Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act along with Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy. This bill will help securities regulators better protect investors and demand greater accountability from market players. Even after a financial crisis that devastated our nation's economy, we continue to see calculated wrongdoing by some on Wall Street, and without the consequence of meaningful penalties to serve as an effective deterrent, I worry this disturbing culture of misconduct will persist. Today, the amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can fine an institution or individual is restricted by statute. During hearings I held in 2011 as Chairman of the Banking Committee's Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee, I learned how this limitation significantly interferes with the SEC's ability to perform its enforcement duties. At that time, a Federal judge had criticized the SEC for not obtaining a larger settlement against Citigroup, a major player in the financial crisis that settled with the agency in an amount that was far below the cost the bank had inflicted on investors. The SEC explained that a statutory prohibition against levying a larger penalty led to the low settlement amount. Indeed, then SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro in 2011 also explained that ``the Commission's statutory authority to obtain civil monetary penalties with appropriate deterrent effect is limited in many circumstances.'' The bipartisan bill we are reintroducing seeks to update the SEC's outdated civil penalties statutes. This bill strives to make potential and current offenders think twice before engaging in misconduct by increasing the maximum statutory civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of the penalties to the amount of losses suffered by victims of a violation, and substantially raising the financial stakes for repeat offenders of our nation's securities laws. Specifically, our bill would expand the SEC's options to tailor penalties to the specific circumstances of a given violation. In addition to raising the per violation caps for severe, or ``third tier,'' violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities, the legislation would also give the SEC additional options to obtain greater penalties based on the ill- gotten gains of the violator or on the financial harm to investors. Our bill also strives to deter repeat offenders on Wall Street through two provisions. The first would allow the SEC to triple the penalty cap applicable to recidivists who have been held either criminally or civilly liable for securities fraud within the previous five years. The second would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty against those who violate existing federal court or SEC orders, an approach that would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. These changes would greatly improve the SEC's ability to levy robust penalties against repeat offenders. Slightly more than half of all U.S. households are invested in the stock market. All of our constituents deserve a strong cop on the beat that has the necessary tools to go after fraudsters and pursue the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act will enhance the SEC's ability to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street, which in turn will increase transparency and confidence in our financial system. I urge our colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act along with Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy. This bill will help securities regulators better protect investors and demand greater accountability from market players. Even after a financial crisis that devastated our nation's economy, we continue to see calculated wrongdoing by some on Wall Street, and without the consequence of meaningful penalties to serve as an effective deterrent, I worry this disturbing culture of misconduct will persist. Today, the amount of penalties the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can fine an institution or individual is restricted by statute. During hearings I held in 2011 as Chairman of the Banking Committee's Securities, Insurance, and Investment Subcommittee, I learned how this limitation significantly interferes with the SEC's ability to perform its enforcement duties. At that time, a Federal judge had criticized the SEC for not obtaining a larger settlement against Citigroup, a major player in the financial crisis that settled with the agency in an amount that was far below the cost the bank had inflicted on investors. The SEC explained that a statutory prohibition against levying a larger penalty led to the low settlement amount. Indeed, then SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro in 2011 also explained that ``the Commission's statutory authority to obtain civil monetary penalties with appropriate deterrent effect is limited in many circumstances.'' The bipartisan bill we are reintroducing seeks to update the SEC's outdated civil penalties statutes. This bill strives to make potential and current offenders think twice before engaging in misconduct by increasing the maximum statutory civil monetary penalties, directly linking the size of the penalties to the amount of losses suffered by victims of a violation, and substantially raising the financial stakes for repeat offenders of our nation's securities laws. Specifically, our bill would expand the SEC's options to tailor penalties to the specific circumstances of a given violation. In addition to raising the per violation caps for severe, or ``third tier,'' violations to $1 million per offense for individuals and $10 million per offense for entities, the legislation would also give the SEC additional options to obtain greater penalties based on the ill- gotten gains of the violator or on the financial harm to investors. Our bill also strives to deter repeat offenders on Wall Street through two provisions. The first would allow the SEC to triple the penalty cap applicable to recidivists who have been held either criminally or civilly liable for securities fraud within the previous five years. The second would allow the SEC to seek a civil penalty against those who violate existing federal court or SEC orders, an approach that would be more efficient, effective, and flexible than the current civil contempt remedy. These changes would greatly improve the SEC's ability to levy robust penalties against repeat offenders. Slightly more than half of all U.S. households are invested in the stock market. All of our constituents deserve a strong cop on the beat that has the necessary tools to go after fraudsters and pursue the difficult cases arising from our increasingly complex financial markets. The Stronger Enforcement of Civil Penalties Act will enhance the SEC's ability to demand meaningful accountability from Wall Street, which in turn will increase transparency and confidence in our financial system. I urge our colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining Senator Blunt in introducing the Ensuring Children's Access to Specialty Care Act. According to the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, there are currently only 8,300 child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAPs) in the United States--many of whom are not practicing full time--far short of the estimated need of over 30,000 CAPs. On average, patients wait almost two months to see a CAP, a startling concern given that the incidence rates of mental illness and behavioral disorders among children in the United States continue to grow. Fifty percent of all lifetime cases of mental illness begin at age 14; seventy-five percent by age 24. The National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program (NHSCLRP) was created by Congress over forty years ago to help recruit and place trained individuals in underserved communities to provide needed health care services. Licensed health care providers may earn up to $50,000 toward student loans in exchange for a two-year commitment at an NHSC-approved site, within two years of completing their residency. Accepted participants may serve as primary care medical, dental, or mental/ behavioral health clinicians. NHSCLRP provides critical relief to physicians who have completed pediatrics or psychiatry residency training programs; however, pediatric subspecialists, such as child and adolescent psychiatrists, are effectively barred from participating due to the extra training these physicians are required to take after completing their residency. This extra training, which often results in increased student debt, typically consists of a fellowship that takes place in the two-year window of eligibility for NHSCLRP. The creation of NHSCLRP preceded the expansion of many pediatric subspecialties, not taking into account the extra years of training required for these physicians. The Ensuring Children's Access to Specialty Care Act would correct this loophole and allow pediatric subspecialists practicing in underserved areas to benefit from the NHSCLRP. By so doing, this bill would increase access to specialty care for children and improve mental health parity for children. Providers across the spectrum of care support this bipartisan legislation including: the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Arthritis Foundation, Children's Hospital Association, March of Dimes, and the National Alliance on Mental Illness. I look forward to working with these and other stakeholders as well as Senator Blunt and our colleagues to pass the Ensuring Children's Access to Specialty Care Act in order to help ensure children have greater access to the health care they need.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining Senator Blunt in introducing the Ensuring Children's Access to Specialty Care Act. According to the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, there are currently only 8,300 child and adolescent psychiatrists (CAPs) in the United States--many of whom are not practicing full time--far short of the estimated need of over 30,000 CAPs. On average, patients wait almost two months to see a CAP, a startling concern given that the incidence rates of mental illness and behavioral disorders among children in the United States continue to grow. Fifty percent of all lifetime cases of mental illness begin at age 14; seventy-five percent by age 24. The National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program (NHSCLRP) was created by Congress over forty years ago to help recruit and place trained individuals in underserved communities to provide needed health care services. Licensed health care providers may earn up to $50,000 toward student loans in exchange for a two-year commitment at an NHSC-approved site, within two years of completing their residency. Accepted participants may serve as primary care medical, dental, or mental/ behavioral health clinicians. NHSCLRP provides critical relief to physicians who have completed pediatrics or psychiatry residency training programs; however, pediatric subspecialists, such as child and adolescent psychiatrists, are effectively barred from participating due to the extra training these physicians are required to take after completing their residency. This extra training, which often results in increased student debt, typically consists of a fellowship that takes place in the two-year window of eligibility for NHSCLRP. The creation of NHSCLRP preceded the expansion of many pediatric subspecialties, not taking into account the extra years of training required for these physicians. The Ensuring Children's Access to Specialty Care Act would correct this loophole and allow pediatric subspecialists practicing in underserved areas to benefit from the NHSCLRP. By so doing, this bill would increase access to specialty care for children and improve mental health parity for children. Providers across the spectrum of care support this bipartisan legislation including: the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Arthritis Foundation, Children's Hospital Association, March of Dimes, and the National Alliance on Mental Illness. I look forward to working with these and other stakeholders as well as Senator Blunt and our colleagues to pass the Ensuring Children's Access to Specialty Care Act in order to help ensure children have greater access to the health care they need.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Whitehouse in celebrating the tenure of Sister Jane Gerety as president of Salve Regina University. Sister Jane has served the Salve Regina University community since 1995. First, she was a member of the board of trustees, and, starting in 2009, she became its seventh president. She has been an extraordinary leader, educator, and friend. We will miss her dearly in Rhode Island as she retires and embarks upon her next venture. Salve Regina University is a special institution. Founded by the Sisters of Mercy, its original charter authorized establishing a college to ``promote virtue, and piety and learning.'' In 1947, after the acquisition of Ochre Hall, Salve Regina College enrolled its first class of 58 students. In doing so, it opened the gates of some of the mansions of America's gilded age to serve a new and better purpose of expanding educational opportunities in the pursuit of wisdom and universal justice. It comes as no surprise that Senator Pell made Salve Regina University his home away from home upon his retirement from the Senate. Senator Pell was committed to a just and harmonious world. He was a man, born of privilege, who dedicated his career in public service to expanding educational and cultural opportunities that had previously been reserved for the elite to all Americans. Senator Whitehouse and I share a keen sense of responsibility to protect and build on Senator Pell's legacy. In Sister Jane, we had a true partner in that effort, and we are grateful for her service. Sister Jane embodies the founding principles of Salve Regina College, now Salve Regina University. On campus, she is known as the students' president, perhaps the highest praise for a university leader. She has been a real presence in student life on campus. From the athletic fields to the dining halls to her office, where the doors were always open, students knew that she had their back. She was their president. It was only fitting that the university has dedicated Wakehurst Hall, the hub of student activities and home to the office of community service, the student government association, and the campus activities board, in her honor. It is now called Gerety Hall, a name that in Sister Jane's reflection on her family speaks to love, fidelity, and perseverance. Under Sister Jane's presidency, Salve Regina University has grown, thrived, and helped address vital needs in the community. Sister Jane oversaw the expansion of academic programs, including a new doctorate program in nursing, a master of fine arts degree program in creative writing, additional experiential learning opportunities in business, ground-breaking research programs in the sciences, and a new campus in Warwick, Rhode Island to serve the academic needs of working adults in graduate and continuing education programs. She improved the campus infrastructure, spearheading the renovation of the O'Hare academic building, creating spaces for collaborative learning, and renovating laboratories for programs in science and nursing. Sister Jane also worked to ensure that the university addressed emerging areas of need, opening a digital forensics lab and incorporating cyber education across the undergraduate curriculum. Even more significantly, Sister Jane worked to ensure that students from all walks of life could afford a Salve Regina education. She led the campaign ``Scholars and Scholarships'' to reach 100 gifted, endowed funds valued at over $15 million to support students, faculty, and research. Over the last 10 years, Salve Regina's annual Governor's Ball for Scholarships nearly doubled in support, raising more than $500,000 in 2019 alone as the university's signature event. Sister Jane's accomplishments at Salve Regina University are but some of her many professional and academic achievements. She earned bachelor's and master's degrees in French and a doctorate in English. She is a William Butler Yeats scholar. She has been a teacher at many levels--junior high, high school, and college and an academic dean. She had a notable career in the healthcare sector, serving as a senior administrator for St. Joseph's Health System in Atlanta before coming to Salve Regina University. In each of these roles, Sister Jane answered her vocation to live a life of mercy. In her words and in her deeds, she promotes universal justice and works for a world that is harmonious, just, and merciful. We are all better off for knowing Sister Jane. I will miss her advice and counsel and wish her well in her next endeavors. As she told the students when she announced her retirement, ``Looking forward, we all share a bit of fear for the unknown and also hope for the excitement that is to come.'' May we all follow her example and work to make what is to come harmonious, just, and merciful. I yield to my colleague, Senator Whitehouse.