Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, November 2; that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Franchetti nomination; further, that if any nominations are confirmed during Thursday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of my Republican colleagues.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I yield back to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 367; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I am reintroducing the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act with Senators Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Merkley, Baldwin, Warren, Van Hollen, and Sanders. This legislation would finally fully close a loophole that allows publicly traded corporations to deduct the cost of multimillion-dollar bonuses from their corporate tax bills. At a time when the gulf in pay between CEOs and average workers is 272 to 1, it is infuriating that U.S. taxpayers are being forced to subsidize lavish executive compensation packages, but that is what is happening. Under section 162(m) of the Tax Code, publicly traded corporations cannot deduct more than $1 million in compensation paid to their top executives. But section 162(m) does not cover compensation paid to all public company employees, and corporations have long exploited this loophole to claim tax deductions for executive compensation packages that far exceed $1 million. Indeed, publicly traded corporations are offering these lucrative compensation deals to ever increasing numbers of executives--not just a few at the very top of the organization. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized the need to close loopholes in section 162(m). Indeed, both President Trump and President Biden signed laws based on earlier versions of my legislation in order to curtail the abuse of this deduction. This includes ensuring that performance-based compensation is actualjy counted as compensation under section 162(m) and increasing the number of highly paid executives who are subject to section 162(m). Partially tightening the law in these ways has saved taxpayers well over $9.2 billion. But the full loophole has still not been closed and taxpayers continue to subsidize billions of dollars in extravagant compensation. The Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act would address the remaining gaps by applying section 162(m) restrictions to all employees of publicly traded corporations so that all compensation is subject to a deductibility cap of $1 million per employee. To be clear, under my bill, publicly traded corporations would still be able to pay their executives as much as they desire, but individual compensation packages above and beyond $1 million would no longer be subsidized through our Tax Code. This is a matter of fairness. It ensures that corporations and shareholders--not hard-working taxpayers--are shouldering the cost of the multimillion-dollar compensation packages they provide to their top earners. I thank Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, the AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, MIT Professor Simon Johnson, Take On Wall Street, and the Institute for Policy Studies, Global Economy Project for their support. I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and pressing for its passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I am reintroducing the Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act with Senators Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Merkley, Baldwin, Warren, Van Hollen, and Sanders. This legislation would finally fully close a loophole that allows publicly traded corporations to deduct the cost of multimillion-dollar bonuses from their corporate tax bills. At a time when the gulf in pay between CEOs and average workers is 272 to 1, it is infuriating that U.S. taxpayers are being forced to subsidize lavish executive compensation packages, but that is what is happening. Under section 162(m) of the Tax Code, publicly traded corporations cannot deduct more than $1 million in compensation paid to their top executives. But section 162(m) does not cover compensation paid to all public company employees, and corporations have long exploited this loophole to claim tax deductions for executive compensation packages that far exceed $1 million. Indeed, publicly traded corporations are offering these lucrative compensation deals to ever increasing numbers of executives--not just a few at the very top of the organization. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized the need to close loopholes in section 162(m). Indeed, both President Trump and President Biden signed laws based on earlier versions of my legislation in order to curtail the abuse of this deduction. This includes ensuring that performance-based compensation is actualjy counted as compensation under section 162(m) and increasing the number of highly paid executives who are subject to section 162(m). Partially tightening the law in these ways has saved taxpayers well over $9.2 billion. But the full loophole has still not been closed and taxpayers continue to subsidize billions of dollars in extravagant compensation. The Stop Subsidizing Multimillion Dollar Corporate Bonuses Act would address the remaining gaps by applying section 162(m) restrictions to all employees of publicly traded corporations so that all compensation is subject to a deductibility cap of $1 million per employee. To be clear, under my bill, publicly traded corporations would still be able to pay their executives as much as they desire, but individual compensation packages above and beyond $1 million would no longer be