[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 14, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1138-S1142]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                  NICS

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, later today we are going to consider an 
effort under the Congressional Review Act to change America's 
background check system when it comes to the purchase of firearms.
  For months, I have been listening to President Trump and the 
Republicans talk about gun violence in the city of Chicago. It is a 
heartbreaking reality. More than 4,300 people were shot in Chicago last 
year and over 400 so far this year. It is not just Chicago. The 
American Medical Association has declared that gun violence is a public 
health crisis in our Nation.
  So what is Congress doing to save lives in Chicago and across the 
Nation from gun violence? What is the Senate doing to protect people 
from being shot? Nothing.
  Instead, the Republican Congress is trying to weaken one of the gun 
laws on the books--the NICS Improvement Amendments Act. This is the law 
passed unanimously by Congress after the Virginia Tech massacre and 
signed into law in 2008 by President George W. Bush.
  This law says that every Federal agency needs to let the FBI NICS 
background check system know when the agency has information about 
people who fall within the legal prohibitions on gun possession. 
Everyone agreed we needed to get these records into the NICS system, 
especially records about those who are seriously mentally unstable, 
such as the Virginia Tech shooter. That man had a history of mental 
illness, but he was able to buy guns and kill 32 people because his 
records were not in the background check system known as NICS.

  There is a longstanding Federal prohibition on gun possession by 
those who are suffering from mental illness. This prohibition is so 
well established that the late Justice Antonin Scalia cited it in the 
Supreme Court's Heller decision as an example of a restriction that is 
presumptively lawful and consistent with the Second Amendment.
  There have been tragic cases where people with serious mental 
illnesses have used guns to cause great harm. The Newtown, CT, shooter 
showed signs of severe mental health problems that went untreated 
before he killed 20 students and 6 educators at Sandy Hook Elementary 
School. The Tucson, AZ, shooter, who shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords 
and killed six others, was diagnosed after the shooting with 
schizophrenia. And it was 9 years ago today when a gunman who had been 
diagnosed and treated for mental illness killed 5 people and injured 17 
in a classroom building at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb.
  About two-thirds of shooting deaths each year are suicides. Last 
year, there were more than 21,000 suicides by gun. The National 
Alliance on Mental Illness reports that ``about 90% of individuals who 
die by suicide experience mental illness.''
  Mental illness is a challenging issue for our society. I have worked 
to expand treatment and coverage for mental illness, including through 
the Affordable Care Act, one of the most important single laws we have 
ever passed to address mental illness. I wish those who are trying to 
repeal this commonsense gun safety regulation would drop that effort 
and join us in stopping this repeal of the Affordable Care Act. We need 
more and better services for people with mental illness.
  The reality is that the gun laws on the books are narrowly drawn when 
it comes to mental illness and so is the rule we are being asked to 
repeal today. Current Federal law says that a person who has been 
``adjudicated as a mental defective'' is prohibited from gun 
possession. The phrase ``adjudicated as a mental defective'' is defined 
in the law as a determination by ``a court, board, commission, or other 
lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal 
intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: 
(1) is a danger to himself or others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity 
to contract or manage his own affairs.''
  The 2008 NICS Improvement law, signed into law by President George W. 
Bush, directed Federal agencies to send their relevant records to the 
NICS system. Last year, the Social Security Administration issued a 
rule to implement this law after concluding that certain determinations 
by the Social Security Administration qualify as an adjudication of 
mental defectiveness.
  Let me explain what the SSA rule says. Under this rule, starting in 
December of this year, the Social Security Administration will begin 
sending to NICS--the body which gathers information and records for 
background checks before the possession of firearms--the name, date of 
birth, and Social Security number of people who meet each of the five 
threshold criteria. The person must be between the ages of 18 and 65, 
have filed a claim with SSA for benefits based on disability, have been 
diagnosed with a serious, long-term mental disorder, have been 
determined by SSA to be disabled and unable to perform substantial work 
because of the mental disorder, and have been subject to determination 
by the Social Security Administration that the mental disorder is so 
serious that the person needs to have a representative appointed to 
manage the person's benefits.
  This is not a situation where the Social Security Administration 
would notify NICS just because a person can't balance his checkbook. 
There must be a seriously debilitating, medically diagnosed mental 
illness involved.
  The rule is prospective only. Current Social Security disability 
beneficiaries are not subject to it. The rule is predicted to cover 
about 75,000 Americans, once it takes effect, out of the estimated 10 
million suffering from a serious mental illness.
  I might add here for the record, I do not suggest that every person 
who has any form of mental illness is a danger. In fact, exactly the 
opposite is true. But we do know that those who suffer from serious 
mental conditions many times are engaged in violent conduct and many 
times with horrible results when they have firearms.
  The rule we are being asked to repeal on the floor of the Senate 
provides for advance notice of the Social Security Administration 
determination and the right to appeal through an administrative process 
and in court. A person can

