefins background check system. It defines those who should not be able to buy a gun with one who lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs. So, theres the existing statute. It says relevant agencies should forward information to the criminal background check system on individuals who are prohibited from owning guns and that is defined apart as individuals who lack the mental capacity to manage his or her own affairs. Re eeas exactly what the regulation was with the Obama Administration at the end of last year does. It says that that individuals who have filed a claim for disability who meet the requirements of mental disorders have been fined to be so severely impaired that they are unable to work on they have been found with due process of being incapable to manage their own benefits and have that are represented appointed to them, that those individuals meet the o definition of someone who lacks the mental capacity to manage their own affairs. Ob, and so if you are supporting this today than you are undermining the ability of lawenforcement to do their jobs to enforce the law as congress e has passed since me this rhetoric about passing no new laws because we should focus on enforcement. Once again, you are undermining the ability of the federal government and lawenforcement to enforce the law lets be clear about what the danger is here. It is correct to state there is no inherent connection between being mentally olympian dangerous. The risk is not just an individual is going to buy a gun and use it themselves. The risk is that someone who p cant literally deposit their own paycheck, but he cant, it likely cant responsibly own and protect a gun. I could sit here from the rest of the day and recites you the number of times that it gun that was owned by one individual get used in an accidental shooting, got taken illegally, stolen from their ser premises the problem with thatie its not just that they are going to take that weapon and fire it is that they are not going to own and keep it responsibly. You cannot manage your own Financial Affairs, how can we expect that you are going to be a responsible steward of a dangerous, lethal firearm. Were talking about a limited group of individuals here who, by by the way under the regulation have due process to contest to the determination. They have an ability to contest the determination by Social Security that they should not be able to manage their own nhl affairs and then the regulatione gives them the ability to contest the limitation on gun fy ownership. So there is full ability for the individual to contest thist limitation which makes it completely constitutional in the nonsense that this is a restriction of the constitutional right. The heller decision which holds that the individual has a right to gun ownership also makes it explicit in Justice Scalias opinion that there are limitations to that right and this clear decision itselfun listens one of those by people who are seriously mentally all. F so, the laws clear that federal agencies are required to upload information on those individuals who cannot manage their own Financial Affairs because of Mental Illness. The Supreme Court is clear that this is entirely constitutional so, why are we doing this . Why are we having a debate about rolling back the criminal background check system when 90 of americans support it . Im going to tell you that no you sit down with your constituents and tell them that you voted you are not going to get a lot of takers. Its not because people dont have compassion for people with Mental Illness. Ive worked for the last two years to pass the most substantial Mental Health reform act that this body has seen in a decade. Ive spent as much or more time than anyone in this chamber advocating to the right for people with Mental Illness and for their treatment. I also understand that when people are so mentally ill that they cannot manage their own Financial Affairs, they should not buy a gun that that is ar. Small class of people. Me mr. President , what makes me so angry about this, is that i have no idea how to go back to people that i represent in connecticut and tell them that in four years since the massacre in a small town Elementary School that not only has Congress Passed no law, may no change in statute to try to keep dangerous weapons out oy the hands of wouldbe shooters, but that today were doing exactly the opposite. The response to the epidemic of Mass Shootings is to make it easier for people with serious Mental Illness to get guns. Do how do i explain that people inw connecticut . Here sho how do the folks representinglar areas where shootings are a regular occurrence explain that congress has done nothing to cie address Mass Shootings, to address address the epidemic rates of gun violence in our cities, yet we think it is so important to undermine the criminal background check system, not strengthen it, undermine it. Undermine it. Then the first month of this nen administration and we are rushing through this repeal of a commonsense regulation. That is deeply offensive. Erminig to the majority of americans who think that we should be strengthening the criminal background check system, not undermine it. 90 of americans thinks we should have the universal background check. I not only are we not listening tt them, we are undermining the criminal background check system today. Today i get the the gun lobby is pretty powerful in this place. Way i get, that they have stood inkc the way of changes in our criminal background check system that are supported by 90 of americans. And even i wasnt wasnt cynical enough to think that a fan so much power they could get congress to rollback, to undermine the criminal background check system in the wake of this continued horrific level of gun violence all across the country. Senator wyden is right. Imp the danger in this is not just that it has the Immediate Impact of undermining the criminal background check system, but it potentially blocks our ability to get this right in the future. We do not know what the precedent is for cras because we have not done that before. What we know is that it says you cannot pass any regulation that is substantially similar to the wh regulation that you legislated up. What is that mean in the context of keeping people with serious Mental Illness off the criminal background check system. Does that mean that we cant ever legislate or legislator regulate on the restr narrow issue of individuals who have their right of Financial Affairs restricted through Social Security . Or is that it broader prohibition that limits the administrations ability to regulate on strengthening of the criminal background check system in a more comprehensive way . Youre playing with fire becausg this is the precedent that we know nothing about. 9 youre playing with fire because youre potentially limiting the ability to ever get this issue right in the future with 90 of americans want us to work on it but i understand this issue is a sensitive one. Having my entire career workinge handinhand with committed advocates for people with Mental Illness i understand that danger but, this is is a narrow category of individuals who, byi definition fit the parameters in existing law for those that are supposed to be up next system. And for of the things that we disagree about on gun policy, i dont six suspect will have act meeting of the minds on whether all gun sales should be subject to background sales. I dont think well figure out g wayi thought we at least agree to keep in the background check system that we have and the existing law. Ti the existing law says that individuals who lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs should be included on the list of those prohibited from buying weapons. Today we wd are undermining that existing law. Were underlining thehe enforcement. Urg something republicans had said over and over again they are not interested in doing. I would strongly or to my college to vote against this measure. I thank you for the time. I yelled back. U. S. Senate today confirmed former wrestling executive with the mcmahon as part of the smallbusiness demonstration. Tomorrow. Tomorrow, the senate will vote on a resolution to repeal an Obama Administration rolling on that background checks. The rule requires Social Security administration to notify the federal gun background system of people receiving disability benefits because theyre mentally ill. Tomorrow the Senate Begins consideration of the president s nominee to to serve as head of the white house budget office. The nominee is South Carolina congressman nick mulvaney. When the senate is in session morning at 10 00 a. M. Eastern, life a. M. Eastern, life coverage on cspan2. Right now Senate Leaders briefed reporters earlier today area first will hear from republicans, then the democrats. Good afternoon everyone. We are making our way through these cabinet appointments. Our democratic friends are burning all the time they possibly can to keep the president from getting his outstanding cabinet selections and places of the government can function