[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2587-2588]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the Senate has been acting to provide 
relief from harmful regulations by utilizing the Congressional Review 
Act, which provides the legislative tools needed to repeal them.
  I am pleased to report that just yesterday the President signed the 
first of several regulation-relief resolutions we hope to send him. 
Later this week, he will sign a second resolution--a resolution 
identical to the one I sponsored in the Senate that can bring relief to 
thousands of mining families in Kentucky and across the country by 
overturning the problematic stream buffer regulation.
  Today, we will send him another one. In a few minutes we will vote to 
protect the constitutional rights of Americans with disabilities. The 
resolution will provide relief from an overly broad and legally 
deficient regulation that threatens the Second Amendment rights of law-
abiding Americans with disabilities.
  Specifically, in the waning days of the Obama administration, the 
Social Security Administration issued a rule that the ACLU and 
disability groups across the country oppose because it unfairly treats 
many Americans with disabilities.
  Under this rule, the Social Security Administration must report to 
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System anyone who 
receives benefits for certain disabilities and whom the Social Security 
Administration believes needs a representative payee to help manage 
these benefits. As a result of being included on this list, many 
disabled Social Security beneficiaries are barred from lawfully 
purchasing a firearm, even though there has been no adjudication that 
the beneficiary is ``mentally defective,'' which is the standard under 
both the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the NICS Improvement Amendments 
Act of 2007 for being barred from buying a firearm.
  Numerous disability rights groups oppose the regulation as unfairly 
stigmatizing the disabled. They agree with us on the need to stop the 
regulation. The substantive problem with the regulation is compounded, 
the groups note, by ``the absence of any meaningful due process 
protections prior to the Social Security Administration's transmittal 
of names to the NCIS database.''
  The National Council on Disability, the nonpartisan independent 
Federal agency charged with advising the President and Congress on 
policies that affect people with disabilities, opposes the regulation, 
too. The Council also urges us to use the Congressional Review Act to 
repeal this eleventh hour regulation ``because of the . . . 
constitutional right at stake and the very real stigma that this rule 
legitimizes.''
  Our colleague from Illinois, the assistant Democratic leader, 
apparently disagrees with the ACLU, the National Council on Disability, 
and disability rights groups across the country. He came to the floor 
yesterday to discuss this issue. Like him, we are all deeply saddened 
by the senseless loss of life due to gun violence. It is alarming 
indeed that we have seen it increase in certain communities, like 
Chicago. But the way to address this problem is not to stigmatize the 
disabled or to deprive law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment 
rights without due process of law.
  The Department of Justice states that ``firearms violations should be 
aggressively used in prosecuting violent crime.'' The DOJ goes on to 
state that such violations are ``generally simple and quick to prove.'' 
Under the Obama administration, however, there was a 35-percent 
decrease in gun prosecutions as compared to the Bush Administration, 
when measured over a 10-year period. In fact, gun prosecutions 
decreased in almost every year of the Obama administration. I am 
hopeful that the new leadership at the Justice Department will reverse 
this alarming trend.
  What is not helpful, of course, is the assistant Democratic leader's 
implication that the Senate is addressing this

[[Page 2588]]

regulation as some sort of payback to the National Rifle Association. I 
would inform my friend that almost two dozen groups oppose this last-
minute regulation, including nearly 20 disability rights groups.
  Does he think the opposition to this regulation from groups like the 
American Civil Liberties Union, the National Coalition for Mental 
Health Recovery, and the American Association of People with 
Disabilities is based on some sort of payback? The reality is that, 
like us, they believe this regulation is simply bad policy. It places 
an unfair stigma on those with disabilities and violates their 
constitutional rights, which is why a wide array of groups oppose it.
  I am glad the Senate will now join the House in protecting the 
constitutional rights of Americans with disabilities by voting to undo 
the unfair stigma this regulation imposes on them.
  I want to thank my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, who has 
been a leader in addressing this regulation. He introduced the Senate 
companion of the bill we will vote on today, with over 30 cosponsors.

                          ____________________