subsidized through our Tax Code. This is a matter of fairness. It ensures that corporations and shareholders--not hard-working taxpayers--are shouldering the cost of the multimillion-dollar compensation packages they provide to their top earners. I thank Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform, the AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, MIT Professor Simon Johnson, Take On Wall Street, and the Institute for Policy Studies, Global Economy Project for their support. I urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this legislation and pressing for its passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, we have a longstanding adult literacy crisis that affects the quality of life for individuals and families and holds our economy back. It is time for a major expansion of adult education. Today, I am proud to introduce bipartisan legislation--the Adult Education Workforce Opportunity and Reskilling for Knowledge and Success Act, or the Adult Education WORKS Act--with my colleague Senator Young. Adult education provides numeracy, literacy, digital literacy, English language skills, work readiness, soft skills, high school equivalency, and numerous wraparound services to millions of adult learners nationwide. These essential skills can make the difference between earning a family-sustaining wage and struggling to make ends meet. A study commissioned by the Barbara Bush Foundation estimated that getting all U.S. adults to the equivalent of a sixth-grade reading level would generate an additional $2.2 trillion in annual income for the country. Without the opportunities provided through adult education programs, many adults will be left on the sidelines. Estimates from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, PIACC, indicate that 43 million adults are low-skilled in literacy and 63 million are low-skilled in numeracy. Building a sustainable economy that truly works for everyone is going to require helping these individuals acquire the basic skills they need to succeed. Unfortunately, we are reaching only a fraction of these individuals today. PIACC data show that 23 to 30 percent of working-age adults with low literacy or numeracy skills wanted to participate in adult education but were unable to do so. The Department of Education calculates that this means there are up to 16 million adults seeking education opportunities from programs that currently serve fewer than 1 million individuals. In my home State of Rhode Island, there are over 61,000 adults who could benefit from English language instruction and over 64,000 working-age adults without a high school credential. Yet, under current funding levels, the adult education program serves just over 4,500 individuals. The Adult Education WORKS Act provides a roadmap for addressing this crisis. It calls for increased resources, doubling funding for adult education by 2029. At the same time, it makes significant improvements to the adult education system. It calls for a new emphasis on digital and information literacy, which are essential for success in the workplace and in navigating everyday life. It enhances the role of adult education providers, with a special focus on public libraries and community-based organizations throughout the workforce development system, ensuring coordination and efficient use of resources. It invests in the professionalization of the adult education field, strengthening State certification policies, encouraging full-time staffing models, and expanding professional development opportunities and career pathways for adult educators. It provides support for college and career navigators in public libraries and community-based organizations to support adult learners where they live. Finally, it invests in innovation and accountability through pilot projects that test new approaches for measuring program performance and learner outcomes. In developing this legislation, Senator Young and I worked closely with key stakeholders, working on the frontlines in the adult education community. I am pleased to count the American Library Association, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the Coalition on Adult Basic Education, the National Coalition for Literacy, National Skills Coalition, ProLiteracy, and TESOL among the supporters of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work with us to ensure it is part of any legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, we have a longstanding adult literacy crisis that affects the quality of life for individuals and families and holds our economy back. It is time for a major expansion of adult education. Today, I am proud to introduce bipartisan legislation--the Adult Education Workforce Opportunity and Reskilling for Knowledge and Success Act, or the Adult Education WORKS Act--with my colleague Senator Young. Adult education provides numeracy, literacy, digital literacy, English language skills, work readiness, soft skills, high school equivalency, and numerous wraparound services to millions of adult learners nationwide. These essential skills can make the difference between earning a family-sustaining wage and struggling to make ends meet. A study commissioned by the Barbara Bush Foundation estimated that getting all U.S. adults to the equivalent of a sixth-grade reading level would generate an additional $2.2 trillion in annual income for the country. Without the opportunities provided through adult education programs, many adults will be left on the sidelines. Estimates from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies, PIACC, indicate that 43 million adults are low-skilled in literacy and 63 