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, on Sunday, I had the opportunity to attend the 104th anniversary commemoration of the Armenian genocide, hosted at the Armenian Martyrs Memorial in Providence, RI. I was pleased to be able to join with so many in the Armenian community in my home State for this solemn event. Over a century ago, one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century began when the Young Turk leaders of the Ottoman Empire executed more than 200 prominent Armenians. What followed was an 8-year campaign of oppression and massacre. By 1923, an estimated 1 and a half million Armenians were killed and over a half a million survivors were exiled. These atrocities affected the lives of every Armenian living in Asia Minor and throughout the world. The U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during this dark time, Henry Morgenthau, Sr., unsuccessfully pleaded with President Wilson to take action, and later remembered the events of the genocide, saying, ``I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915.'' Those who survived the Armenian genocide, however, persevered due to their unbreakable spirit and steadfast resolve, going on to greatly contribute to the lands in which they established new homes and communities, including the United States. That is why we not only commemorate this grave tragedy each year, but also take the time to celebrate the traditions, the contributions, and the bright future of the Armenian people. Indeed, my home State of Rhode Island continues to be enriched by our strong and vibrant Armenian-American community. To honor the memory of this tragedy, I have once again joined with several of my colleagues on a resolution to encourage the U.S. to officially recognize the Armenian genocide. We must find a way to come together to recognize the truth of what happened and support and assist those facing persecution today. As ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I also remain committed to supporting assistance to Armenia to strengthen security, promote economic growth, and foster democratic reforms and development. As we remember the past, we remain committed to forging a brighter future. We must continue to guard against hatred and oppression so that we can prevent such crimes against humanity from happening again.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act, which I reintroduce today with Senator Grassley, will permit the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to make public the disciplinary proceedings it has brought against auditors and audit firms earlier in the process. More than fifteen years ago, our markets were victimized by a series of massive financial reporting frauds, including those involving Enron and WorldCom. In response to this crisis, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs conducted multiple hearings, which produced consensus on a number of underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial statements. In a 99 to 0 vote, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to address the structural weaknesses and faults revealed by the hearings. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation of a strong and independent board, the PCAOB, responsible for overseeing auditors of public companies in order to protect investors who rely on independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies. To conduct its duties, the PCAOB, under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), oversees more than 1,800 registered accounting firms, as well as the audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The Board's ability to begin proceedings that can determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is an important component of its oversight. However, unlike the SEC, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and other oversight bodies, the Board's disciplinary proceedings cannot be made public without consent from the parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing and thus these proceedings typically remain cloaked behind a veil of secrecy. In addition, the Board cannot publicize the results of its disciplinary proceedings until after the appeals process has been completely exhausted, which can often take several years. Concealing PCAOB disciplinary proceedings from the public creates a lack of transparency that invites abuse and undermines the Congressional intent behind the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright light on auditing firms and practices, and to bolster the accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing public. Over the years, some bad actors have used this loophole to shield themselves from public scrutiny and accountability. Former PCAOB Chairman James Doty repeatedly stated in testimony provided to both the Senate and House of Representatives that the secrecy of the proceedings ``has a variety of unfortunate consequences'' and that such secrecy is harmful to investors, the auditing profession, and the public at large. For example, an accounting firm continued to issue no fewer than 29 additional audit reports on public companies without those companies knowing that it was subject to a PCAOB disciplinary proceeding. Disturbingly, these investors and the public company clients of that audit firm were deprived of important information about the proceeding against the firm and the substance of any violations. There are other critical reasons why the Board's enforcement proceedings should be open and transparent. First, the incentive to litigate cases in order to shield conduct from public scrutiny as long as possible frustrates the process and requires both litigants and the PCAOB to expend needless resources. Second, agencies such as the SEC have found that open and transparent disciplinary proceedings can be valuable because they inform peer audit firms of the type of activity that could lead to enforcement action by the regulator. In effect, transparent proceedings can serve as a deterrent to misconduct because of a perceived increase in the likelihood of ``getting caught.'' Accordingly, the audit industry as a whole would also benefit from timely, public, and non-secret enforcement proceedings. Our bill will make hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would more closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those of the SEC for analogous matters. Increasing transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to PCAOB disciplinary proceedings bolsters investor confidence in our financial markets and better protects companies from problematic auditors. I hope our colleagues will join Senator Grassley and me in supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the PCAOB Enforcement Transparency Act, which I reintroduce today with Senator Grassley, will permit the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to make public the disciplinary proceedings it has brought against auditors and audit firms earlier in the process. More than fifteen years ago, our markets were victimized by a series of massive financial reporting frauds, including those involving Enron and WorldCom. In response to this crisis, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs conducted multiple hearings, which produced consensus on a number of underlying causes, including weak corporate governance, a lack of accountability, and inadequate oversight of accountants charged with auditing public companies' financial statements. In a 99 to 0 vote, the Senate passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to address the structural weaknesses and faults revealed by the hearings. Among its many provisions, this law called for the creation of a strong and independent board, the PCAOB, responsible for overseeing auditors of public companies in order to protect investors who rely on independent audit reports on the financial statements of public companies. To conduct its duties, the PCAOB, under the oversight of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), oversees more than 1,800 registered accounting firms, as well as the audit partners and staff who contribute to a firm's work on each audit. The Board's ability to begin proceedings that can determine whether there have been violations of its auditing standards or rules of professional practice is an important component of its oversight. However, unlike the SEC, the U.S. Department of Labor, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and other oversight bodies, the Board's disciplinary proceedings cannot be made public without consent from the parties involved. Of course, parties subject to disciplinary proceedings have no incentive to consent to publicizing their alleged wrongdoing and thus these proceedings typically remain cloaked behind a veil of secrecy. In addition, the Board cannot publicize the results of its disciplinary proceedings until after the appeals process has been completely exhausted, which can often take several years. Concealing PCAOB disciplinary proceedings from the public creates a lack of transparency that invites abuse and undermines the Congressional intent behind the PCAOB, which was to shine a bright light on auditing firms and practices, and to bolster the accountability of auditors of public companies to the investing public. Over the years, some bad actors have used this loophole to shield themselves from public scrutiny and accountability. Former PCAOB Chairman James Doty repeatedly stated in testimony provided to both the Senate and House of Representatives that the secrecy of the proceedings ``has a variety of unfortunate consequences'' and that such secrecy is harmful to investors, the auditing profession, and the public at large. For example, an accounting firm continued to issue no fewer than 29 additional audit reports on public companies without those companies knowing that it was subject to a PCAOB disciplinary proceeding. Disturbingly, these investors and the public company clients of that audit firm were deprived of important information about the proceeding against the firm and the substance of any violations. There are other critical reasons why the Board's enforcement proceedings should be open and transparent. First, the incentive to litigate cases in order to shield conduct from public scrutiny as long as possible frustrates the process and requires both litigants and the PCAOB to expend needless resources. Second, agencies such as the SEC have found that open and transparent disciplinary proceedings can be valuable because they inform peer audit firms of the type of activity that could lead to enforcement action by the regulator. In effect, transparent proceedings can serve as a deterrent to misconduct because of a perceived increase in the likelihood of ``getting caught.'' Accordingly, the audit industry as a whole would also benefit from timely, public, and non-secret enforcement proceedings. Our bill will make hearings by the PCAOB, and all related notices, orders, and motions, transparent and available to the public unless otherwise ordered by the Board. This would more closely align the PCAOB's procedures with those of the SEC for analogous matters. Increasing transparency and accountability of audit firms subject to PCAOB disciplinary proceedings bolsters investor confidence in our financial markets and better protects companies from problematic auditors. I hope our colleagues will join Senator Grassley and me in supporting this legislation to enhance transparency in the PCAOB's enforcement process.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to join in the celebration of National Library Week. This year's theme, ``Libraries = Strong Communities,'' is fitting. Every day, our libraries help make our communities stronger and more vibrant, as they innovate and mobilize resources to provide programs and services that meet ever-evolving community needs. That is why I have been proud to work during my time in the Senate on ways to support our Nation's libraries. Last December, on a bipartisan basis, I secured passage and enactment of my legislation to reauthorize and enhance the Museum and Library Services Act. This law authorizes Federal funding, a relatively modest investment, through the Institute of Museum and Library Services, IMLS, to enable libraries and museums to work in partnership at the State and local levels and with nonprofits, universities, businesses, and others to support, educate, enlighten, and enrich our communities. For libraries, this law seeks to ensure they are equipped to serve community needs, in areas such as workforce, economic, and business development; digital and financial literacy; critical thinking; and new and emerging technologies. Critically, this new law ensures that increases in library formula funding will be shared more broadly across States and specifically smaller ones like Rhode Island. Just last week, I hosted a conversation with our State's library professionals to follow-up on a similar roundtable I held in Rhode Island in 2016 as I began my work on the Museum and Library Services Act. It was inspiring to hear the many ways in which our libraries are hard at work transforming themselves to serve their diverse communities. I was glad the director of IMLS, Dr. Kathryn Matthew, could join us for this event. We have a special duty in Rhode Island to elevate the work of IMLS, which is one of my predecessor, Senator Pell's, many lasting gifts to our Nation. While the President's budget proposes to once again eliminate funding for IMLS, I have been able to instead secure an increase of $11 million for this agency over the last 2 years. There is broad, bipartisan support for the work IMLS does, and I am continuing to work with my colleagues to increase funding so we can advance IMLS's mission. My work on libraries extends to ones in our schools, which also need our care and attention. Studies show that effective school library programs, staffed by a certified school librarian, have a positive impact on student achievement and educational success. Knowing how to find and use information are essential skills for college, careers, and life in general. A good school library, staffed by a trained school librarian, is where students develop and hone these skills. Yet, according to the American Library Association, while 91 percent of the over 90,000 public and private elementary and secondary schools in the Nation have a school library, only 61 percent have a full-time librarian. A National Education Association report about trends in school libraries found that students in the highest poverty schools were less likely to have libraries at their schools and there were significant disparities in staffing at schools with high percentages of minority students. Access to an effective school library program, staffed by a certified school librarian, is an issue of educational equity. In 2015, I was pleased to work with the library community and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that our main Federal elementary and secondary education law continued to specifically address the critical equity issue of public school libraries. Since my time in the other body, I have worked hard to ensure Federal support for our school libraries and I continue to fight for increased funding for the Innovative Approaches to Literacy, IAL, grant program authorized in the Every Students Succeeds Act, ESSA. IAL provides