[[Page S1139]]

obtain relief from the firearms prohibition by having healthcare 
providers and character witnesses submit statements that the person is 
not a danger to himself or others.
  Every politician claims they want to keep deadly firearms out of the 
hands of those who are seriously mentally unstable. A statement made by 
a Republican Senator from Texas, Senator Cornyn, the senior Senator 
from Texas and my counterpart on the Republican side; he said in March 
2013:

       If there was a common thread in the Virginia Tech, Tucson, 
     Aurora, and Newtown massacres, it was the mental illness of 
     the shooter. . . . We should refocus our effort to make sure 
     the current background check system works to screen out the 
     dangerously mentally-ill.

  Reasonable people can disagree over whether the SSA's rule gets it 
exactly right. There are mental health groups that have concerns about 
it, and I respect that. But using the Congressional Review Act is a 
blunt tool. Instead of fixing the rule, the Congressional Review Act 
would repeal the rule and--listen to this--permanently bar the Social 
Security Administration from adopting any substantially similar rule. 
So it likely would bar the Social Security Administration from ever 
implementing a rule to submit mental health records to NICS in the 
future.
  If there are problems with this rule, they can be addressed by fixing 
it. But the Republican response is always repeal first. This time, they 
want to repeal a rule that doesn't start until December and its repeal 
would preclude the Social Security Administration from even fixing or 
positively changing it.
  We also had disputes over the process the Department of Veterans 
Affairs used to submit names of people with mental illness to the same 
NICS background check system. Last December, we fixed it on a 
bipartisan basis. We passed language in the 21st Century Cures Act to 
ensure that a person can have his own doctor and lawyer involved in the 
process. If the Social Security Administration rule needs fixing, we 
can fix it too. But this Congressional Review Act is a sledgehammer, 
not a tool to fix it.
  We are being asked to vote today to ban an agency permanently from 
complying with the NICS law that we enacted in 2008. We are being asked 
to undermine the gun laws that are on the books.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to the opposition of this resolution 
of disapproval. Read the letter from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, who 
say that the Social Security Administration rule ``is critically 
important to the fabric of our nation's background check system.'' Read 
the editorials in newspapers across the country that oppose repealing 
this rule.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the 
Chicago Tribune be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Chicago Tribune, Feb. 10, 2017]

       Editorial: Guns and Mental Illness: Don't Scrap This Rule

                          (By Editorial Board)