million are low-skilled in numeracy. Building a sustainable economy that truly works for everyone is going to require helping these individuals acquire the basic skills they need to succeed. Unfortunately, we are reaching only a fraction of these individuals today. PIACC data show that 23 to 30 percent of working-age adults with low literacy or numeracy skills wanted to participate in adult education but were unable to do so. The Department of Education calculates that this means there are up to 16 million adults seeking education opportunities from programs that currently serve fewer than 1 million individuals. In my home State of Rhode Island, there are over 61,000 adults who could benefit from English language instruction and over 64,000 working-age adults without a high school credential. Yet, under current funding levels, the adult education program serves just over 4,500 individuals. The Adult Education WORKS Act provides a roadmap for addressing this crisis. It calls for increased resources, doubling funding for adult education by 2029. At the same time, it makes significant improvements to the adult education system. It calls for a new emphasis on digital and information literacy, which are essential for success in the workplace and in navigating everyday life. It enhances the role of adult education providers, with a special focus on public libraries and community-based organizations throughout the workforce development system, ensuring coordination and efficient use of resources. It invests in the professionalization of the adult education field, strengthening State certification policies, encouraging full-time staffing models, and expanding professional development opportunities and career pathways for adult educators. It provides support for college and career navigators in public libraries and community-based organizations to support adult learners where they live. Finally, it invests in innovation and accountability through pilot projects that test new approaches for measuring program performance and learner outcomes. In developing this legislation, Senator Young and I worked closely with key stakeholders, working on the frontlines in the adult education community. I am pleased to count the American Library Association, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the Coalition on Adult Basic Education, the National Coalition for Literacy, National Skills Coalition, ProLiteracy, and TESOL among the supporters of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work with us to ensure it is part of any legislation to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I must point out that our support is the leading edge of worldwide support. Our NATO allies have stepped forward, and countries around the globe understand that this battle between democracy and freedom and autocracy and inhumanity must be won. President Zelenskyy came to this very building 2 weeks ago to ask for our support. He received overwhelming bipartisan promises from Members of both the Senate and the House. Of course, I was proud to pledge my support, and I know nearly all of my Senate colleagues were also. It is shameful that on the heels of that visit, after looking President Zelenskyy in the eye and promising to stand with him, our House colleagues decided to strip all Ukraine funding from their continuing resolution. That decision contradicts the will of the majority of Congress and the American people, and it breaks faith with the people of Ukraine, who are in a battle to preserve their nation and their lives. And their battle is our battle. Their battle against unprovoked aggression by Putin against a democratic neighbor is a battle that we must ensure they can win because he won't stop there. We can't allow the obstinacy of a few Members of the House of Representatives to force a cruel deal on those who least deserve it-- the Ukrainian people. As I said, this conflict matters not just to Ukraine but to our own security here at home. It is clear that if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, he will not stop. He made this clear years ago when he talked about that his mission in life, his sole, overwhelming preoccupation, was to recreate the Russian Empire--the Balkans, parts of Poland, Moldova, Georgia. He is very clear. It is ironic in history how dictators can be so clear about what they want to do but ignored by people who should stand up to them. Hitler was very explicit in ``Mein Kampf'' on what his goal was. Yet world leaders appeased him. Will we appease Putin and cut off aid to the Ukrainians? If we do, it will be our problem. He will seek to destabilize other countries in the region, including our NATO allies. If that happens, under article 5 of NATO, we have a legal and moral obligation to go to their aid. That means the blood that will be shed is not Ukrainian blood but the blood of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardians, and coastguardsmen. The cost of that, in my view, is priceless. Our job in some respects is to ensure by our actions here that we continue lowering the probability that American men and women in our service will suffer and die in action. If we renege on our commitment to Ukraine, that probability will go up, not down, and we will regret it immensely. We have seen colleagues on the other side speak out, but they have to speak out more vigorously. Leader McConnell said recently: With Ukraine bravely defending its sovereignty and eroding Russia's capacity to threaten NATO, it is not the time to ease up. . . . Helping Ukraine retake its territory means weakening one of America's biggest strategic adversaries without firing a shot. Leader