competitive awards to school libraries, as well as national not-for- profit organizations to support children and families in high-need, underserved communities. By providing age-appropriate books, supporting parental engagement programs, and reinforcing professional development, the IAL program helps to support literacy skills to ensure children are best positioned for success. I encourage all of my colleagues to visit their local libraries and school libraries to see firsthand that libraries are no longer quaint and quiet places to find the latest books, although they still offer plenty of that. They are community hubs providing innovative programming and services to spark creativity, boost learning and STEM education, promote the use of emerging technologies, and develop new career pathways. In sum, they are strengthening our communities, our States, and our Nation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today is National Service Recognition Day, when we take a moment to honor AmeriCorps and Senior Corps members for the many contributions they make in communities across the nation. As Americans, we take inspiration from those who have answered the call to serve, whether in defense of our Nation abroad or to strengthen our communities at home. The willingness to serve a purpose greater than ourselves is a hallmark of our Nation and those who commit themselves to the betterment of our country deserve and have earned our support. That is why this year, on National Service Recognition Day, I am joining Senators Coons and Duckworth and Congressman Larson and other colleagues in introducing the America's Call to Improving Opportunities Now (ACTION) for National Service Act of 2019. Our legislation calls for a great expansion of the number of service opportunities and an increased investment in those who serve. Since 1994, over one million individuals have served through the AmeriCorps program. Annually, roughly 220,000 seniors over the age of 55 volunteer through the Senior Corps programs. These individuals have addressed critical community needs in education, economic development, health, and many other areas. They are among the teams of first responders when disaster strikes. Unfortunately, we have not created the capacity to support all Americans who want to serve. The question of service is vital to our Nation. I was proud to have joined my friend and colleague, the late Senator John McCain, in laying out a vision and plan to support and encourage service--military, national and public--by establishing the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service. After meeting with communities across the country, the Commission submitted its interim report, which highlighted that Americans value service and are interested in pursuing transformative efforts to involve many more Americans in service. Yet, the Commission also reported that there are many barriers to service, particularly financial ones. Furthermore, there is a lack of awareness about existing programs and opportunities. The ACTION for National Service Act will honor our national value of service, while addressing the barriers that limit citizens' opportunities to serve. Our legislation will set us on a path to one million national service positions within ten years. It will increase the educational award so that an individual completing two full years of service will earn the equivalent of four years of the average in- state tuition at a public institution. Those who are willing to serve should not have to carry a heavy burden of student loan debt to achieve their educational goals. The ACTION for National Service Act will also ease other financial barriers to service, increasing the living allowance and eliminating the tax liability for the education awards and living stipends. The bill calls for a robust outreach campaign, requiring that all eligible individuals be notified of their options to serve. Finally, the ACTION for National Service Act calls for elevating the Corporation for National and Community Service to a cabinet-level agency and establishes a National Service Foundation to leverage private sector resources to support national service activities. Mr. President, it is time we reinvigorate the social contract between America and its citizenry. Americans have a deep tradition of national service, starting with the dedicated men and women of our armed forces and including all those who have served in AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and the Peace Corps. However, as more Americans wish to serve, it is important that they be given the opportunity to do so. Just as critical is investing in the education and professional development of those who have sacrificed and given so much to our Nation. Developing the talents of our most committed citizens pays life-long dividends. Our investment in the GI Bill not only honors our service members, but also enriches our Nation. Similarly, the education awards for those who have served through our national programs have economic impacts beyond the individuals who earn them. That is the new deal that the ACTION for National Service Act offers. All AmeriCorps members take a pledge to get things done for Americans, to make communities safer, smarter and healthier, and to bring us together. I'd like to thank Senators Coons, Duckworth, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Brown, Baldwin, and Blumenthal for signing on as original cosponsors and urge our colleagues to join us in pledging to ensure that all who want to answer the call to serve can do so by cosponsoring the ACTION for National Service Act and working for its passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today is National Service Recognition Day, when we take a moment to honor AmeriCorps and Senior Corps members for the many contributions they make in communities across the nation. As Americans, we take inspiration from those who have answered the call to serve, whether in defense of our Nation abroad or to strengthen our communities at home. The willingness to serve a purpose greater than ourselves is a hallmark of our Nation and those who commit themselves to the betterment of our country deserve and have earned our support. That is why this year, on National Service Recognition Day, I am joining Senators Coons and Duckworth and Congressman Larson and other colleagues in introducing the America's Call to Improving Opportunities Now (ACTION) for National Service Act of 2019. Our legislation calls for a great expansion of the number of service opportunities and an increased investment in those who serve. Since 1994, over one million individuals have served through the AmeriCorps program. Annually, roughly 220,000 seniors over the age of 55 volunteer through the Senior Corps programs. These individuals have addressed critical community needs in education, economic development, health, and many other areas. They are among the teams of first responders when disaster strikes. Unfortunately, we have not created the capacity to support all Americans who want to serve. The question of service is vital to our Nation. I was proud to have joined my friend and colleague, the late Senator John McCain, in laying out a vision and plan to support and encourage service--military, national and public--by establishing the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service. After meeting with communities across the country, the Commission submitted its interim report, which highlighted that Americans value service and are interested in pursuing transformative efforts to involve many more Americans in service. Yet, the Commission also reported that there are many barriers to service, particularly financial ones. Furthermore, there is a lack of awareness about existing programs and opportunities. The ACTION for National Service Act will honor our national value of service, while addressing the barriers that limit citizens' opportunities to serve. Our legislation will set us on a path to one million national service positions within ten years. It will increase the educational award so that an individual completing two full years of service will earn the equivalent of four years of the average in- state tuition at a public institution. Those who are willing to serve should not have to carry a heavy burden of student loan debt to achieve their educational goals. The ACTION for National Service Act will also ease other financial barriers to service, increasing the living allowance and eliminating the tax liability for the education awards and living stipends. The bill calls for a robust outreach campaign, requiring that all eligible individuals be notified of their options to serve. Finally, the ACTION for National Service Act calls for elevating the Corporation for National and Community Service to a cabinet-level agency and establishes a National Service Foundation to leverage private sector resources to support national service activities. Mr. President, it is time we reinvigorate the social contract between America and its citizenry. Americans have a deep tradition of national service, starting with the dedicated men and women of our armed forces and including all those who have served in AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and the Peace Corps. However, as more Americans wish to serve, it is important that they be given the opportunity to do so. Just as critical is investing in the education and professional development of those who have sacrificed and given so much to our Nation. Developing the talents of our most committed citizens pays life-long dividends. Our investment in the GI Bill not only honors our service members, but also enriches our Nation. Similarly, the education awards for those who have served through our national programs have economic impacts beyond the individuals who earn them. That is the new deal that the ACTION for National Service Act offers. All AmeriCorps members take a pledge to get things done for Americans, to make communities safer, smarter and healthier, and to bring us together. I'd like to thank Senators Coons, Duckworth, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Blumenthal, Brown, Baldwin, and Blumenthal for signing on as original cosponsors and urge our colleagues to join us in pledging to ensure that all who want to answer the call to serve can do so by cosponsoring the ACTION for National Service Act and working for its passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we know that the quality of teachers and principals are two of the most important in-school factors related to student achievement. Yet the pipeline into the profession is in disrepair. A report from the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education showed that the number of education degrees awarded peaked at 200,000 per year in the 1970s and has dwindled to fewer than 100,000 today. This is at a time when all fifty States have reported experiencing statewide teacher shortages in at least one teaching area for the 2016-17 or 2017-18 school year. If we want to improve our schools, it is essential that we invest in the professional preparation of teachers, principals, and other educators. As such, today, I am reintroducing the Educator Preparation Reform Act with my colleagues Senators Casey and Coons to ensure that the Federal government continues to be a partner in addressing this critical national need. The impact of educator shortages falls the hardest on our most vulnerable students in our highest need communities. Rhode Island is no exception, with Providence, the largest school district, facing an acute shortage of teachers certified to teach English language learners. My home State has also reported shortages in special education, science, math, world languages, and school nurses. We cannot solve this problem without improving both teacher and principal preparation. We need to make sure that our educator preparation programs are worthy of the professionals entering the field and the students they will serve. The Educator Preparation Reform Act is a key part of the solution. Our legislation builds on the successful Teacher Quality Partnership Program, which I helped author in the 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. It continues the partnership between high-need school districts, institutions of higher education, and educator preparation programs to reform pre-service programs based on the unique needs of the partners. Among the key changes are specific attention and emphasis on principals and the addition of a residency program for new principals. Improving instruction is a team effort, with principals at the helm. This bill better connects teacher preparation with principal preparation. The Educator Preparation Reform Act will also allow partnerships to develop preparation programs for other areas of instructional need, such as for school librarians, counselors, or other academic support professionals. The bill streamlines the accountability and reporting requirements for teacher preparation programs to provide greater transparency on key quality measures such as admissions standards, requirements for clinical practice, placement of graduates, retention in the field of teaching, and teacher performance, including student-learning outcomes. All programs--whether traditional or alternative routes to certification--will report on the same measures. Under our legislation, States will be required to identify at-risk and low-performing programs and provide them with technical assistance and a timeline for improvement. States would be encouraged to close programs that do not improve. Our legislation also makes important improvements to the TEACH Grants. It focuses the grants on the later years of teacher preparation, reducing the potential of the grants being converted to loans if a student decides to change majors. Additionally, it allows prorating the amount of grants converted to loans, giving teachers credit for partially completing the service requirement. Finally, it requires the Department of Education to establish an appeals process for grants wrongly converted to loans and to report to Congress annually on the number of conversions and appeals. We have been fortunate to work with many stakeholders on this legislation. Organizations that have endorsed the Educator Preparation Reform Act include: the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American Federation of Teachers, Higher Education Consortium for Special Education, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Association of State Directors of Special Education, National Education Association, Public Advocacy for Kids, and the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children. I look forward to working to incorporate this legislation into the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort and support this legislation.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we all recognize that a postsecondary education is required for most family-sustaining, middle-class jobs, and that an educated workforce is essential to a modern, productive economy. A report by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce found that college-level intensive business services have replaced manufacturing as the largest sector in the U.S. economy, and that while college-educated workers make up only 32 percent of the workforce, they now produce more than 50 percent of the Nation's economic output, up from 13 percent in 1967. A college degree also pays off, with one recent analysis estimating that the typical college graduate will earn $900,000 more of their lifetime than the typical high school graduate. Yet just as there is growing recognition that postsecondary education is indispensable in the modern economy, families are being required to shoulder growing debt burdens that threaten access to college and their financial health. According to an analysis by the Federal Reserve, student loan debt per capita doubled between 2005 and 2014, rising from $5,000 to $10,000. This is a growing drag on our economy. As student loan debt has grown, young adults have put off buying homes or cars, starting a family, saving for retirement, or launching new businesses. They have literally mortgaged their economic future. We know that student loan borrowers are struggling. The Secretary of Education just testified before the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee that 43 percent of the student loans in the nearly $1.5 trillion Federal student loan portfolio are in default, more than 30 days delinquent, or negatively amortized. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reports that the balance of defaulted loans now exceeds $120 billion. More than 8 million borrowers currently have a loan in default. Default is catastrophic for student loan borrowers. Only in rare instances can the debt be discharged in bankruptcy. The Federal government has the power to withhold tax refunds, garnish wages, and even garnish Social Security benefits to collect defaulted student loans. We have seen the costs to students and taxpayers when institutions are not held accountable. Corinthian Colleges and ITT are two examples of institutions that failed their students while benefitting from Federal student aid. Their fraudulent business practices eventually led to their demise, but not before leaving their students and taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars in student loan debt. More recently, we have seen the closure of Argosy University, South University, and the Art Institutes, all operated by the Dream Center, leave roughly 26,000 students in the lurch. We cannot wait until an institution is catastrophically failing its students before taking action. Institutions need greater financial incentives to act before default rates rise. Simply put, we cannot tackle the student loan debt crisis without States and institutions stepping up and taking greater responsibility for college costs and student borrowing. That is why I am pleased to reintroduce the Protect Student Borrowers Act with Senators Durbin, Warren, and Murphy. Our legislation seeks to ensure there is more skin in the game when it comes to student loan debt by setting stronger market incentives for colleges and universities to provide better and more affordable education to students, which should in turn help put the brakes on rising student loan defaults. The Protect Student Borrowers Act would hold colleges and universities accountable for student loan defaults by requiring them to repay a percentage of defaulted loans. Only institutions that have one- third or more of their students borrow would be included in the bill's risk-sharing requirements based on their cohort default rate. Risk- sharing requirements would kick in when the default rate exceeds 15 percent. As the institution's default rate rises, so too will the institution's risk-share payment. The Protect Student Borrowers Act also provides incentives for institutions to take proactive steps to ease student loan debt burdens and reduce default rates. Colleges and universities can reduce or eliminate their payments if they implement a comprehensive student loan management plan. The Secretary may waive or reduce the payments for institutions whose mission is to serve low-income and minority students, such as community colleges, Historically Black Institutions, or Hispanic-Serving Institutions--if they are making progress in their student loan management plans. The risk-sharing payments would be invested in helping struggling borrowers, preventing future default and delinquency, and increasing Pell Grants at institutions that enroll a high percentage of Pell Grant recipients and have low default rates. With the stakes so high for students and taxpayers, it is only fair that institutions bear some of the risk in the student loan program. We need to tackle student loan debt and college affordability from multiple angles. All stakeholders in the system must do their part. With the Protect Student Borrowers Act, we are providing the incentives and resources for institutions to take more responsibility to address college affordability and student loan debt and improve student outcomes. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and look forward to working with them to include it and other key reforms in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we know that the quality of teachers and principals are two of the most important in-school factors related to student achievement. Yet the pipeline into the profession is in disrepair. A report from the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education showed that the number of education degrees awarded peaked at 200,000 per year in the 1970s and has dwindled to fewer than 100,000 today. This is at a time when all fifty States have reported experiencing statewide teacher shortages in at least one teaching area for the 2016-17 or 2017-18 school year. If we want to improve our schools, it is essential that we invest in the professional preparation of teachers, principals, and other educators. As such, today, I am reintroducing the Educator Preparation Reform Act with my colleagues Senators Casey and Coons to ensure that the Federal government continues to be a partner in addressing this critical national need. The impact of educator shortages falls the hardest on our most vulnerable students in our highest need communities. Rhode Island is no exception, with Providence, the largest school district, facing an acute shortage of teachers certified to teach English language learners. My home State has also reported shortages in special education, science, math, world languages, and school nurses. We cannot solve this problem without improving both teacher and principal preparation. We need to make sure that our educator preparation programs are worthy of the professionals entering the field and the students they will serve. The Educator Preparation Reform Act is a key part of the solution. Our legislation builds on the successful Teacher Quality Partnership Program, which I helped author in the 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. It continues the partnership between high-need school districts, institutions of higher education, and educator preparation programs to reform pre-service programs based on the unique needs of the partners. Among the key changes are specific attention and emphasis on principals and the addition of a residency program for new principals. Improving instruction is a team effort, with principals at the helm. This bill better connects teacher preparation with principal preparation. The Educator Preparation Reform Act will also allow partnerships to develop preparation programs for other areas of instructional need, such as for school librarians, counselors, or other academic support professionals. The bill streamlines the accountability and reporting requirements for teacher preparation programs to provide greater transparency on key quality measures such as admissions standards, requirements for clinical practice, placement of graduates, retention in the field of teaching, and teacher performance, including student-learning outcomes. All programs--whether traditional or alternative routes to certification--will report on the same measures. Under our legislation, States will be required to identify at-risk and low-performing programs and provide them with technical assistance and a timeline for improvement. States would be encouraged to close programs that do not improve. Our legislation also makes important improvements to the TEACH Grants. It focuses the grants on the later years of teacher preparation, reducing the potential of the grants being converted to loans if a student decides to change majors. Additionally, it allows prorating the amount of grants converted to loans, giving teachers credit for partially completing the service requirement. Finally, it requires the Department of Education to establish an appeals process for grants wrongly converted to loans and to report to Congress annually on the number of conversions and appeals. We have been fortunate to work with many stakeholders on this legislation. Organizations that have endorsed the Educator Preparation Reform Act include: the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, American Federation of Teachers, Higher Education Consortium for Special Education, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Association of State Directors of Special Education, National Education Association, Public Advocacy for Kids, and the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children. I look forward to working to incorporate this legislation into the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort and support this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we all recognize that a postsecondary education is required for most family-sustaining, middle-class jobs, and that an educated workforce is essential to a modern, productive economy. A report by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce found that college-level intensive business services have replaced manufacturing as the largest sector in the U.S. economy, and that while college-educated workers make up only 32 percent of the workforce, they now produce more than 50 percent of the Nation's economic output, up from 13 percent in 1967. A college degree also pays off, with one recent analysis estimating that the typical college graduate will earn $900,000 more of their lifetime than the typical high school graduate. Yet just as there is growing recognition that postsecondary education is indispensable in the modern economy, families are being required to shoulder growing debt burdens that threaten access to college and their financial health. According to an analysis by the Federal Reserve, student loan debt per capita doubled between 2005 and 2014, rising from $5,000 to $10,000. This is a growing drag on our economy. As student loan debt has grown, young adults have put off buying homes or cars, starting a family, saving for retirement, or launching new businesses. They have literally mortgaged their economic future. We know that student loan borrowers are struggling. The Secretary of Education just testified before the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee that 43 percent of the student loans in the nearly $1.5 trillion Federal student loan portfolio are in default, more than 30 days delinquent, or negatively amortized. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reports that the balance of defaulted loans now exceeds $120 billion. More than 8 million borrowers currently have a loan in default. Default is catastrophic for student loan borrowers. Only in rare instances can the debt be discharged in bankruptcy. The Federal government has the power to withhold tax refunds, garnish wages, and even garnish Social Security benefits to collect defaulted student loans. We have seen the costs to students and taxpayers when institutions are not held accountable. Corinthian Colleges and ITT are two examples of institutions that failed their students while benefitting from Federal student aid. Their fraudulent business practices eventually led to their demise, but not before leaving their students and taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars in student loan debt. More recently, we have seen the closure of Argosy University, South University, and the Art Institutes, all operated by the Dream Center, leave roughly 26,000 students in the lurch. We cannot wait until an institution is catastrophically failing its students before taking action. Institutions need greater financial incentives to act before default rates rise. Simply put, we cannot tackle the student loan debt crisis without States and institutions stepping up and taking greater responsibility for college costs and student borrowing. That is why I am pleased to reintroduce the Protect Student Borrowers Act with Senators Durbin, Warren, and Murphy. Our legislation seeks to ensure there is more skin in the game when it comes to student loan debt by setting stronger market incentives for colleges and universities to provide better and more affordable education to students, which should in turn help put the brakes on rising student loan defaults. The Protect Student Borrowers Act would hold colleges and universities accountable for student loan defaults by requiring them to repay a percentage of defaulted loans. Only institutions that have one- third or more of their students borrow would be included in the bill's risk-sharing requirements based on their cohort default rate. Risk- sharing requirements would kick in when the default rate exceeds 15 percent. As the institution's default rate rises, so too will the institution's risk-share payment. The Protect Student Borrowers Act also provides incentives for institutions to take proactive steps to ease student loan debt burdens and reduce default rates. Colleges and universities can reduce or eliminate their payments if they implement a comprehensive student loan management plan. The Secretary may waive or reduce the payments for institutions whose mission is to serve low-income and minority students, such as community colleges, Historically Black Institutions, or Hispanic-Serving Institutions--if they are making progress in their student loan management plans. The risk-sharing payments would be invested in helping struggling borrowers, preventing future default and delinquency, and increasing Pell Grants at institutions that enroll a high percentage of Pell Grant recipients and have low default rates. With the stakes so high for students and taxpayers, it is only fair that institutions bear some of the risk in the student loan program. We need to tackle student loan debt and college affordability from multiple angles. All stakeholders in the system must do their part. With the Protect Student Borrowers Act, we are providing the incentives and resources for institutions to take more responsibility to address college affordability and student loan debt and improve student outcomes. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and look forward to working with them to include it and other key reforms in the upcoming reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me commend Senator Whitehouse for his consistent efforts to illuminate and discuss the problem of climate change, which affects not just the United States but the entire world. It is a pleasure to join him and once again call attention to this urgent threat. We know that climate change impacts our health, our communities, our economy, and our infrastructure, but today I would like to focus on how climate change is affecting our national security--some of the points Senator Whitehouse also made. Beginning with the 2008 National Defense Strategy, the administration of President George W. Bush stated that ``changes with existing and future resource, environmental, and climate pressures may generate new security challenges . . . These risks will require managing the divergent needs of massively increasing energy demand to maintain economic development and the need to tackle climate change.'' With increasing frequency in recent years, climate change has been commonly referred to as a threat multiplier. Simply put, climate change can and will exacerbate conditions in regions with already tenuous stability. Numerous intelligence assessments have reached the same conclusion. Climate change will have broad impacts for U.S. national security interests over the next 30 years and beyond. In their words, the National Intelligence Council has found that ``rising sea levels, flooding, droughts, higher temperatures, and more frequent extreme weather events will increasingly threaten military capabilities and facilities on both U.S. and foreign territory, including military bases and training ranges.'' Furthermore, the National Intelligence Council identified six key pathways: threats to the stability of countries, heightened social and political tensions, adverse effects on food prices and availability, increased risks to human health, negative impacts on investments and economic competitiveness, and potential climate discontinuities and secondary surprises. The former Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis, has stated to the Senate Armed Services Committee that ``where climate change contributes to regional instability, the Department of Defense must be aware of any potential adverse impacts.'' He also noted that ``climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today.'' More recently, Gen. Joe Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about climate change at an event held by Duke University's Program in American Grand Strategy. He said: When we look at, when I look at, climate change, it's in the category of sources of conflict around the world and things we have to respond to. So it can be great devastation requiring humanitarian assistance/disaster relief, which the U.S. military certainly conducts routinely. In fact, I can't think of a year since I've been on active duty that we haven't conducted at least one operation in the Pacific along those lines due to extreme weather in the Pacific. And then, when you look at source of conflict--shortages of water and those kind of things--those are all sources of conflict. So, it is very much something that we take into account in our planning as we anticipate when, where and how we may be engaged in the future and what capabilities we should have. The Department of Defense has already observed many negative impacts to readiness and resources due to extreme weather as a result of climate change. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded ``costs associated with hurricane damage will increase more rapidly than the economy will grow''--$39 billion annually by 2075. In 2017, the Government Accountability Office found that ``weather effects associated with climate change pose operational and budgetary risks'' to the Department of Defense. The GAO also found that ``even without knowing precisely how or when the climate will change--[DOD] knows it must build resilience into its policies, programs, and operations in a thoughtful and cost-effective way.'' Last year, the Pentagon also submitted its screening level vulnerability assessment surveys to Congress. It found that roughly half of all military installations that responded stated they had experienced adverse impacts from climate change: damage from high winds, flooding due to storm surge and non-storm surge events, extreme temperatures, droughts, and wildfires. However, that figure is likely much higher because the other half of military installations around the globe didn't even respond to the survey. Oddly enough, those military installations that said they had not experienced negative impacts from climate change were very close to other installations, which said they had. Clearly, this is a broad problem for our military. The Department's most recent report on climate change was like an introductory primer and carried about as much value as a phonebook. It failed to provide many required elements, such as a top 10 list of the most vulnerable installations from each military service. Instead, the report focused on 79 installations important for mission assurance and found that about two-thirds of them are--in their words--``vulnerable to current or future recurrent flooding [and] more than half are vulnerable to current or future drought, and wildfires.'' Perhaps the most recent and high-profile impacts occurred this month when a particular type of storm in the Midwest, called a bomb cyclone, left at least one-third of Offutt Air Force Base underwater from flooding. Just a few months ago, Hurricane Michael made a direct hit on Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, which was only shortly after the astonishing 1,000-year event of Hurricane Florence in North Carolina, which caused severe damage at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. In other words, the amount of observed rain during Hurricane Florence had a 1-in-100 chance of occurring each year. While initial reporting indicated at Tyndall that roughly 17 F-22s were destroyed or severely damaged after being left at the base during Hurricane Michael, fortunately, the actual damage to aircraft turned out to be minimal. However, the fact that over a dozen advanced fighters costing roughly $130 million per aircraft had to be abandoned in the first place is a fundamental flaw in readiness and aircraft maintenance. Despite the minimal damage to aircraft, the projected cost to rebuild Tyndall is still roughly $4.1 billion. The underlying issue that must be addressed is that hangars and other facilities are not adequately designed and built to withstand an increased trend of heavy winds above 130 miles per hour or other extreme weather. Meanwhile, the estimated cost to rebuild what was at Camp Lejeune--according to the Commandant of the Marine Corps--is roughly $3.7 billion. Fortunately, at Camp Lejeune, several hangars survived and did not flood. This is because they were appropriately designed in the first place. These glaring examples of Offutt Air Force Base, Tyndall Air Force Base, and Camp Lejeune clearly demonstrate that we must plan for climate adaptation now or we will pay much, much more in the future. General Neller, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, recently wrote to the Secretary of the Navy saying that the Marine Corps ``faces fiscal challenges without precedent'' given that ``Hurricane Florence damage is negatively impacting Marine Corps readiness.'' To put some of that in context, the Commandant said the ``total recovery cost is 9 percent of our annual budget; the building repair cost is 150 percent of our total annual building repair budget; and the building replacement cost is four years' worth of non-Guam MILCON.'' The Commandant closed the letter by warning that the next hurricane season is only 3 months away. Beyond these most recent events, climate change continues to cost DOD significant resources, measured in taxpayer funding and negative impacts on readiness. In 2017, the trio of hurricanes--Maria, Irma, and Harvey--cost the Department over $1.3 billion in military construction and facilities sustainment restoration and modernization alone. Hurricane Harvey was the third 500-year flood in the Houston area in the last 3 years--we are getting 500-year floods every 3 years in parts of the United States--and it left four times more than the entire flow of the Mississippi River on the city of Houston, TX. At Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, there were 81 black flag training days. These are days where training is canceled due to heat. That was in 2012. In 2016, there were 226 black flag days. The Marine Corps experienced 478 heat-related injuries in 2013. By comparison, there were 688 in 2017 and 744 in 2016. In Alaska, three locations of early warning radar infrastructure have been damaged and moved due to coastal erosion that was not expected to occur until 2030. In 2016, a 10,000-acre wildfire in California closed the south side of Vandenberg Air Force Base, stalling the launch of an Atlas V rocket. Wildfires also led to training range closures for multiple months in North Carolina, South Carolina, Idaho, Florida, and New Mexico. In Arizona last summer, a heat wave caused 40 flights to be canceled, with clear implications for DOD aircraft, ships, and vehicles that must be able to continue to operate in extreme hot and cold temperatures. Yet current adaptation measures attempted by DOD have yet to be comprehensive or entirely successful. In what could be the beginning of a startling trend, the Air Force recently had to cancel a fiscal year 2018 military construction project in Alaska due to ``thawing permafrost under the existing facility causing significant settling'' with the facility foundation. Warming Arctic temperatures at Thule Air Force Base in Greenland have caused extensive airfield pavement repairs at a cost of over $30 million, which is roughly the cost of one Army Combat Training Center rotation. So instead of getting brigades down to Ft. Irwin for the training exercises they need, we are going to have to repave and repave bases that are exposed to some of these climate effects. Meanwhile, melting ice caps continue to open up new sea lanes in the Arctic--a topic that the Presiding Officer knows better than anyone else in this body--increasing commercial traffic and prompting several countries, including Russia, to vie for influence and control over the region. Notably, the current force structure of the Navy is not adequately postured to respond and operate in the Arctic, and the GAO recently found that even the Navy admits ``significant limitations for operating surface ships in the Arctic.'' Protecting our national security requires tough decisions that are made through a careful evaluation of risks, which, as I have described, must include the real risks posed by climate change. I am concerned by many actions coming by the current administration, not only to downplay these risks but also to actively undermine the scientific consensus on climate change. Instead of heeding the warnings of scientists, including those from the 13 Federal Agencies that worked on the ``National Climate Assessment,'' the administration is working to create a climate security panel led by a noted climate denier to contradict these warnings. I will continue--and I know others will continue--fighting any efforts to cast doubt on the fact that climate change is real and that it is human-caused. We need to be able to acknowledge these basic facts so that we can quickly come together to work toward meaningful solutions. Again, let me thank Senator Whitehouse for inviting me to join him today to highlight the impacts of climate change on national security. The dangers of inaction are many, and as ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, I will be continuing to sound the alarm on this critical issue. I have tried to emphasize the effects of climate change on our training facilities, on our bases here in the United States, and on our regions that are close by, where we prepare our forces to be sent overseas. But if you look overseas in areas that are suffering drought, in areas where agricultural land is diminishing, and in areas where farming used to be the mainstay of the population and now has disappeared and the population is unemployed, if you look at places like Pakistan, which has significant environmental problems, significant financial problems, and significant problems with terrorist organizations, if you look in thousands of places around the globe, those are real threats that are being accelerated by climate change that our military will have to adapt and adjust to. This is a multiphase issue. We have to take steps here at home to preserve our training bases and to make sure that our airfields can operate in all types of weather so that we can have the Marine Corps facilities in Camp Lejeune in A-1 condition. It is the major force-generating position for the Marine Corps on the Atlantic coast. We have to be able to do that. That is just part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the potential for conflict overseas. In many countries, it is accelerating because they are losing their quality of life, their economic ability, and all these things. There is drought, severe weather, hurricanes, and storms. There was huge cyclonic activity just reported last week in parts of Africa. That is causing disruption for families, death, and a host of problems that are causing not particularly stable governments to become less stable. This is an issue that we must address. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in order to provide the resources and the direction to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I come to the floor today to plead on behalf of Liberians who face the immediate threat of deportation from the only home many of them have known. I have come to the floor many times over the last two decades to highlight the plight of Liberians, who, after fleeing civil wars, political turmoil, economic instability, and deadly disease, were given the ability to stay in the United States and work, pay taxes, and contribute to our country and local communities by successive Republican and Democratic administrations--that is, until last year, when this President terminated deferred enforced departures, DED, the most recent status offered to Liberians. I urge the President to reconsider his decision and reinstate DED by March 31 to save Liberians from being forced to leave their jobs, their families, and their homes. Moreover, the Liberian community deserves a long-term solution. That is why I also urge my colleagues to take up S. 456, the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act, to end the perpetual limbo for Liberians here in the United States and ensure our national security interest in fostering Liberia's recovery. This bill provides legal status and a pathway to citizenship for qualifying Liberians. I have introduced similar legislation continuously since coming to the Senate and have worked to include its key objectives in comprehensive immigration reform bills that passed the Senate in years gone by, only to die in the House of Representatives. I have been joined in this mission by countless advocates and many colleagues, including my Rhode Island colleague, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, as well as Senators Klobuchar, Smith, Durbin, Cardin, Van Hollen, and others. I thank them for their support and urge the rest of our colleagues to join us in supporting the Liberians who are hard at work enriching our communities. Today, I met with several Liberians from Rhode Island. I hope my colleagues similarly meet with Liberians from their States so they can hear firsthand about what would be lost if these members of our communities are deported. Beginning with its founding in the early 19th century by freed American slaves, our country has had deep ties with Liberia. It goes without saying that when Liberians faced tragedy, with their country engulfed by a civil war that would last from 1989 to 1997, claiming the lives of thousands, displacing more than half the country's population, halting food production, collapsing the economy, and destroying its infrastructure, that our country would open its arms. By 1991, an estimated 14,000 Liberians had fled to the United States. In March of that year, the Attorney General under President Bush granted them the opportunity to register for temporary protected status, TPS. Before the prospects for a safe return could be realized, Liberia plunged into a second civil war from 1999 to 2003. This horrific conflict ended with the departure from power of former President Charles Taylor, who is currently serving a 50-year prison sentence by the Special Court for Sierra Leone for war crimes. In 2014, still poverty-stricken and struggling to recover, Liberia found itself plunged into an extensive outbreak of the Ebola virus. Ebola killed an estimated nearly 5,000 of the over 10,000 persons in Liberia who contracted the disease. The outbreak overwhelmed the country's already fragile healthcare system, infrastructure, and economy while exacerbating social tensions. Throughout these tragic conflicts and challenges, Liberians who fled to the United States have been granted the ability to stay here either under TPS or DED while conditions remain unstable in Liberia. In order to participate, these Liberians had to submit to vigorous vetting, pay hefty fees, and stay out of trouble with the law. While unable to access earned benefits available to American citizens, these statuses at least allowed Liberians to apply for work authorizations so they could join the workforce or start their own businesses, pay taxes, and raise families. Once again, they work, but they do not earn any of the benefits other Americans earn. They have found themselves and their communities have found them to be some of the most responsible, hard-working, and decent people we see throughout our communities. Many of these individuals have American citizen children who attend American schools and serve in our military. These children have known no home other than America. They are Americans, and it would be a tragedy if their parents and grandparents were suddenly taken away, physically taken away and sent back to Liberia, because for all of them, since the early 1990s, America has been their home. In the years since 1989, Liberians have become our neighbors and friends, pastors, soldiers, police officers, health workers, and many more professions. They are an important community that contributes a great deal of diversity and prosperity in States like Rhode Island, Minnesota, Idaho, and other places around the country. It would do our country no good and would be simply cruel to uproot these Liberians from their families, employers, and communities. Moreover, deporting these Liberians would be contrary to the national interest of the United States and destabilizing to the already fragile West African region. We must pursue all possible efforts to ensure regional stability by fostering Liberia's continuous post-war and post- Ebola crisis recovery. We must also continue to build on our country's substantial foreign policy investments over the past years, including U.S. bilateral assistance and peacekeeping investments in the region. Given Liberia's precarious condition and lack of resources, the sudden deportation of as many as 4,500 affected people to Liberia would overburden the country's limited infrastructure and ability to maintain peace and deliver essential services, all the while sabotaging the hopes for progress following the country's first democratic transition of power in years that occurred last year. Deporting this population would also cause Liberia economic harm by curtailing crucial private sector investment and socioeconomic assistance that Liberians in America have long provided in the form of remittances to their relatives in Liberia. I again plead with the Trump administration to reinstate DED. Please don't separate and uproot hundreds of Liberian-American families from their jobs and homes and force them to return to a country that is unrecognizable for many of them. These Liberians are Americans in every sense of the word except for a piece of paper. While discussions continue about the best path forward for Dreamers and TPS, Liberians cannot wait another month or another year. They have just over 2 weeks before their time may be up. In my view, with each year that has passed since the first of these Liberians arrived, the case has grown stronger that they should have the option to adjust their status and remain in the communities where they have made their homes and raised their families. We have long since reached the point where simple justice requires that Congress extend this option to these Liberians. So in addition to urging President Trump to reinstate DED, I also urge my colleagues to take up and pass the Liberian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act and put an end to uncertainty for this population after decades of displacement. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to support the joint resolution of disapproval and to urge my colleagues to do so as well. Let's be clear, there is no national security emergency at the southwestern border. The President and his administration continue to mislead Americans about what really is happening at the border in order to fulfill a misguided campaign promise to build a wall. After weeks of threats and toying with the idea of declaring a national emergency to circumvent Congress, the President, in my view, wrongly issued such a proclamation on February 15 under the authority of the National Emergencies Act. This proclamation redirects military construction funds provided by Congress to the Department of Defense for projects deemed important to the readiness, welfare, and missions of our Armed Forces. This action is an extreme overreach of Executive authority. No President has ever declared a national emergency to circumvent Congress for a construction project he failed to get approved through legislation. In fact, this authority to use military construction funds in an emergency has only been used twice for projects in the United States-- first by President George Herbert Walker Bush during Operation Desert Shield and then by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/ 11 terrorist attacks--and those projects addressed immediate and recognized needs of our warfighters. While the administration claims President Obama also used this authority, the distinction is, he used it for its true intent, to provide facilities quickly in overseas locations for our warfighters in combat zones. To say those needs are the same as President Trump's campaign pledge to build a wall is simply wrong and misleading. The President tries to justify this emergency as responding to a humanitarian crisis at the border, but the wall is not an effective solution to that crisis. What he ignores is the fact that the House and Senate overwhelmingly approved $22.54 billion in border security funding in the recent appropriations bill to enhance physical barriers at ports of entry, to hire additional law enforcement personnel, to address the humanitarian needs of migrants, and to increase counternarcotics and counterweapons detection technologies used at the border. Moreover, I would argue that to truly stop the influx of migrants at our southern border, there has to be a much more coordinated international effort led by the Department of State to address the conditions in Central America that cause migrants to leave their homes. Stopping mass migration at the source is the most effective and humane policy. In its statement opposing the resolution before us today, the administration characterizes increasing numbers of ``family units, unaccompanied minors, and persons claiming a fear of return'' as a national security threat and a national emergency. Let us be clear. These groups of people present no military threat to our Nation. General O'Shaughnessy, Commander of U.S. Northern Command, confirmed this in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 26, when he said: ``The threats to our nation from our southern border are not military in nature.'' So I have a hard time understanding why the administration thinks it is acceptable to use Department of Defense dollars for a wall that would provide little to no value to the Department of Defense in countering the very real military threats our Nation does confront across the globe. Some have argued that the wall is a necessary response to the opioid crisis we are experiencing. There is no doubt we have a serious substance abuse crisis in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control, over 70,000 people died in 2017 of drug overdoses. That means more people died that year because of drug overdoses than due to car crashes or gun violence. These numbers are staggering, and no community is immune. Congress has worked in a bipartisan manner to combat this crisis, passing landmark legislation and historic increases in funding, but the administration has failed to live up to its commitments. A wall will not fix this problem. Indeed, while the administration would have the American people believe these drugs are coming across the southwestern border between ports of entry--where they want to build this wall--the facts from the Drug Enforcement Agency's 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment reveal otherwise. In the case of heroin, in their words, ``The majority of flow is through [privately owned vehicles] entering the United States at legal ports of entry.'' This will not be stopped by building a wall. When it comes to fentanyl, according to the National Drug Threat Assessment, smaller quantities but of higher purity are ``transported into the United States in parcel packages directly from China or from China through Canada.'' A wall on the southwest border will not stop packages of fentanyl coming through the mail from China. Again, according to the DEA, the fentanyl that is smuggled in from Mexico is most commonly, in their words, ``concealed in [vehicles] . . . through [southwest border ports of entry]''--not through the terrain where the President wants to build a wall. To underscore this point, just 2 days ago, Customs and Border Patrol announced the seizure of the biggest shipment of cocaine recovered at the ports of New York and New Jersey in 25 years. About 1.6 tons of cocaine were seized from a shipping container that arrived at the port in Newark, NJ. President Trump's wall would not have stopped this shipment. Instead of addressing, for example, the high-purity fentanyl and fentanyl precursors coming from China or improving law enforcement's ability to detect and seize drugs at the ports of entry, this emergency declaration for a wall will divert billions of dollars from our troops and other national defense priorities and will not make our country any safer. Canceling or delaying military construction projects will have damaging impacts to the military services. These projects are intended to improve deteriorating airfields and piers, provide modern training and maintenance facilities, rehabilitate antiquated and hazardous hospitals and schools, remediate environmental contamination at former bases, and contribute to alliance and partnership responsibilities around the globe. Bypassing congressional intent that these funds be used on vetted military construction projects in order to build a border wall Congress has rejected time and again is an affront to our Nation's system of checks and balances. It is also an abuse of the power of Congress granted to the President to use in times of true security emergencies or in times of war to address the immediate needs of our Armed Forces. Furthermore, the administration wants to use another authority, title 10 United States Code, section 284, which allows the Department of Defense, without requiring an emergency declaration, to ``provide support for the counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime of any other department or agency of the Federal Government,'' to include the ``[c]onstruction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.'' This seems to be within the realm of the President's contemplation, but because there is only about $238 million remaining in this counterdrug account, the administration plans to reprogram roughly $2.5 billion appropriated in other DOD accounts into this counterdrug account to use for the wall. We know much of the funds being transferred would not be used for their original intent. For example, the Army will have excess funding in military pay because it will not meet anticipated end strength, and fewer personnel opted into the new blended retirement system than anticipated, which created savings. However, instead of transferring these dollars to higher priority defense needs, DOD will have to use these amounts for the wall. Ironically, the $238 million now remaining in the counterdrug accounts will not be used for its original purpose of providing critical intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and other detection capabilities for drug interdiction in the Caribbean, Central and South America, and Asia. It will be used to build a wall that will not solve the Nation's drug problems. We are literally taking money that is now being used to help interdict the flow of drugs through the Caribbean, in the Pacific, et cetera, and will put it into the ground in Mexico, where the drugs are not passing through. We also know DOD has immediate and compelling needs of its own that we should be addressing. The Air Force and the Marines need billions of dollars to clean up and rebuild Tyndall Air Force Base and Camp Lejeune after hurricanes devastated both installations last year. According to the Marines, it is about $3.5 billion to Camp Lejeune, and--according to some numbers I have seen for Tyndall--it is about $5 billion for Tyndall. Instead of fixing Camp Lejeune and Tyndall Air Force Base, the President is going to take that $8 billion and put it into a wall through the deserts of the Southwest. What is more important to the national security of the United States than rebuilding our major Marine Corps facility on the Atlantic Coast and rebuilding our major Air Force facility in the Florida Panhandle? I think, clearly, we should invest in our troops in the Marines and Air Force. We know all of the services continue to have readiness gaps in aircraft maintenance, depot maintenance, and ship overhauls. We know there continues to be a shortage of childcare facilities in certain locations, but these very real needs in our military are put in jeopardy because of the President's obsession with building a wall on the border. As I indicated, the President intends to fill the 284 account by reprogramming funds. Congress authorizes this reprogramming process to allow the Department of Defense to conduct a certain amount of transfers of funds between accounts for unforeseen problems. By tradition and custom, reprogramming is done with the specific approval of the defense oversight committees, but this time, when DOD transfers dollars to pay for the President's wall, Congress will have no say. The administration will only notify Congress it is happening. Again, this is another example of complete disregard for the legislative branch's role, as directed by the Constitution, in approving and appropriating funds for the activities of the executive branch. Furthermore, the amount of funds that can be reprogrammed in a year has a $4 billion limit, and DOD will use a significant portion of that $4 billion to transfer money for the wall. This means that billions of dollars of other high-priority defense needs will not be met this year, needs like ship maintenance, unexpected fuel costs, vehicle upgrades, and other equipment shortfalls we will see at the end of this year. The Department of Defense is in a situation where they have ships that have to be refueled, they have ships that have to be overhauled, they have equipment that must be prepared for the readiness of the troops that they will not have the money for because it has been spent already, and they have exhausted their reprogramming not serving the needs of the military but building a wall in the middle of the deserts of the Southwest. We need to address the real issues at our southwest border. To do so, I will continue to support effective border security measures, such as those in the recently passed Homeland Security Appropriations Act to invest in new technology and equipment, increase the number of Customs and Border Protection agents, and make smart physical improvements at ports of entry. This law also included funding to increase the number of immigration judges to help reduce the backlog in our immigration system, provide humanitarian aid for Central American countries, and address humanitarian concerns at the border. These efforts are important and appropriate for the true nature of the situation, but I cannot support diverting billions of dollars of money from the needs of our men and women in uniform to fulfill a campaign promise. Therefore, I will vote in support of the resolution to terminate the President's inappropriate declaration. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the situation in Yemen and express my continued support for the resolution that is currently before us. The conflict in Yemen is approaching its 4th year and has resulted in the most severe humanitarian crisis in the world. The human cost of this war is truly hard to fathom. According to the United Nations, approximately 20 million people--or more than two-thirds of Yemen's population--have no reliable source of food or access to medical care; roughly 10 million Yemenis are on the brink of famine; more than 3.3 million Yemenis have been displaced from their homes; and credible reports indicate that approximately 80,000 children have died of starvation and another 360,000 children suffer from severe acute malnutrition. The international community must come together to demand an end to the violence in Yemen and a sustainable political agreement. I strongly support the efforts of the U.N. Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths, in partnership with the United States and other engaged nations, to expeditiously negotiate an end to the conflict and bring relief to the Yemeni people. The December 2018 Stockholm Agreement and resulting ceasefire around the port of Hudaydah was a critical confidence building measure that will hopefully provide a foundation for continued negotiations. I commend my colleagues Senators Sanders, Murphy, and Lee for their steadfast efforts to keep focus on the suffering of the Yemeni people. As the events of the last 4 years have made clear, there is no military solution to this civil war. I remain deeply concerned about the significant number of civilian casualties that have resulted from airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition. I strongly supported the decision last fall to cease U.S. aerial refueling support to the coalition, an outcome I long advocated for. It is appropriate for the U.S. to help the coalition avoid civilian casualties, but those efforts have not yet yielded sufficient results. Secretary Pompeo acknowledged this fact when he told Congress in September that ``Recent civilian casualty incidents indicate insufficient implementation of reforms and targeting processes'' and ``Investigations have not yielded accountability measures'' into the behavior of coalition pilots flying missions into Yemen. It is clear that the coalition has not sufficiently minimized the impact of the war on Yemeni civilians, and more must be done. The U.S. should use all available leverage to affect better outcomes. The resolution before us would make clear that Congress does not support the introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities in Yemen absent an affirmative authorization for the use of military force. I believe that any U.S. assistance to members of the Saudi-led coalition should be explicitly limited to the following objectives: enabling counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda and ISIS; defending the territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia and UAE, including against specific, imminent ballistic missile and UAV threats; preserving freedom of navigation in the maritime environment around Yemen; and enhancing the training and professionalism of their armed forces with a primary focus on the adherence to the Law of Armed Conflict and the prevention of civilian casualties. With particular regard to defense against ballistic missile and UAV threats, the United States cannot be in the position of providing targeting information in Yemen that would be misused by the Saudi-led coalition either deliberately or through carelessness. Continued U.S. engagement is critical to helping to resolve the conflict in Yemen, but any assistance to the Saudi-led coalition should be provided in accordance with the principles outlined above, activities which I do not believe conflict with the War Powers Resolution. From a policy perspective, the provision of U.S. support that could be used to enable offensive operations against the Houthis runs counter to our objective of ending the civil war and risks exacerbating the suffering of the Yemeni people. Beyond the humanitarian crisis, the conflict continues to negatively impact the strategic security interests of the United States, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, including by emboldening Iran and relieving pressure on al Qaeda and ISIS. It is time for this war to end, and Congress should take every opportunity to make its voice clear on this point. Order of Business

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Cybersecurity Disclosure Act along with two members of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Collins, and the ranking member, Senator Warner, in addition to Senator Kennedy and Senator Jones, who also serve with me on the Senate Banking Committee. In response to data breaches of various companies that exposed the personal information of millions of customers, our legislation asks each publicly traded company to include--in Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, disclosures to investors--information on whether any member of the board of directors is a cybersecurity expert, and if not, why having this expertise on the board of directors is not necessary because of other cybersecurity steps taken by the publicly traded company. To be clear, the legislation does not require companies to take any actions other than to provide this disclosure to its investors. In Deloitte's 11th Global Risk Management Survey of financial services institutions, published last month, ``sixty-seven percent of respondents named cybersecurity as one of the three risks that would increase the most in importance for their business over the next two years, far more than for any other risk. Yet, only about one-half of the respondents felt their institutions were extremely or very effective in managing this risk.'' According to the 2018-2019 National Association of Corporate Directors Public Company Governance Survey, only 52 percent of directors ``are confident that they sufficiently understand cyber risks to provide effective cyber-risk oversight,'' and 58 percent ``believe their boards collectively know enough about cyber risk to provide effective oversight.'' Indeed, Yahoo, in its 2016 annual report, disclosed, ``the Independent Committee found that failures in communication, management, inquiry and internal reporting contributed to the lack of proper comprehension and handling of the 2014 Security Incident. The Independent Committee also found that the Audit and Finance Committee and the full board were not adequately informed of the full severity, risks, and potential impacts of the 2014 Security Incident and related matters.'' The 2014 Security Incident here refers to the fact that ``a copy of certain user account information for approximately 500 million user accounts was stolen from Yahoo's network in late 2014.'' This is particularly troubling given that data breaches expose more and more records containing personally identifiable information. Indeed, according to the Identity Theft Resource Center, the number of these types of records exposed by data breaches in the business industry grew from 181,630,520 in 2017 to 415,233,143 in 2018 and in the medical and healthcare industry from 5,302,846 in 2017 to 9,927,798 last year. Across all industries, the number of records containing personally identifiable information exposed by data breaches rose 126 percent, from 197,612,748 in 2017 to 446,515,334 in 2018. Investors and customers deserve a clear understanding of whether publicly traded companies are prioritizing cybersecurity and have the capacity to protect investors and customers from cyber related attacks. Our legislation aims to provide a better understanding of these issues through improved SEC disclosure. In testimony given to the Senate Banking Committee last June, Harvard Law Professor John Coates, who also practiced securities law as a partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, expressed support for our legislation by stating that ``[the Cybersecurity Disclosure Act] is well designed. It does not attempt to second-guess SEC guidance and rules regarding disclosures generally, or even as to cyber-risk overall. The bill simply asks publicly traded companies to disclose whether a cybersecurity expert is on the board of directors, and if not, why one is not necessary. To be clear, the bill does not require every publicly traded company to have a cybersecurity expert on its board. Publicly traded companies will still decide for themselves how to tailor their resources to their cybersecurity needs and disclose what they have decided. Some companies may choose to hire outside cyber consultants. Some may choose to boost cybersecurity expertise on staff. And some may decide to have a cybersecurity expert on the board of directors. The disclosure required would typically amount to a sentence or two.'' While this legislation is a matter for consideration by the Banking Committee, of which I am a member, this bill is also informed by my service on the Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. Through this Banking-Armed Services-Intelligence perspective, I see that our economic security is indeed a matter of our national security, and this is particularly the case as our economy becomes ever more dependent on technology and the internet. Indeed, General Darren W. McDew, the former commander of U.S. Transportation Command, which is charged with moving our military assets to meet our national security objectives in partnership with the private sector, offered several sobering assessments during an April 10, 2018 hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He stated that ``cyber is the number one threat to U.S. Transportation Command, but I believe it is the number one threat to the nation . . . in our headquarters, cyber is the commander's business, but not everywhere across our country is cyber a CEO's business . . . in our cyber roundtables, which is one of the things we are doing to raise our level of awareness, some of the CEO's chief security officers cannot even get to the see the board, they cannot even . . . see the CEO. So that is a problem.'' In my view, this is a real problem because, if we are attacked, the first strike will likely not be a physical one against the military but a cyber strike against the infrastructure of movement, logistics, and other critical assets in the civilian space. With growing cyber threats, we all need to be more proactive in ensuring our Nation's cybersecurity before there are additional serious breaches. This legislation seeks to take one step towards that goal by encouraging publicly traded companies to be more transparent to their investors and customers on whether and how their boards of directors and senior management are prioritizing cybersecurity. I thank the bill's supporters, including the North American Securities Administrators Association, the Council of Institutional Investors, the National Association of State Treasurers, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, the Bipartisan Policy Center, MIT Professor Simon Johnson, Columbia Law Professor Jack Coffee, Harvard Law Professor John Coates, K&L Gates LLP, and the Consumer Federation of America, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins, Senator Warner, Senator Kennedy, Senator Jones, and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Cybersecurity Disclosure Act along with two members of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Collins, and the ranking member, Senator Warner, in addition to Senator Kennedy and Senator Jones, who also serve with me on the Senate Banking Committee. In response to data breaches of various companies that exposed the personal information of millions of customers, our legislation asks each publicly traded company to include--in Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, disclosures to investors--information on whether any member of the board of directors is a cybersecurity expert, and if not, why having this expertise on the board of directors is not necessary because of other cybersecurity steps taken by the publicly traded company. To be clear, the legislation does not require companies to take any actions other than to provide this disclosure to its investors. In Deloitte's 11th Global Risk Management Survey of financial services institutions, published last month, ``sixty-seven percent of respondents named cybersecurity as one of the three risks that would increase the most in importance for their business over the next two years, far more than for any other risk. Yet, only about one-half of the respondents felt their institutions were extremely or very effective in managing this risk.'' According to the 2018-2019 National Association of Corporate Directors Public Company Governance Survey, only 52 percent of directors ``are confident that they sufficiently understand cyber risks to provide effective cyber-risk oversight,'' and 58 percent ``believe their boards collectively know enough about cyber risk to provide effective oversight.'' Indeed, Yahoo, in its 2016 annual report, disclosed, ``the Independent Committee found that failures in communication, management, inquiry and internal reporting contributed to the lack of proper comprehension and handling of the 2014 Security Incident. The Independent Committee also found that the Audit and Finance Committee and the full board were not adequately informed of the full severity, risks, and potential impacts of the 2014 Security Incident and related matters.'' The 2014 Security Incident here refers to the fact that ``a copy of certain user account information for approximately 500 million user accounts was stolen from Yahoo's network in late 2014.'' This is particularly troubling given that data breaches expose more and more records containing personally identifiable information. Indeed, according to the Identity Theft Resource Center, the number of these types of records exposed by data breaches in the business industry grew from 181,630,520 in 2017 to 415,233,143 in 2018 and in the medical and healthcare industry from 5,302,846 in 2017 to 9,927,798 last year. Across all industries, the number of records containing personally identifiable information exposed by data breaches rose 126 percent, from 197,612,748 in 2017 to 446,515,334 in 2018. Investors and customers deserve a clear understanding of whether publicly traded companies are prioritizing cybersecurity and have the capacity to protect investors and customers from cyber related attacks. Our legislation aims to provide a better understanding of these issues through improved SEC disclosure. In testimony given to the Senate Banking Committee last June, Harvard Law Professor John Coates, who also practiced securities law as a partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, expressed support for our legislation by stating that ``[the Cybersecurity Disclosure Act] is well designed. It does not attempt to second-guess SEC guidance and rules regarding disclosures generally, or even as to cyber-risk overall. The bill simply asks publicly traded companies to disclose whether a cybersecurity expert is on the board of directors, and if not, why one is not necessary. To be clear, the bill does not require every publicly traded company to have a cybersecurity expert on its board. Publicly traded companies will still decide for themselves how to tailor their resources to their cybersecurity needs and disclose what they have decided. Some companies may choose to hire outside cyber consultants. Some may choose to boost cybersecurity expertise on staff. And some may decide to have a cybersecurity expert on the board of directors. The disclosure required would typically amount to a sentence or two.'' While this legislation is a matter for consideration by the Banking Committee, of which I am a member, this bill is also informed by my service on the Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. Through this Banking-Armed Services-Intelligence perspective, I see that our economic security is indeed a matter of our national security, and this is particularly the case as our economy becomes ever more dependent on technology and the internet. Indeed, General Darren W. McDew, the former commander of U.S. Transportation Command, which is charged with moving our military assets to meet our national security objectives in partnership with the private sector, offered several sobering assessments during an April 10, 2018 hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He stated that ``cyber is the number one threat to U.S. Transportation Command, but I believe it is the number one threat to the nation . . . in our headquarters, cyber is the commander's business, but not everywhere across our country is cyber a CEO's business . . . in our cyber roundtables, which is one of the things we are doing to raise our level of awareness, some of the CEO's chief security officers cannot even get to the see the board, they cannot even . . . see the CEO. So that is a problem.'' In my view, this is a real problem because, if we are attacked, the first strike will likely not be a physical one against the military but a cyber strike against the infrastructure of movement, logistics, and other critical assets in the civilian space. With growing cyber threats, we all need to be more proactive in ensuring our Nation's cybersecurity before there are additional serious breaches. This legislation seeks to take one step towards that goal by encouraging publicly traded companies to be more transparent to their investors and customers on whether and how their boards of directors and senior management are prioritizing cybersecurity. I thank the bill's supporters, including the North American Securities Administrators Association, the Council of Institutional Investors, the National Association of State Treasurers, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, the Bipartisan Policy Center, MIT Professor Simon Johnson, Columbia Law Professor Jack Coffee, Harvard Law Professor John