       If someone has a mental illness severe enough that he 
     cannot work or manage his own money, should he be allowed to 
     own a gun?
       In the waning weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama 
     answered that question. Motivated by Adam Lanza's bloody 
     rampage at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that 
     killed 20 children and six educators in 2012, Obama imposed a 
     rule that barred gun ownership for people who qualify for 
     Social Security disability insurance because their mental 
     illness keeps them from working, and who cannot manage their 
     benefits. That pool is small--just 75,000 Americans.
       The GOP-led U.S. House just voted to scrap that rule. Bad 
     move. The Senate now decides whether to back that bad move. 
     If it does, President Trump would decide whether to go along 
     or disagree.
       Republican lawmakers hang their case on the argument that 
     the rule stigmatizes people with disabilities as dangerous. 
     ``There are people who need help and seek help, but that is 
     not a criteria for taking away one's constitutional right'' 
     to own a gun, Texas Rep. Pete Sessions said.
       Sessions implicitly exaggerates the impact of the rule. As 
     gun control measures go, the scope of this one is narrow. Its 
     goal is to keep guns out of the hands of people on record as 
     having a disabling mental disorder. The standard for taking 
     that gun away is steep--they have to be on Social Security 
     because their psychiatric disorder keeps them from working, 
     and they cannot manage their own affairs. Both conditions 
     must be met. Even if the rule keeps someone from owning a 
     gun, that person can pursue an appeal.
       America has seen what can happen when someone with severe 
     psychiatric issues has access to firearms. Their names and 
     crimes live in infamy:
       In 2007, Seung Hui Cho shot to death 32 people at Virginia 
     Tech University before killing himself. Two years earlier, a 
     judge had deemed Cho an ``imminent danger'' because of mental 
     illness and ordered him to seek treatment. But because he was 
     never committed, that assessment never got recorded in the 
     federal database of people ineligible to buy guns. Cho passed 
     the background check and bought the guns he would wield at 
     Virginia Tech.
       In 2011, Jared Loughner shot U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords 
     in the head and murdered six other people in Tucson, Ark.
       In 2012, James Holmes strode into a packed movie theater in 
     Aurora, Colo., and opened fire, killing 12 people.
       And there's Lanza, who went through months of hysterical 
     crying, stretches of lethargy and self-imposed isolation from 
     his family before unleashing terror at Sandy Hook Elementary 
     School. ``I didn't understand that Adam was drifting away,'' 
     his father, Peter Lanza, told The New Yorker in 2014.
       These crimes showcase the dangers in allowing severely 
     troubled individuals to buy firearms. The rule the House 
     voted to scrap doesn't cast so wide a net that it applies to 
     anyone seeking psychiatric treatment. It's specific in scope, 
     and anchored by a common-sense premise that many House 
     Republicans ignored: If a person's psychiatric disorder is 
     disabling enough that the individual cannot work or deal with 
     money-managing, bright red flags are being raised about his 
     or her capacity for sound judgment.
       To us, that's a logical, well-grounded reason why he or she 
     shouldn't own a gun.

  Mr. DURBIN. We can also read editorials in the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, the Charlotte Observer, the New York Times, and more.
  Now listen specifically to the pleas of gunshot victims and their 
family members. Listen to Patrick Korellis, of Chicago, whom I have 
met. He was shot in a classroom 9 years ago at Northern Illinois 
University by a man who had a serious mental illness. He wrote to me 
and he said:

       I was shot in my classroom by someone who was mentally ill, 
     and was able to obtain guns and a lot of ammunition because 
     the background checks weren't strong enough. Rolling back 
     some of these background checks doesn't make any sense, and 
     will allow more people to get through the loopholes.

  Now listen to Janet Delana of Wellington, MO. She wrote to Congress:

       My daughter Colby, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic who 
     lived at home with her father and I, received monthly Social 
     Security disability payments for her mental illness. In 2012 
     she used the money from her disability check to buy a gun at 
     a local gun dealer. Because she was ill and suicidal, I had 
     contacted the gun dealer and begged him not to sell her a 
     gun. However, my pleas were ignored and the dealer sold her a 
     gun anyway because Colby passed the background check. An hour 
     later, she shot her father to death and tried once again to 
     take her own life. She is now in an institution for life, and 
     my husband is gone.

  Janet said:

       This SSA Rule is vital. I am very concerned this resolution 
     would preclude SSA and possibly even other agencies from 
     enacting any future regulations on this or related matters.

  We have a public health crisis when it comes to gun violence--in 
Chicago and in communities across the Nation. We have a responsibility 
to do what we can on the Federal level to reduce the violence and 
protect our citizens from getting shot. Voting for this resolution of 
disapproval today would be a step backward. It would weaken the gun 
laws on the books and make it easier for severely mentally ill people 
to get guns. On this, the ninth anniversary of the shooting at Northern 
Illinois University in DeKalb, it is unthinkable that we are going to 
try to revoke a rule that would keep guns out of the hands of those who 
should have no business owning them.
  Let me conclude with a statement from Bloomberg business magazine, 
published in an edition several weeks ago:

       Advocates for the mentally ill caution that mental illness 
     shouldn't be equated with a penchant for violence. They're 
     right. But America's tragic experience with mentally ill 
     gunmen--from shootings at Virginia Tech in 2007 to Newtown, 
     Connecticut, in 2012--shows the folly of simply dismissing 
     the danger.
       In recent years Republicans have prioritized instant 
     gratification for anyone who desires to buy a gun. Last year 
     the National Rifle Association spent $50 million on the 
     campaigns of Donald Trump and six Republican senators. NRA 
     leader Wayne LaPierre, who met with Trump this week, wants 
     payback.
       The Obama rule established a process for identifying only 
     Social Security beneficiaries who would be prohibited from 
     possessing guns under existing law. It required

[[Page S1140]]

     that beneficiaries be notified of the prohibition, and it 
     provided means to appeal the determination before an 
     administrative law judge or a federal court.
       Such provisions would safeguard individual rights. But they 
     offend the fundamental principle that drives the NRA, and 
     thus Republican, gun politics: Anyone should be able to get a 
     gun at any time for any reason and bring that weapon, loaded, 
     anywhere.

  Common sense dictates that we be careful to keep guns out of the 
hands of those who would misuse them. I sincerely hope that gun owners 
across my State and across the Nation--and I respect them and their 
constitutional right--will understand that reasonable limitations on 
the possession and ownership of firearms is in the best interest of 
protecting their Second Amendment rights as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for the 
nomination of Linda McMahon to the position of Administrator of the 
U.S. Small Business Administration.
  Linda McMahon is an interesting candidate for this position. As the 
cofounder and former CEO of the WWE, she built a small regional 
business into an entertainment behemoth. Along the way she struggled to 
meet payroll, market the business, learn State and Federal regulatory 
regimes, manage a traveling workforce, learn new media platforms, and 
navigate new revenue streams.
  Each of these accomplishments is impressive. But what makes Linda 
McMahon unique for this role is the fact that, on her path to success, 
she made serious enough mistakes that she was forced to declare 
personal bankruptcy and apply for government assistance. I think having 
an Administrator who has started her own small business and met and 
overcame significant challenges along her way is of tremendous value. 
Having been in the trenches herself, she will really be able to 
evaluate the efficacy of current small business programs, and she may 
very well be able to suggest substantive improvements or even new 
directions.
  I was also particularly impressed with Mrs. McMahon's performance 
during her confirmation hearing. When she knew the answer to a question 
posed by a Senator, she answered it. When she didn't know the answer, 
she said so. She appeared to have an open mind about issues and struck 
me as sincerely interested in working on all issues with all of the 
Senators, regardless of political or geographical affiliations.
  Linda McMahon has expressed her interest in helping small businesses 
thrive. She understands how difficult it can be for entrepreneurs to 
access capital. She knows that small businesses have a hard time 
competing for Federal contracts. She knows that small business owners 
sometimes need advice and guidance--and she believes in the value of 
training and support programs.
  I support Linda McMahon's nomination because, not only is she 
interested in having the job of Administrator, she appears to have 
genuine interest in doing the job. She clearly enjoys using her 
business skills and experience to mentor entrepreneurs, and I believe 
that she will apply her tenacity to protecting and hopefully improving 
Federal support systems for America's entrepreneurs.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, Congress created the Small Business 
Administration in 1953 to ``aid, counsel, assist and protect, insofar 
as is possible, the interests of small business concerns.'' The SBA now 
provides financial assistance, help with Federal contract procurement, 
and management assistance. The agency makes specialized outreach to 
women, minorities, and veterans. SBA also provides loans to victims of 
natural disasters and specialized advice and assistance in 
international trade.