McConnell is right about that, and I admire his forceful and courageous support of the Ukrainian people. Remember, also, China is watching how the democratic nations of the world respond to Russia. In considering a potential invasion of Taiwan, President Xi is scrutinizing Putin's playbook and the international response, and he has seen things that are potentially encouraging, particularly if the international community simply gives up and allows Ukraine to fall. The conclusion he likely will draw is that, if I engage and I am persistent enough for long enough, then the political whims in the United States and across the globe will fall behind and they will give up and I will succeed. The credibility of the U.S. deterrent is only as strong as our actions. Our would-be partners around the world are also watching closely at what we are doing. Will we have their backs if they are attacked? We must show that we are a steadfast ally, not hamstrung by the whims of fringe politicians. Again, our adversaries would see themselves empowered as our alliances dissolve because there is no confidence or a lack of confidence in the United States. This is especially true when we consider how the Ukrainians have proven, time and time again, that, given the right support, they are entirely capable of defeating the assaults launched against them, and there are a number of reasons for this. First and foremost is the incredible courage and fighting skill of the Ukrainian people as well as the inspirational leadership of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. I had the opportunity, like so many of my colleagues, to travel to Kyiv earlier this year and was deeply moved by the Ukrainians' bravery and commitment to defending their homeland. Second is the remarkable statesmanship of President Biden. His administration has forged a unified response, leading the worldwide condemnation of Putin and providing enormous military, economic, and humanitarian support for Ukraine. I doubt if anyone in this Senate, in the weeks before the invasion of Ukraine, would have predicted that NATO would rally as it has to support the Ukrainians; that allies across the globe would dig into their stocks of munitions and transfer them to the Ukrainians; that the whole world would be, in some respects, moved by the actions of our country in standing up and inspiring others to join with us. We also benefited from 8 years of training of Ukrainian forces, starting in 2014. In fact, I had the first opportunity to meet General Cavoli, our Supreme Allied Commander, when he was a brigadier general in Lviv training Ukrainian soldiers. That training was manifested as they repulsed the Russian assault. It was squad leaders and company commanders and young battalion commanders who had been trained by us and our allies who were able to outfight, outmaneuver, and outthink their Russian adversaries, and they continue to do that. Finally, Putin's assault has faltered from the inept performance of his own forces. The war has exposed a poorly led and poorly trained Russian Army with corrupt leadership at every level, poor tactics and communication and inept logistics. But people learn from adversity. The Russians are learning, and they are beginning to understand the limitations of their forces. So they are putting them in trenches; they are fortifying the battlefield; they are minimizing any maneuver that they must do because that is a complicated military operation. Then they are throwing in thousands and thousands of poorly trained but still well-armed soldiers. So we can't assume that their poor performance will last forever. That is another reason we have to continue our support and give our Ukrainian allies all the help they need. Now, Putin assumed, I believe, that his actions, his quick assault on Kyiv, would drive a wedge within the international community; that we would dither; that we would debate; that we would do nothing. Well, he was badly mistaken. As I indicated before, with the leadership of President Biden and Secretary Blinken and others, NATO has shown a remarkable unity and resolve. And we can't overstate the scale of this importance; that countries that before were unenthusiastic, let me say, about military operations, suddenly began to provide equipment, support, training, raised their budgets, and do so to assist the people of Ukraine. Also, something that goes unstated by so many is that our European allies are also giving tremendous aid to civilian populations that have been displaced and aid to the budget of Ukraine. If you look on a per capita basis of the GDP--I should say the basis of percentage of the GDP--we are not the most generous benefactor of Ukraine; it is the Baltic nations. So this is an unusual worldwide commitment of sacrifice, of resources, in which we are the leader, but many other nations are giving as much, if not more. Now, Putin, I think, believes he can wait us all out. He can wait for the supplies to be exhausted by the Ukrainians. Oh, and by the way, if we take away our resources, those supplies will be quickly exhausted. But we cannot validate this viewpoint as the Ukrainians have fought too hard and suffered too much to be left alone on the battlefield, to be abandoned. And just as the Ukrainians have learned and adapted on the battlefield, the effort to aid and equip their security forces has evolved as we have gone forward. Throughout the war, the Biden administration has calibrated our assistance to Ukraine, calibrated in a very difficult situation. We have allies that were somewhat reluctant to move weapons systems in. We have allies that are signatories to the treaty against the use of