Is allowing anyone to purchase a firearm who is prohibited under current law or regulations. I want that to be very clear. I want it to be very clear right after the bat so that no one misinterprets this as some effort to let people own firearms who would normally be prohibited. This legislation is needed because a very disturbing trend has occurred in the past decade share the glory with someoneade else and we think theres good in legislation and every piece of legislation has hat the Veterans Administrations relying are way back if the 1970s. That predates even the National Instant criminal background check system and is way, way long before the Supreme Court held the Second Amendment to be a fundamental, constitutional right. These regulations grant limited authority to determine incompetence only in the context of financial matters. The regulation reads like this. Quote, rating agencies have Sole Authority to make an official determination of competence or incompetence for the purpose of insurance and disbursement of benefit, end of quote. Theres nothing wrong with that language, but its that language that leads to the problems that veterans have with their Second Amendment rights. So from this language its clear that the core Regulatory Authority applies to matters of competency for financial purposes. It has nothing to do with regulating who can purchase firearms. But that is exactly what is happening. So veterans are losing their Second Amendment rights because they have someone managing their checkbook. Its that simple. You cant handle your finances, you lose your Second Amendment rights. So everybody wants to know how this is happening. Federal law requires that before a person is reported to a gun ban list, they be determined a, quote unquote mental defective. The bureau of tobacco, alcohol and firearms created a regulation to define what mental defective means. It includes among other requirements that a person is in danger to self or others. The v. A. Has taken the position that this alcohol, tobacco, firearm regulation can then be made to fit within its own preexisting regulatory structure for a signing for assigning a fiduciary thus requiring that name be put on the gun ban list. The intent and purpose between these two regulations are entirely different. On the one hand, the v. A. Regulation is designed to appoint a fiduciary. On the other hand, the a. T. F. Regulation is designed to regulate firearms. That is a great big, huge distinction. The level of mental impairment that justifies taking away the right to possess and own firearms must rest at a severe and substantial level, a level where the mere possession of a firearm constitutes a danger to self and others. That decision is never made by the v. A. Before submitting names to this gun ban list. As such then, imposing a gun ban is a harsh result that could sweep up veterans that are fully capable of appropriately owning a firearm. And in fact it gets worse. When veterans are placed, then, on that gun ban list, they must prove that theyre not dangerous to the public in order to get their names removed from that list. That danger dangerousness standard is much higher than the mere assignment of a fiduciary. Thus, veterans are subject to more rigorous and more demanding evidencery standard ef dentary standard to get their name off the gun ban list than the federal government must prove to put their names on that list. So we ought to all agree that thats unfair. And i also believe that it is unconstitutional. When dealing with the fundamental constitutional right like the one protected by the Second Amendment, at the very minimum the government ought to be held to the same standard as we the people. We owe it to our veterans to fix this problem. As of december 31, 2016, the Veterans Administration reported 167,815 veterans to the gun ban list for assigning a fiduciary. Thats 167,815 out of 171,083 or another way of saying it, 98 of all names reported. It is important to note that since the v. A. Reports names to the gun ban list merely when a fiduciary is assigned to that veteran, not one of those names has been reported because a veteran has been deemed a public danger. Accordingly, not all veterans reported to the gun ban list should be on it. On may 18, 2016, i debated this very issue on the senate floor with senator durbin. He said, and i quote, i do not dispute what the senator from iowa has suggested, that some of these veterans may be suffering from a Mental Illness not serious enough to disqualify them from owning a firearm but certainly many of them do. End of quote. Then senator durbin said, quote, let me just concede at the outset, reporting 174,000 names goes too far but eliminating 174,000 names goes too far. Im pleased that senator durbin acknowledged that many of the names on the gun ban list supplied by the v. A. Do not pose a danger and should be removed. I want to thank his staff for working with my staff during this process. The essential question then is how do we go about fixing it the right way. And i believe my legislation does just that. This legislation adds a new step before the v. A. Can report names to a gun ban list. That step requires that once a fiduciary is assigned, the v. A. Must first find the veteran to be a danger to self or to the public before taking away their firearms. Thats the same standard that the veteran must satisfy currently in order to get their names off the gun ban list. My legislation also provides constitutional due process. Specifically it shifts the