  The President has nominated Linda McMahon to run the SBA. Mrs. 
McMahon and her husband founded Titan Sports in 1980. The business grew 
dramatically under their leadership. Mrs. McMahon became president in 
1993 and CEO of the company in 1997. The company became World Wrestling 
Entertainment and then simply WWE.
  Unfortunately, the McMahons appear to have grown their business at 
least in part using business practices that disadvantaged their 
employees. The Connecticut Post and the Hartford Courant reported that 
WWE did not offer its wrestlers health insurance, as McMahon argued the 
company's wrestlers were independent contractors. And the Connecticut 
Post reported that Connecticut audited McMahon's company to determine 
if WWE improperly classified employees as independent contractors.
  An investigation led by Representative Henry Waxman found that 
McMahon's WWE did not do enough to prevent steroid use. Representative 
Waxman's committee found that, at one point, 40 percent of WWE's 
wrestlers tested positive for steroids and other drugs, even after 
being warned in advance that they were going to be tested. A WWE 
``house doctor'' was reportedly convicted and sentenced to prison for 
steroid trafficking. And the New York Daily News reported that an 
Albany district attorney probe into a widespread Internet doping 
scandal involved several WWE wrestlers.
  And more than 50 former professional wrestlers sued McMahon's WWE, 
charging that the company was responsible for repeated head trauma that 
they suffered, often involving specific moves scripted and 
choreographed by WWE.
  The SBA needs strong leadership to advance the interests of our 
Nation's hard-working small businesses, but it does not need a leader 
who will advance profits at workers' expense. Mrs. McMahon's business 
experience leads me to be concerned that she will not put people over 
profits, and thus, I must oppose the nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the 
Republican time for up to 10 minutes, with 5 minutes reserved for 
Senator Risch, on the nomination of Linda McMahon to serve as 
Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, today, in just a few minutes, the Senate 
will be voting on the nomination of Linda McMahon to serve as 
Administrator of, I believe, one of the very important agencies within 
the Federal Government that sometimes doesn't get the recognition it 
deserves; that is, the Small Business Administration.
  Before I begin my remarks, I wish to take a minute to acknowledge the 
good work of two previous SBA Administrators, Karen Mills and Maria 
Contreras-Sweet. Both served in this very important role during the 
Obama administration and, particularly during the financial crisis, 
really served as a lifeline for so many of our small businesses. So I 
thank these two leaders for their tireless work.
  When I was first elected to the Senate in 2008, one of the reasons I 
joined the Small Business Committee was its reputation as a place where 
you could work across the aisle to get things done in a bipartisan way 
because supporting small businesses is not a Republican or a Democratic 
issue; it is an American issue.
  That dynamic was on display at Mrs. McMahon's confirmation hearing, 
where not one but two of her former rivals introduced her. Senators 
Blumenthal and Murphy, both of whom ran very spirited campaigns against 
Ms. McMahon--and both of whom defeated her--actually testified to her 
passion for small business and her qualifications for this new 
responsibility. After the hearing, the Small Business Committee 
favorably reported her nomination to the Senate by a vote of 18 to 1. I 
thank my colleague Chairman Risch for working with me during this 
process and ensuring that the nomination was thoroughly vetted.
  While I have opposed a number of President Trump's nominees, I want 
to take a few minutes to explain why I will support Linda McMahon for 
this important position.
  My home State of New Hampshire is a small business State. More than 
96 percent of our employers are considered small businesses, according 
to the SBA's Office of Advocacy.
  But small businesses aren't just important in New Hampshire. They are 
really the engine that drives our national economy. Small businesses 
create two out of every three new jobs in the United States. They are 
also leaders when it comes to innovation, producing 14 times more 
patents than large businesses.
  Unfortunately, like so many of our larger businesses, many of our 
small businesses still have not fully recovered from the great 
recession. For our

[[Page S1141]]