cluster munitions, which we had to take into account. We have to negotiate between multiple parties that don't have precisely the same viewpoint as we have, but yet we have been able to consistently support, train, equip, and provide the resources necessary for the Ukrainian forces to begin their counteroffensive, which they did weeks ago; to continue their fight through this winter and position them, we hope, for a decisive action as soon as possible. We have committed tremendous amounts of security assistance, including advanced air defense systems equipment, and we remain keen that we look ahead to provide the most modern weapons systems that the Ukrainians can use. Many people forget the training that is necessary to use sophisticated weapons systems. Many people forget that the key to maneuver operations is a rather sophisticated coordination between ground forces, heavy armored forces, artillery support, air support when available. All of these things are not something that one just does naturally. It takes training. It takes repeated attempts. Fortunately, for us, the Ukrainians are so dedicated to their country that they are committing their all to use our equipment effectively. I will also note that the supplemental funding that we have brought has allowed us to invest more money and create more jobs right here in the United States as U.S. defense industry partners ramp up production to meet Ukraine's needs and to backfill our own munitions supplies. Indeed, what we have found is, really, a new type of warfare. We had become accustomed for decades to have complete air superiority when we fought, to have precision weapons that were so accurate that the battles we fought were weeks: Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, the first phase of the battlefield in Afghanistan. So we didn't think we needed a large-scale munitions production. The type of warfare we are seeing now, which very well might be the type of warfare we encounter in the future, requires an industrial base that can provide adequate ammunition, an adequate supply of equipment. We have started that process. One aspect is multiyear contracts now for munitions so that there is a demand that producers understand and will fulfill. Now, some have said our response has been too slow and that we should have given more weaponry or better weaponry, et cetera. Well, those people who have criticized the President about their claims of slowness should be outraged at the House, which is demanding we stop it all. They should raise their voices now, strongly, emphatically, to tell the House: We must have Ukrainian aid approved, and we must do it quickly. Throughout the war in Ukraine, President Biden has led the United States and the international community with admirable resolve. Congress must send a strong message to Putin that Americans continue to stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine and that we are committed to supporting them as they fight bravely to defend their homeland. The simple truth is that their battle is our battle. If they lose, Americans lose, and the likelihood that our young men and women will be called upon to enter the fray increases dramatically. We must support our Ukrainian allies. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, I want to commend my colleague from Rhode Island. No one has been more accurate and more farseeing about climate change than Sheldon Whitehouse. When he first came to the Senate, it was a technical issue that scientists debated. Now it is an issue we are confronting because of his efforts, and it is also an issue we are confronting because we see it. We are in the midst of a crisis. He foresaw it. He has dedicated himself to addressing it. I am just very proud to be his colleague in this Senate.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, after hearing oral arguments earlier today, the Supreme Court will rule on a case that will determine whether average Americans will continue to have an independent Federal watchdog to push back against the abuses of big financial institutions. The case I am speaking of is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America. It deals with an outlandish ruling of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that would invalidate the congressionally approved funding scheme of the CFPB. If it stands, the ruling will starve the Bureau of funding and effectively prevent it from working on behalf of the American people. But let's take a step back to remember why the CFPB was created over a decade ago. In the runup to the great recession, lenders were aggressively marketing subprime mortgages with predatory features to borrowers they knew had no ability to repay. Reckless Wall Street firms bundled those mortgages into securities and sold them to investors, including pension funds. And weak regulators stood by as all of this unfolded. Borrowers ultimately discovered that they could not repay their mortgages. The securities backed by these mortgages took a nosedive, causing a meltdown of the banking system and taking down the entire economy. While Wall Street got a lifeline from the Congress and the Federal Government, millions of Americans did not. They paid with their jobs, their homes, and their savings. The unemployment rate peaked at 10 percent; nearly 7.5 million families lost their homes; and Americans lost $20 trillion in household wealth. At the time, people rightfully asked who was looking out for them. The truth was no one, really. American families were ill-served by financial regulators and by the system. A half dozen Federal Agencies shared responsibility for making sure that working families