burden of proof to the government to prove a veteran is dangerous before taking away firearms. Currently, the entire burden of proof is on the veteran to prove that he or she is not dangerous. When a constitutional right is involved, the burden must always be on the government. My bill also creates an option for the veterans to seek legal redress via administrative board or the federal court system. The veteran is in control and it provides an avenue for every veteran already on that gun ban list to get their names removed. The last point is important to note. My bill does not automatically remove every veteran from the list which was a concern senator durbin raised previously when we debated this issue. It does require the v. A. To provide notice to every veteran on the list of their right to go through the due process to have their names removed. Should a veteran choose to do that, the protections, the process, the procedure, and the standards set forth in my bill would then apply to them. Every vet raen is free to veteran is free to apply for relief. Every veteran will be treated equally under my bill and, of course, thats a fair thing to do. Thats the constitutionally sound way to manage this process. The bill does provide authority for the government to seek an emergency order if they believe a veteran is a serious and imminent risk to self or to others. That was a suggestion by senator durbin to provide for shortterm safety mechanism when the situation is too urgent to wait for a judge to evaluate all the facts. The bill also retains a mechanism for the v. A. To system systematically refer veterans to the National Institute criminal background system. This was another one of senator durbins main concerns. A simple a similar bill and simpler bill passed the house of representatives last year that is similar to the amendment i tried to offer and senator durbin objected to in the year 2016. It would simply stop the v. A. From referring veterans to the gun ban list without first finding them a danger to self and others. However, it does not set up any system to make that happen. The argument is that putting veteran that this puts veterans using the v. A. In the same boat as somebody else and of course im sympathetic to that argument. But the legislation im introducing today was a goodfaith effort to overcome objections that have prevented action on this important issue in the past. My bill solves a problem that has existed for many years, denying ve veterans their Second Amendment rights. Veterans should not be subject to a harsher standard than what the government is subject to. Veterans deserve full due process protection when their Constitutional Rights are at stake. And thats the core of this legislation. The regulatory process at the back end to remove a veteran from the gun ban list is simply moved to the front end. That is the federal government must first prove that a veteran is dangerous before taking away firearms. This is the same standard applied to nonveterans. The fix . This fix will not change existing firearm laws. Felons are still prohibited from owning firearms. Persons with Domestic Violence convictions are still prohibited. Persons adjudicated as mentally defective are still prohibited. Persons involuntarily committed are still prohibited. If my bill were to become law, every federal firearm prohibition would still exist. Again, the core of my bill simply requires the federal government to prove a veteran is dangerous before taking away his or her firearms. Thats the same standard our veterans must live by currently in order to remove their name from the gun ban list and get their guns back. If we, the people, have to live under that standard, then so should our federal government. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call a senator mr. President , i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Sanders mr. President , its no secret that our country faces a Major Health Care crisis, and in fact a dysfunctional health care system. We have some 30 Million People who have no health insurance, and that number is going to go up in the coming year. We have even more people who are underinsured with high deductibles and copayments. Our people pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, which means that millions of people who go to the doctor to get a prescription are simply unable to fill that prescription, and that, mr. President , is the definition of a dysfunctional, Failing Health care system. And in the midst of all of that, there is another particular crisis dealing with primary health care, and that is even when people do have health insurance, in many parts of our country they are finding it very hard to go to a doctor, to get in to a doctor to treat the ailments that they have. We fall behind many, many other countries in terms of our lack of emphasis on primary health care, which should be the heart and soul of any Strong Health care system. The bottom line is when you get sick, you should be able to get to the doctor when you need to and not have to wait weeks and months in order to do so. In the mix of a failing primary health care system, there is one very strong bright spot, and that is for many decades now in every state in this country we have had Community Health centers run by the people themselves democratically ruh care needs of those given communities. And today in america, we have about 27 Million People, 27 men, women, and children, who are accessing Community Health centers. In my own state of