economy to continue to improve, we need to level the playing field for 
small businesses and unleash their potential. That is why the SBA and 
its programs are so critical. Last year alone, the SBA backed more than 
70,000 loans to small businesses, supporting $29 billion in lending and 
nearly 700,000 jobs. The SBA also helped small businesses win more than 
$90 billion in Federal contracts, provided counseling to more than 1 
million entrepreneurs, and helped many small businesses reach foreign 
markets.
  I was in the New Hampshire State Senate in the early nineties when we 
experienced a recession that closed five of the State's seven largest 
banks and put so many of our small businesses into bankruptcy. The one 
Federal agency that helped keep our small businesses going in New 
Hampshire during those very dark years was the SBA. I have seen very 
directly what a difference SBA makes to businesses in New Hampshire and 
across this country.
  As part of the confirmation process, I was able to work with my 
colleagues on the Small Business Committee to look into Mrs. McMahon's 
background as a successful entrepreneur, as well as her vision for the 
SBA. I was pleased to learn that Mrs. McMahon shares my vision for a 
strong SBA that will support America's entrepreneurs. I was 
particularly pleased to learn, unlike some previous reports, that she 
opposes efforts to merge the SBA into another agency, so she does not 
believe it should be part of the Department of Commerce. Maintaining 
the SBA's independence and keeping the Administrator of the SBA as a 
Cabinet-level position is essential to ensuring that the voices of 
small businesses are heard in Washington.
  We also need to make sure the SBA programs are valued in this 
administration. We have seen what can happen when SBA does not receive 
the respect it deserves from the White House. The George W. Bush 
administration cut the SBA's budget dramatically, by 32 percent--more 
than any other agency during those years. We can't afford to repeat 
that mistake. Entrepreneurs across this country, from rural communities 
to inner cities, rely on the SBA and its programs.
  I could cite countless success stories, but let me just note one 
example I recently heard in New Hampshire from Julie Lapham, who is 
founder and chief sales officer of a startup in Dover, NH, called 
Popzup.
  Popzup is a family-owned business that provides a new popcorn product 
for health-conscious consumers. Julie's inspiration for her business 
was her mother, who is diabetic and had started to eat popcorn every 
day because of the food's low glycemic index. Julie wanted to give her 
mother more options than the microwave popcorn you see in the grocery 
store, so she created a convenient product that doesn't use chemicals, 
plastic, or silicone. Her company's popcorn is environmentally friendly 
and sourced from American farms that don't use GMO products.
  As a startup, Julie faces a lot of challenges: getting funding to 
expand her business, keeping the books, figuring out how to market her 
products. Large companies have the resources to figure these things 
out, but Julie needs a level playing field to compete, and that is 
where the SBA and its resource partners come in.
  Julie wrote:

       We often feel vulnerable because we are self-funded and 
     need to master all aspects of running our business; 
     marketing, manufacture, selling, and accounting.

  Julie has been working with advisers at the New Hampshire Small 
Business Development Center, SBDC. They operate in every State, and 
they are resource partners who provided counseling to Julie and also 
provide counseling to small businesses like Julie's across the country.

       I don't think there is a week that goes by when we are not 
     stopping by each other's offices, emailing, and talking on 
     the phone. I can honestly state that we would not have a 
     chance at success without their ongoing support and 
     encouragement.