didn't get ripped off, but they all failed. In many cases, they seemed to regard their primary mission as protecting the big players in the financial system. And they were hamstrung by the Bush administration, which used the appropriations process to starve Agencies, like the SEC, of the resources and personnel they needed to be effective. So while these Agencies all had some responsibility for protecting consumers, none of them pursued it vigorously. The performance of regulators at the time put truth to the saying that ``when everyone is responsible, no one is responsible.'' This weakness in our regulatory system and structure is why Congress created the CFPB and gave it a singular mission to protect Americans from the worst kinds of financial abuses, not just for mortgages but for every single consumer financial product. The creation of this Agency is arguably one of the most important reforms made following the financial crisis. I recognize that Wall Street and big financial companies have always feared the CPPB. That is because the CFPB is the only financial regulatory Agency that exclusively focuses on protecting consumers against abusive practices. But Wall Street also fears the CFPB because its funding structure insulates it from regulatory capture, aggressive lobbying, and political pressure. Wielding its power judiciously and effectively, the CFPB has delivered results for American families. In a little more than a decade, the Bureau has obtained $17.5 billion in relief for 200 million consumers. And so, the industry has never given up on killing the CFPB. The industry hit pay dirt when an activist panel of judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a bizarre and potentially sweeping decision, which invalidates the CFPB's funding structure based on a distortion of the Constitution's appropriations clause. The court's reasoning is flimsy. It relies on a single concurring opinion and a series of law review articles, some of which were written by students. (Mr. KELLY assumed the Chair.) According to Georgetown Professor Adam Levitin, the argument about the CFPB's funding was a ``throw-away point'' in the litigation, with the parties dedicating a paltry 370 words apiece to this issue in their briefs. Unfortunately, the results of the Fifth Circuit's decision are not academic. They are very real for the hard-working Americans whose financial well-being is now at risk. If upheld, the Fifth Circuit's ruling would call into question the validity of all the Bureau's past actions. The work of the CFPB matters to ordinary people. It is the only Federal Agency that supervises nonbank mortgage lenders, private student lenders, credit reporting bureaus, debt collectors, international money remitters, and auto finance companies. Because there has been a CFPB for the last decade, people in Rhode Island and across the Nation have had someone who is working to make sure they will be treated fairly, that their banks and lenders will deal with them honestly, and that their interests would be protected whenever financial institutions try to take advantage of them. That will change if the Fifth Circuit's ruling stands. I want to particularly highlight what that means for military families because this has been an aspect of the CFPB's authority that I have been deeply committed to since the beginning. Simply put, without the CFPB, military families will be stripped of their financial protections under the Military Lending Act. The CFPB has brought 40 public enforcement actions involving harm to servicemembers and veterans, securing more than $175 million in relief. The Agency plays a unique role in watching out for our Nation's 2 million servicemembers and their families, whether they are deployed in the United States or overseas. The CFPB protects members of the Armed Forces from exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous lenders and debt collectors, who have charged servicemembers interest rates as high as 600 percent and who have threatened to derail their careers if they do not pay up. More than recovering money, the CFPB, through its supervisory powers and by its simple existence, acts as a deterrent. If the Supreme Court shuts it down, predatory lenders will reoffend against our troops again and again and again, with little chance of being penalized. The Presiding Officer understands this very well because, as a naval aviator and leader of troops, like myself, who was a paratrooper, executive officer, and company commander, we saw all the shenanigans that lenders were playing, selling trucks to the young enlisted people for a great bargain--nothing down but almost a 1,000-percent interest rate. We saw them come and take those trucks later when the young soldiers, sailors, and airmen couldn't pay--time and time again. Finally, through the Military Lending Act and the CFPB, we stood up and said: This is not fair. And in one of the great ironies, of course, if you ever went off base, all of these car dealers and other service agencies proudly had the American flag waving red, white, and blue, while they were systematically, in many cases, stealing from the men and women who protect this country. In a letter written to Banking Committee Chairman Brown, Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Tester, Intelligence Committee Chairman Warner, and myself, in February, the CFPB Director said: I am gravely concerned that this trend could impact companies' compliance with the Military Landing Act and the Federal consumer financial laws that protect servicemembers and their families. The impact would be dire--effectively stripping servicemembers and their families of legal protections that are critical to maintaining military readiness. . . . In the Fifth Circuit alone, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, this could affect 300,000 servicemembers and their families. Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter from the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau be printed in the Record.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Military Officers Association of America and a dozen veterans organizations have validated the CFPB's strong track record. In their words: All told, the CFPB has become an indispensable agency for protecting the legal rights and financial readiness of servicemembers, veterans, and their families. The stability of the CFPB's funding is therefore vital to the tremendous work it does on [their] behalf. Finally, let me add that it is not just average Americans who will be put at risk. Responsible lenders will lose the protections of the regulatory safe harbors created by the CFPB. These rules essentially protect the industry against the risk of enforcement, so long as they play by the rules and provide standardized disclosures in plain English. Those responsible actors in our financial system, who extend credit on fair terms and deal honestly with their customers, have a lot to lose. It all adds up to this: The Fifth Circuit's decision prioritizes the interests of predatory lenders over responsible lenders, relies on falsehoods over facts, and chooses chaos over stability. That is certainly not what any court should be doing. I hope sincerely that the Supreme Court reverses the Fifth Circuit's dangerous decision. I hope it recognizes that this is not about expensive lawyers and trade associations and big businesses. This is about Americans, many of them wearing the uniform of our country. They deserve the sympathy and the support of the Court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 394, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 96, S. Res. 156.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment to the resolution be agreed to; that the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to; that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I have one request for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned under the provisions of S. Res. 394 until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, October 4; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the O'Brien nomination, postcloture; further, that all postcloture time be considered expired at 11:30 a.m. and that following the cloture vote on the Hurson nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; that if cloture is invoked on the Hurson nomination, all time be considered expired at 2:15 p.m.; and that if cloture is invoked on the DeClercq nomination, all time be considered expired at 5:30 p.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to our colleague Dianne Feinstein, who passed away, as we all know, this morning. As California's senior Senator and the longest serving woman Senator ever, Senator Feinstein was a trailblazer. Everyone has made that point, and it is a true, accurate, and compelling point. In representing the country's most populous State for over three decades, she occupied the national stage as well, and for many people inside and outside this Chamber, she became the archetypal Senator: prepared, professional, pragmatic, and unfailingly civil. Californians rewarded her hard work by voting for her by wider and wider margins. She fought hard for the things she believed in and very often succeeded, but she never bullied or belittled those who took a contrary position. Her achievements are many: the enactment of the Federal assault weapons ban in 1994, the 6-year review of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program, which prompted significant reforms in the intelligence community. She was the leader in the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. She delivered for the people of California, enacting laws to protect public lands and national treasures and doing the hard work to bring stakeholders together to resolve thorny issues and complex environmental challenges in her home State. She led on national environmental issues, including legislation to improve the fuel economy of automobiles. I had the privilege and the pleasure to get to know her. We were both members of the Aspen study group. This is an organization sponsored by the Aspen Institute of both right and left, thoughtful national security policy people. I was very honored to be asked, and Dianne was a long-term member. To listen to her insights, to listen to her analysis, along with other very thoughtful people, was incredibly helpful to me, particularly as a more junior Member of the Senate, and, of course, her hospitality, her friendship, and her decency just was so apparent there as it was here on the floor in the U.S. Senate. In fact, as we look back, there is a very simple fact here that Dianne Feinstein influenced, in some way, every major policy challenge that this body and this Nation has faced over the last 31 years with her voice, with her vote, with her counsel, with her wisdom, with her unfailing commitment to the people of California and the people of the United States. She literally never gave up. She never stopped. She is someone that will be remembered, truly, as one of the greatest U.S. Senators in the history of this country. It was a privilege to serve with her. On this day, I wish her family and all her loved ones the comfort of knowing what an extraordinary woman and what an extraordinary Senator Dianne Feinstein was. With that, I yield the floor.