Coates, K&L Gates LLP, and the Consumer Federation of America, and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Collins, Senator Warner, Senator Kennedy, Senator Jones, and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to offer some thoughts regarding the ongoing negotiations with North Korea that began with the Singapore summit between President Trump and Kim Jong Un and will continue in a few days when the two leaders meet again in Vietnam. I join the chorus of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have expressed concern regarding the outcome of the last summit and the subsequent negotiations. This is not meant as a criticism of the diplomatic process itself. Clearly, we are in a much better place now than 2 years ago, when the President was promising fire and fury for the Korean Peninsula, terrifying our South Korean allies, who stand to lose millions of their citizens in any confrontation with North Korea. Furthermore, if the Singapore summit had resulted in a clear path toward denuclearization, I would be standing here right now commending these diplomatic efforts. The maximum pressure campaign, significantly enhanced by this body's sanctions regime and the United Nations Security Council's resolutions, brought North Korea to the negotiating table. It was a golden opportunity and, unfortunately, it was squandered by this ill-prepared administration, which seems more concerned with photo ops than with the substance of the negotiation. The Singapore summit was a loss for the United States and our alliances and a great publicity win for North Korea. The 2005 six-party joint statement contained significantly more commitments from North Korea than the joint statement of the Singapore summit. Given President Trump's bluster and renouncement of the JCPOA, one would have thought that he would leave Singapore with an ironclad commitment and schedule for denuclearization. Instead, he got less than in any past negotiation with North Korea. Most concerning to me is that without obtaining a single concrete concession from North Korea, President Trump undermined our alliance with the Republic of Korea by characterizing our joint exercises as provocative war games. It was a huge propaganda win for North Korea and a huge loss to the United States and to the readiness of the joint force. The regularly scheduled exercises are very important to troop readiness and our regional security. While I understand the need to create diplomatic space for these negotiations to proceed, we must ensure that we do not sacrifice readiness for empty promises. While I am pleased with the agreement on the return of prisoners of war and missing-in-action personnel remains, which rightfully continue to be important issues for U.S. families, the Singapore summit was mostly pomp and circumstance that did not advance our national security interests. In fact, it could be said that we are in a worse position than we were before the summit. President Trump undeservedly transformed Kim Jong Un from a ruthless dictator to a world statesman in short order. He has since used his stature from the summit to make closed-door deals with China and Russia that will be used as leverage against the United States. The President also conferred legitimacy on a corrupt and morally bankrupt dictator who has imprisoned hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children in political camps under brutal conditions and has committed horrendous crimes against his neighbors and own people. Human rights did not play a prominent role at the summit, and the joint declaration does not include one single reference. If we want to continue to serve as a beacon for human rights, this issue will have to be on the agenda for these negotiations. There are a number of U.S. sanctions against North Korea because of its human rights record, and this body will not loosen those sanctions until and unless we see progress on the issue. As such, I was dismayed that the President in his State of the Union Address did not call out the North Korean regime's callous disregard for human rights. Since the summit, we have seen just how problematic the joint declaration has been as a foundational document for the negotiations. While Secretary Pompeo characterized the first meeting with North Korean negotiators at the summit as ``productive,'' the North Koreans criticized Secretary Pompeo's gangster-like demand for denuclearization. The chasm between the two sides was created by the ambiguity of the summit itself and its failure to create an agreed-upon path for both parties. We have not seen a substantial dismantlement of nuclear or missile sites over the last year, and independent news reporting reflects that North Korea continues to develop its nuclear and missile arsenals despite the self-imposed ban on testing. What should we have gotten from the summit? Since we played our biggest card and gave Kim Jong Un a meeting with the President of the United States, the answer is a lot more than what we did get. First and foremost, we should have gotten a joint declaration that North Korea agrees to complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization. If we were not going to get that commitment, then we should have at least gotten a specific commitment similar to the September 19, 2005, joint statement, where North Korea committed to ``abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and returning at an early date to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to IAEA safeguards.'' Instead, we got a vague statement that North Korea will ``work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.'' Despite the administration's protestations to the contrary, it is not at all clear that North Korea actually agreed to complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization, generally referred to as CVID. I am concerned, as are others, that the words ``complete denuclearization'' were used because the North Koreans would not agree to CVID. If that is the case, then, we are starting in a worse place than we were during the 2005 talks. Why do these words matter? They matter because of the historical context of these negotiations. Without the word ``verifiable,'' North Korea has not agreed to inspections, and, without inspections, we cannot be sure that North Korea will take the steps necessary to denuclearize. The regime does not have a good track record of living up to its agreements. Without a verification process that includes a robust inspection and verification regime, we will never be sure that North Korea is not reverting to its past tactics and cheating on its commitments. Even more alarming to those who follow past negotiations is that the commitment that did come out of the summit sounds suspiciously like the tack North Korea has taken in past negotiations--that denuclearization of the peninsula will require the United States to remove its nuclear umbrella from its ally, the Republic of Korea, and remove its troops from the peninsula. North Korea has peddled this tit-for-tat denuclearization narrative for years, and this administration must ensure that it does not become the narrative of the upcoming negotiations. These competing narratives should have been reconciled at the summit by the leaders but instead were left for future negotiations. The administration now has another opportunity in Vietnam to establish some credibility for these negotiations and demand a set of concrete deliverables. We should all recognize that CVID will take years to accomplish. Despite President Trump's patently false claim that he has solved the North Korean nuclear threat, that threat is still very real and very dangerous. There are commitments that we need from the other side to gauge whether North Korea is sincere in its intent to denuclearize. We already know that the intelligence community has made the determination that North Korea does not intend to denuclearize. Therefore, the concessions we seek from North Korea need to include a verification and inspection scheme that includes a reasonable timeline and is comprehensive enough to include all of its weapons of mass destruction programs and facilities and focuses on engagement instead of punishment. We should not use inspections as ``aha'' moments to catch the North Koreans in intentional or unintentional mistakes. Instead, they should be used as the foundation to develop a comprehensive picture of all of North Korea's weapons programs and as the basis for future negotiations. What would a successful summit in Vietnam look like? We need a declaration from North Korea of all of its nuclear weapons and programs and facilities. Ideally, it would also include a catalog of all of its missiles and missile facilities. This declaration of all of its sites and programs needs to be provided to the United States in short order to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, inspectors to start the inspections process, which will take years. Second, we need North Korea to agree to verifiable denuclearization with IAEA inspections, and that agreement should include a concrete timeline with a step-by-step process. If we are going to continue to scope down our joint exercises for the sake of these negotiations, then, we need to see concrete actions by North Korea in the next few months. It has been almost a year since the last summit, and we have not seen any concrete irreversible actions taken by North Korea on its nuclear program that signify an intent by the regime to give up or significantly curtail its programs. I wanted to speak on this issue today before the second summit because I am concerned that the President will fall prey to North Korean manipulation and accept an agreement that does not include significant concessions by the regime. Kim Jong Un's ploy is to make commitments for the future that can easily be forgotten or to offer up facilities or sites that are obsolete. For example, if the President gets assurances for the dismantling of the Sohae launch facility and the closure and inspections of the Yongbyon nuclear facility, he may think that North Korea has moved the needle on denuclearization, but as the experts will tell you, the real jewels are other nuclear sites that are more critical for the regime's programs. As recent reports by the Center for Strategic and International Studies have shown, there are many missile sites that have not been declared and that are critical to the nuclear program. This is why a full declaration is so critical--so that we finally have a comprehensive accounting of the nuclear and missile programs that exist. In the meantime, the administration also needs to be vigilant that China and other countries continue to enforce sanctions. President Trump's assertions that the problem is solved will significantly undercut our ability to keep the pressure on. We need consistent messaging from the White House and the rest of the administration that the Singapore summit was the first step, and until we see concrete results, there will be no abeyance of the sanctions regime. Keeping China in line on that front will be a significant challenge, especially given the isolationist bent of this President, who has managed to alienate the very partners we need to cooperate on the sanctions regime. China does not need to state publicly that it will stop enforcing sanctions. Even low-level cross-border trade can allow the North Korean economy to hobble along for years, and all it will take is an indication from Beijing that sanctions enforcement is no longer a priority. Let me be clear. One of the most important outcomes of this process is also the preservation of our alliances with South Korea and Japan. Even if we were to somehow achieve a CVID deal with North Korea but lose our special relationships with these two nations, we will come out the other side less secure than we are today. While North Korea poses a significant threat to the United States, peace on the peninsula cannot come at the cost of a diminished U.S. presence in Asia. Our alliances and partners in the region are the bulwark of our strength in the region. Both South Korea and Japan have significant national security interests that will be adjudicated during these negotiations. Neither is at the negotiating table. I am very concerned that Japan in particular is dismayed that there has not been any substantive progress in the negotiations. It is critical that the administration continue to raise issues that are critical to Japan, especially the Japanese citizens who were abducted by North Korea. It is up to this administration to ensure that their interests are voiced and that their security needs are met. That means not only addressing North Korea's intercontinental ballistic missile program but also its short- and intermediate-range missiles. It means consulting with our allies before significant decisions that affect their security are taken, and it means not publicly lamenting about the costs associated with these historic and strategic alliances. We cannot simply put a price tag on our regional security. Losing these alliances will cost us far more in the long run and leave us far less secure than we are today. We also need to be concerned about the recent deterioration of the relationship between our two critical allies. Trilateral cooperation is only effective if South Korea and Japan can overcome their historical animosities to present a united front against North Korea. I know there is a lot of discussion today about the possibility of a peace agreement to end the 65-year-old armistice. I fear that many see a peace agreement as the precursor for a removal of U.S. forces from the Korean Peninsula. I am concerned that our President does not understand the critical importance of the deployment of U.S. Forces Korea on the peninsula. Let me be clear. The withdrawal of troops from the peninsula would significantly undermine our ability to fulfill our treaty obligations to South Korea. It should not be a subject of these negotiations or any future negotiations with North Korea. The presence of our troops is the cornerstone of our military alliance with South Korea, and they must remain present and ready to ``Fight Tonight'' for the benefit of the alliance and regional security. Looming over all of this is our long-term strategic competition with China. I find it telling that China was one of the first countries to announce the cancellation of our joint exercises with the Republic of Korea. What are China's ambitions for this negotiation process? While China is certainly concerned about the nuclear arsenal its southern neighbor has amassed, denuclearization may not be China's highest national security concern during these negotiations. In the long run, China recognizes that its near-peer competition with the United States complicates its interests in these negotiations. China's highest priority is likely to ensure that it does not end up with a U.S.-allied reunified Korea on its southern border. Another goal is driving a wedge between the United States and its allies in order to promote itself as a regional hegemon. We all recognize that Russia has similar ambitions--separate us from our allies, establish themselves as regional hegemons, and coerce and bully their smaller neighbors on issues of defense, trade, and economics. We cannot allow that to happen. We already see attempts by China to relax sanctions enforcement. This trade spat is just one of the wedges North Korea will be able to leverage between China and the United States. We need a coordinated strategy that keeps our long-term interests in Asia focused while resolving the North Korean crisis. To date, we have not seen any indication that such a strategy exists. Peace on the Korean Peninsula has eluded us for decades. There is an opportunity now to force Kim Jong Un's hand, through skillful negotiation and a coordinated sanctions regime, to take concrete steps toward denuclearization. I hope this administration will use the Vietnam summit to negotiate a substantive agreement that keeps America and its allies safe, strong, and secure. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, let me commend the Senator from New Jersey for his very articulate, detailed, and factually specific discussion of Russian malign influence across the globe but, particularly, here in the United States.