vermont, one out of four vermonters gets their primary health care through a Community Health center. But these centers do more than provide primary health care. They also provide dental care, an issue that is too often ignored when we talk about the health care crisis. They provide Mental Health counseling, which is more important now than perhaps it has ever been because of the opioid and heroin epidemic our country is experiencing. And equally important, they provide lowcost prescription drugs at a time when so Many Americans cannot afford the medicine that they need. That is what Community Health centers do. And they do it well, and they do it costeffectively. And to my mind, there is no question but there is strong bipartisan support here in the senate and in the house for Community Health centers. And yet, now we have gone over four months into the 2018 fiscal year, and we still have not reauthorized funding for Community Health centers. Now i, frankly, do not understand how it happens that when you have strong bipartisan support in the house and senate for programs that are working extremely well in every state in this country, i do not know how it does happen that the Republican Leadership still has not reauthorized the Community HealthCenter Program. There is good Bipartisan Legislation right here in the senate that has, i think, the support of virtually everybody in the democratic caucus, seven in eight kweupbdz are supporting it in eight republicans are supporting it. It is the bluntstabenow bill, five yearly community reauthorization with a modest increase in funding. If the bill came to the floor today my guess is it would get 70, 80 votes, maybe even more. Now we have gone four years, four months into the fiscal year, and we still have not seen that bill reauthorized. And what is happening all over this country is the Community Health centers who often struggle with recruitment and retention are finding it harder than ever to maintain the doctors and nurses and other medical stf staff that they need because applicants are looking around and saying why should i work in a Community Health center if i dont even know if its going to be there next year . Why do i want to stay at a Community Health center if i get a better job offer and i dont know if this Community Health center will be refunded. Communities Community Health centers all over this country are hurting. Mr. President , i would say enough is enough. Right now as soon as possible we need to reauthorize the Community HealthCenter Program for at least five years, and we may need to make sure that there is Adequate Funding so that they can continue to do the excellent work that they are doing all over this country. And theres another issue that i would like to briefly touch upon, mr. President. Theres been a lot of discussion, appropriately so, about the Opioid Epidemic that is sweeping the United States. We are losing some 63 we have lost some 63,000 americans as a result of opioid overdoses in 2016 alone. Families by the millions are being impacted. I was in brattleboro, vermont, a few weeks ago and they talked to me about whats happening to the children whose parents are now addicted to opioids and the need to find foster parenting for those children. So this is clearly an epidemic that has to be dealt with, that has to be dealt with to increase funding for prevention, to do our best to make sure that young people do not get swept up into the epidemic. And also for treatment for those people who are addicted. But there is an issue that we have not touched upon enough, and that is holding the Drug Companies responsible and accountable for the product that they brought into the market. Some people may recall in april of 1994, the c. E. O. s of the seven Largest Tobacco Companies testified before the house, energy, and commerce subcommittee on health and environment in an historic hearing. And what that hearing was about was under oath, demanding to know what the executives from the Tobacco Industry knew and when they knew it. Did they know that their product was addictive . Did they know that tobacco caused cancer and Heart Disease and other medical problems . And they were asked to hold their hands up and under oath tell the committee what they knew. I think it is now appropriate for the United States senate to do the same with those Drug Companies that have produced opioids. I think we need to know what the Drug Companies knew in terms of the addictive qualities of those drugs. There is some evidence out there that suggests that Drug Companies in fact did know that the product that they were selling was in fact addictive, but they forgot to tell the doctors and certainly not the patients. Now it is one thing for somebody to do something in ignorance not knowing the impact of what you produce. That happens all the time. But it is something very different if in fact the manufacturer of a product understands that that product causes addiction, that product causes death. And we need to get to the root of that issue. We need to know what the Drug Companies knew and when they knew that. So i would hope very much, mr. President , that in the health, education, labor, and pension committee, which has jurisdiction over this issue, i would hope very much that we can bring those executives of those Drug Companies that produce opioids before us. Because not only are we talking about 60,000 people a year dying as a result of overdoses, what we are talking about also is the expenditure of tens and tens of billions of