  I am sure my colleagues in the Senate are aware of similar SBA 
success stories in their own States.
  We all know this agency plays a vital role in our economy, but there 
is more that can be done. For our economy to thrive, we need to focus 
on ways to further strengthen the SBA so that it can increase 
opportunities for entrepreneurs to start new ventures and help existing 
small businesses grow. That is especially important in largely rural 
States like New Hampshire where it can be harder to get a loan or 
counseling. Entrepreneurs like Julie need a strong Administrator who 
understands the value of programs like the Small Business Development 
Centers. They need someone who will be their voice in Washington and 
bring out the best in the SBA. During the confirmation process, Mrs. 
McMahon pledged that she shares this view and wants to strengthen the 
role SBA plays in assisting our Nation's small businesses. In fact, she 
said she was passionate about small business.
  For these reasons, I intend to support her confirmation today. I look 
forward to continuing to work with Chairman Risch as we support SBA in 
the coming years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, first of all, let me say thank you to my 
friend and colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship. We have worked together successfully on 
several projects, and I have no doubt that we will continue to work 
together to benefit small businesses and entrepreneurship here in 
America.
  I rise today to support the nomination by President Trump of Linda 
McMahon to head the Small Business Administration. Linda McMahon has 
strong bipartisan support, which is rare here in Washington, DC, these 
days. At the confirmation hearing, Mrs. McMahon was introduced by, 
endorsed by, and spoken well of by her two Connecticut Senators, 
Senator Blumenthal and Senator Murphy. Perhaps for the first time in 
history, we had a member of the opposite party supported by the two 
Senators from that State, from the other party. But most importantly, 
she had run against both of those people, so they had been adversaries 
previously, but they appeared before the committee to enthusiastically 
endorse her as the head of the SBA and as President Trump's appointee.
  Senator Blumenthal said: ``She is an excellent fit for this agency 
based on her experience and her expertise as a business leader.
  Senator Murphy stated: ``I will never question whether she has the 
experience and the determination necessary to lead this great agency.''
  These are strong endorsements by people of the other party for a 
person who has been nominated by President Trump.
  This is an important agency. It is not a particularly large agency, 
but it certainly services one of the, if not the most important sector 
of our economy.
  It is important to note that these two colleagues of ours came and 
supported Mrs. McMahon before the committee.
  Those people who have been watching what is going on in this city 
since the election, particularly in regard to the appointment by 
President Trump of his Cabinet, as he has attempted to fill his Cabinet 
and seen the obstructionism that has taken place as he tries to fill 
that Cabinet, know that this city has become a caldron of anger, 
bitterness, and acrimony since the States came together and selected 
Donald Trump to be the President of these United States. So it is good 
for a bipartisan effort on one of these Cabinet members, and Linda 
McMahon is that person.
  Linda McMahon is not a bureaucrat. She is about as far from that as 
you possibly can get. In 1982 she and her husband took over a small 
business and turned it into a family business and have operated it 
since 1982. Of particular importance was her description of how she and 
her husband got there and their struggles as they started with a small 
business that actually failed. I think her description of that and her 
feelings about that and how she and her family struggled with that 
built the character they needed to start the business they did in 1982. 
They took that business from 1982 from a small company, very few 
employees and family only, to what is now a publicly traded company 
with a global brand.
  Mrs. McMahon has the experience in the small business world, from her 
struggles at the beginning and her

[[Page S1142]]

great success as she worked through making this business succeed, to 
actually understand what small businesses go through.
  In meeting with her and discussing with her the importance of what we 
do on the Small Business Committee, I can tell you that she shares the 
passion that I have about what we can do with the Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship and, indeed, all committees in the U.S. 
Senate; that is, get the government out of the way while Americans 
attempt to build a business. She shares the passion that I have with 
reducing to a bare minimum the regulatory structure that has grown up 
in America today and is really stifling businesses at all levels but 
particularly businesses at the small end of the scale.
  We all know that when the government enacts a regulation, which 
happens all too frequently--hourly, every day, several every day--and 
they are laid down in front of businesses, a large business really has 
substantially less difficulty dealing with those.
  Large businesses will tell you that is the largest challenge they 
have today, the most significant challenge they have; that is, 
overcoming the barriers that are put in place by the government as they 
attempt to succeed and as they attempt to do business. When a 
regulation is laid down, a large business has an army and a fleet of 
lawyers and compliance officers and accountants who can work through 
these regulations. If you are a small business and you are fixing lawn 
mowers in your garage and you get a 30-page questionnaire from the 
government that has significant implications for what is going to 
happen to you, it is very burdensome and cuts deeply into the progress 
you are trying to make as a small business and provide for your family.
  We have an operation within the Small Business Administration called 
the Office of Advocacy. The committee has attempted to grow and 
strengthen its independence. The purpose of the Office of Advocacy is 
to stand up whenever the government acts in a way that affects small 
businesses and say: Wait. Stop. Think about this. Look what you are 
doing and look how this is going to affect business--and particularly 
small business--in America, the regulations you are attempting to 
impose.
  Linda McMahon shares my passion in that regard. I have every reason 
to believe she is going to assist in strengthening that particular 
division within the Small Business Administration.
  Based upon her qualifications, based upon her view of small business 
and entrepreneurship, based upon her experience in small business and 
in growing small business, and based upon what I think perhaps is going 
to be one of the only bipartisan efforts we make to construct the 
Cabinet or assist the President in constructing his Cabinet, I strongly 
recommend and join my colleague the ranking member in urging all 
Members of the Senate to support Linda McMahon in this effort and in 
her confirmation.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the McMahon 
nomination?
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 19, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 65 Ex.]

                                YEAS--81

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--19

     Baldwin
     Booker
     Brown
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Heinrich
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murray
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Under the previous order, the 
motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the 
President will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________